document of the world bank · comsip community savings and investment promotion . cppr country...

Document of The World Bank

Report No: ICR849

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT

(IDA-40020 IDA-H1340 TF-90491 IDA-46360 IDA-47410 )

ON A

CREDIT/GRANT

IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 87.9 MILLION (US$129 MILLION EQUIVALENT) AND GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 14.4 MILLION (US$21 MILLION

EQUIVALENT);

A FIRST ADDITIONAL FINANCING CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 20.2 MILLION(US$30 MILLION EQUIVALENT); AND A

SECOND ADDITIONAL FINANCING CREDITIN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 23.1

MILLION ( US $35 MILLION EQUIVALENT)IN PILOT CRISIS RESPONSE WINDOW RESOURCESTO THE

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

FOR

TANZANIA SECOND SOCIAL ACTION FUND (TASAF II) P085786

December 31, 2013

AFTSE AFCE1 Africa Region

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

ii

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective December 23, 2013)

Currency Unit = Tanzania Shillings (TZS) TZS1.00 = US$ 0.000625 US$ 1.00 = TZS1,607.150

FISCAL YEAR July 1 to June 30

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AF Additional Financing APL Adaptable Program Loan CARF Community Aids Response Fund CAS Country Assistance Strategy CB-CCT Community Based Conditional Cash Transfer CDD Community Driven Development CE Capacity Enhancement CF Community Foundation CMC Community Management Committee COMSIP Community Savings and Investment Promotion CPPR Country Portfolio Performance Review CRW Crisis Response Window EMO Environmental Management officer FI Food Insecure HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome ICR Implementation Completion Report JSDF Japan Social Development Fund LGA Local Government Authority LGCDG Local Government Capitation Development Grant LGSP Local Government Support Program MACEMP Marine and Coastal Environmental Management Project MDGs Millennium Development Goals NPES National Poverty Eradication Strategy NVF National Village Fund OPEC Organization of oil Exporting Countries O&M Operation and Maintenance PAD Project Appraisal Document PADEP Participatory Agricultural Development and Empowerment Project PDO Project Development Objective PSSN Productive Social Safety Net SDN Sustainable Development Network SP Service Poor

iii

TACAIDS Tanzania Commission for Aids TASAF Tanzania Social Action Fund TMU TASAF Management Unit TFCMP Tanzania Forestry Conservation and Management Project VC Village Council VGs Vulnerable Groups

Vice President: Makhtar Diop Country Director: Philippe Dongier Sector Manager: Lynne Sherburne-Benz

Project Team Leader: Ida Manjolo ICR Team Leader: Ida Manjolo

iv

TANZANIA Social Action Fund II Project ( P085786)

CONTENTS

A. Basic Information B. Key Dates C. Ratings Summary D. Sector and Theme Codes E. Bank Staff F. Results Framework Analysis G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs H. Restructuring I. Disbursement Graph

1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design ............................................... 1 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes .............................................. 6 3. Assessment of Outcomes .......................................................................................... 13 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome ......................................................... 25 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ..................................................... 25 6. Lessons Learned ....................................................................................................... 28 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners .......... 30 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing .......................................................................... 31 Annex 2. Outputs by Component ................................................................................. 33 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ................................................................. 42 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes ............ 44 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results ........................................................................... 46 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results ................................................... 47 Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR ..................... 48 Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders ....................... 76 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents ...................................................................... 77 MAP .............................................................................................................................. 80

v

TANZANIA Social Action Fund II Project- P085786

A. Basic Information

Country: Tanzania Project Name: Tanzania Second Social Action Fund

Project ID: P085786 L/C/TF Number(s): IDA-40020,IDA-H1340,TF-90491

ICR Date: 12/23/2013 ICR Type: Core ICR

Lending Instrument: SIL Borrower: UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

Original Total Commitment:

XDR 102.30M Disbursed Amount: XDR 145.55M

Revised Amount: XDR 145.55M Environmental Category: B Implementing Agencies: TASAF Management Unit Cofinanciers and Other External Partners: B. Key Dates

Process Date Process Original Date Revised / Actual Date(s)

Concept Review: 04/26/2004 Effectiveness: 05/11/2005

Appraisal: 09/13/2004 Restructuring(s): 06/09/2009 06/04/2010 05/29/2013

Approval: 11/30/2004 Mid-term Review: 10/15/2007 11/05/2007 Closing: 06/30/2010 06/30/2013 C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Satisfactory Risk to Development Outcome: Moderate Bank Performance: Satisfactory Borrower Performance: Satisfactory C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR)

Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings Quality at Entry: Satisfactory Government: Satisfactory

Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Implementing Agency/Agencies: Satisfactory

Overall Bank Performance: Satisfactory Overall Borrower

Performance: Satisfactory

vi

C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators Implementation

Performance Indicators QAG Assessments (if any) Rating

Potential Problem Project at any time (Yes/No):

No Quality at Entry (QEA):

None

Problem Project at any time (Yes/No):

Yes Quality of Supervision (QSA):

None

DO rating before Closing/Inactive status:

Satisfactory

D. Sector and Theme Codes Original Actual

Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) General water, sanitation and flood protection sector 10 10 Health 20 20 Other social services 40 40 Primary education 20 20 Roads and highways 10 10 Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing) Other social development 13 13 Participation and civic engagement 25 25 Rural services and infrastructure 25 25 Social risk mitigation 13 13 Social safety nets 24 24 E. Bank Staff

Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Makhtar Diop Gobind T. Nankani Country Director: Philippe Dongier Judy M. O'Connor Sector Manager: Lynne D. Sherburne-Benz Dzingai B. Mutumbuka Project Team Leader: Ida Manjolo Nginya Mungai Lenneiye ICR Team Leader: Ida Manjolo ICR Primary Author: Julia Van Domelen F. Results Framework Analysis Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) The Project Development Objective (PDO) is to empower communities to access opportunities so that they can request, implement and monitor sub-projects that contribute to improved livelihoods linked to the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) indicator targets in the Tanzania Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS).

vii

Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) PDO was revised to "improve access of beneficiary households to enhanced socioeconomic services and income-generating opportunities" under the first and second additional financing credits. (a) PDO Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target Values (from

approval documents)

Formally Revised Target Values

Actual Value Achieved at

Completion or Target Years

Indicator 1 : Number of people with access to improved health services Value quantitative or Qualitative)

6,146,533 7,195,728 10,449,859 12,037,040

Date achieved 09/08/2004 12/31/2009 06/04/2010 08/31/2013

Comments (incl. % achievement)

1. 115% achieved (sectoral composition based on community demand). 2. Please note, indicators 1 - 6 are sub indicators of the actual indicator which is access "people with to improved social services". Datasheet format does allow for sub indicators.

Indicator 2 : Number of people with access to improved water sources Value quantitative or Qualitative)

350,000 418,825 1,310,256 1,664,000

Date achieved 06/30/2005 12/31/2009 06/04/2010 08/31/2013



Indicator 3 : Number of people with access to improved sanitation Value quantitative or Qualitative)

0 473,000 889,250 907,224

Date achieved 06/30/2005 12/31/2009 06/30/2013 08/31/2013



Indicator 4 : Number of people with access to all-season roads Value quantitative or Qualitative)

612,000 748,800 2,823,263 3,558,000

Date achieved 06/30/2005 12/31/2009 06/04/2010 08/31/2013



Indicator 5 : Number of people with access to improved irrigation

viii

Value quantitative or Qualitative)

33,000 247,105 248,291 744,000

Date achieved 06/30/2005 12/31/2009 06/30/2013 08/31/2013



Indicator 6 : Number of people with access to improved markets


48,000 85,050

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 348,182

270,000

Date achieved 12/31/2005 12/31/2009 06/30/2013 08/31/2013



Indicator 7 : Education (student /classroom ratio)


70 :1 45 :1 45 :1

45 :1** at TASAF appraisal Final assessment indicates 63:1 median primary level; 47:1 at secondary level

Date achieved 12/31/2005 12/31/2009 06/30/2013 08/31/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement)

Classroom subprojects were appraised by TASAF at 45:1 student/classroom ratios found 63:1 median at primary level and 1:47 at secondary level, which is 140% and 104% of targets, respectively.

Indicator 8 : Increase in income of targeted vulnerable beneficiaries (%)


- - 5%

For VG subprojects, income not measured. No change in consumption 740% increase in livestock and other asset holdings


Households choosing to build assets (rather than immediately consuming the income-generating activity inputs) after one year. Economic intent of the VG objective substantially achieved.

Indicator 9 : Number of person-days provided in labor intensive public works program Value quantitative or Qualitative)

5, 431,992 14, 300,000 17, 833,797 21, 384,312

ix


120% achieved.

Indicator 10 : Percentage of citizens satisfied with the delivery of basic social services Value quantitative or Qualitative)

78% 85% 85% 87%


102%

Indicator 11 : Direct project beneficiaries Value quantitative or Qualitative)

7, 192,269 Women (54%)

14, 300,000* Women (55%)

17, 044,066 Women (55%)

18, 682,208 Women (54%)


110% achieved; 98% of female beneficiary target achieved. This IDA indicator was added at second restructuring in 2010.

(b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target Values (from

approval documents)

Formally Revised

Target Values

Actual Value Achieved at

Completion or Target Years

Indicator 1 : Communities receiving sub-project grants Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

1,483 6,500 7,400 9,963


135% achieved.

Indicator 2 : Community Management Committees for Service Poor and Food Insecure beneficiaries who have at least 50 percent of elected women

Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

1,940 6,500 6,967 7,487


107% achieved.

Indicator 3 : Sub-projects with permanent maintenance mechanism in place (%) Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

90% 90% 90% 95%

x


105% achieved at sub-project appraisal (not a measure of extent carried out).

Indicator 4 : Health facilities constructed, renovated and/or equipped (IDA15) (number) Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

312 428 843 1,777


211% achieved (sectoral composition based on community demand).

Indicator 5 : Additional classrooms built and/or rehabilitated (IDAI5) (number) Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

2,586 4,511 10,306 7, 779


75% achieved (sectoral composition based on community demand).

Indicator 6 :

Other facilities built and/or rehabilitated for improved learning environment (IDAI 5) (number): (i) Hostel/dormitory, (ii) Laboratory, (iii) Library, (iv) Administration block, (v) Staff office; (vi) Teachers' house


(i) 3 (ii) 18 iii) 0 (iv) 26 (v) 468 (vi) 335

(i) 121 (ii) 148 (iii) 5 (iv) 177 (v) 608 (vi) 475

(i) 121 (ii) 148 (iii) 5 (iv) 177 (v) 608 (vi) 475

(i) 179 (ii) 166 (iii) 12 (iv) 222 (v) 626 (vi) 1,250


(i)148% , (ii)121%, (iii) 240%, (iv) 125%, (v) 103%, (vi) 263% (sectoral composition based on community demand).

Indicator 7 : Markets rehabilitated/constructed (number) Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

16 68 70 90


128% (sectoral composition based on community demand).

Indicator 8 : Roads rehabilitated/constructed (km) Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

2,174 3,824 5,325 7,382

Date achieved 12/31/2005 12/31/2009 06/30/2013 08/31/2013 Comments 139% achieved (sectoral composition based on community demand).

xi

(incl. % achievement) Indicator 9 : Irrigation systems constructed (number) Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

11 110 123 248



Indicator 10 : Hectares of land conserved in target areas Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

0 4,000 4,000 5,289



Indicator 11 : Improved water sources constructed or rehabilitated Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

650 n.a. 1,800 3,029



Indicator 12 : Vulnerable individual getting support (number) Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

2,736 484,902 932,450 84,596


9% achieved. TASAF found error in basis for estimating VG beneficiaries used in AF financing documents (expanded to indirect beneficiaries). Target 3,033 VG subprojects approved. Final figure equivalent to 28 members per group.

Indicator 13 : Share of PWP wage bill/total cost (%) Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

40% 50% 50% 47%


94% achieved. The rising cost of materials and implements for the PWP intervention and the fact that the wage rate was not increased led to the achievement at less than the target value.

Indicator 14 : Beneficiaries of public works program (PWP)


Total: 113,414 Men: 60,000 Women: 53,414

Total: 238,625 Men: 124,900 Women:

Total: 238,625 Men: 124,900 Women:

Total: 379,286 Men: 201,656 Women:

xii

113,735 113,735 177,630 Date achieved 12/31/2005 12/31/2009 06/30/2013 08/31/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement)

159% achieved (total); 161% men, 156% women.

Indicator 15 : Beneficiaries of Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) (number ) Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

0 8,920 22,582 28,480


126% achieved.

Indicator 16 : Individuals participating in community savings (number) Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

0 20,000 33,600 22,712


68% achieved. Although more groups were formed, support was only provided to 1000 due to lack of funds. Implementation was limited to 44 LGAs and Unguja &Pemba out of 133 LGAs supported under TA SAF II

Indicator 17 : Communities' satisfaction with support provided by LGAs/CMO (%) Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

0 85% 85% 90%


106% achieved.

Indicator 18 : Trained trainers facilitating the LGAs and communities on subproject cycle management (number)


732 3,500 5,522 6,210


112% achieved.

Indicator 19 : Trained Community Management Committee members in subproject implementation (number)


22,687 90,000 142,284 147,262


103% achieved.

Indicator 20 : O&M committees members trained (number)

xiii


0 50,000 54,000 88,380


164% achieved.

Indicator 21 : Subprojects completed according to design (number) Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

1,483 6,000 7,300 7,457


102% achieved.

Indicator 22 : Subprojects completed within time of subproject cycle (number) Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

1,483 5,500 5,958 7,373


124% achieved.

G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs

No. Date ISR Archived DO IP

Actual Disbursements (USD millions)

1 04/20/2005 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 2 08/12/2005 Satisfactory Satisfactory 12.00

3 05/08/2006 Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 13.74

4 12/20/2006 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 27.33 5 04/30/2007 Satisfactory Satisfactory 49.94 6 12/20/2007 Satisfactory Satisfactory 82.10 7 06/20/2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory 107.62 8 12/24/2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory 125.30 9 06/30/2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory 135.52

10 12/22/2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory 150.97 11 06/04/2010 Satisfactory Satisfactory 159.87 12 04/16/2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory 185.58 13 07/13/2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory 194.03 14 06/23/2012 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 217.78 15 01/09/2013 Satisfactory Satisfactory 224.54

xiv

H. Restructuring (if any)

Restructuring Date(s)

Board Approved

PDO Change

ISR Ratings at Restructuring

Amount Disbursed at

Restructuring in USD millions

Reason for Restructuring & Key Changes Made DO IP

06/09/2009 Y S S 132.93

- PDO was re-worded to make it more poverty focused as the first PDO was process oriented. The re-worded PDO was "to improve access of beneficiary households to enhanced socioeconomic services and income-generating opportunities". - The PDO indicators were too high level so they were refocused to answer to the expected project outcomes. The closing date was extended to June 30, 2012.

06/04/2010 N S S 159.87

The Board approved on June 4, 2010 the second Additional Financing for the project which included extension of the closing date to June 30, 2013 and inclusion of the IDA indicator on Direct Beneficiaries for PDO level.

05/29/2013 S S 224.54

A Level-2 restructuring was also approved by the Country Director on May 29, 2013, where resources were reallocated across categories to allow for finalization of the agreed project completion activities.

If PDO and/or Key Outcome Targets were formally revised (approved by the original approving body) enter ratings below: Outcome Ratings Against Original PDO/Targets Satisfactory Against Formally Revised PDO/Targets Satisfactory Overall (weighted) rating Satisfactory

xv

I. Disbursement Profile

1

1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design

1.1 Context at Appraisal

1. At the time of the approval of the Second Tanzania Social Action Fund Project (Credit 4002-TA and Grant H134-TA) in October 2004, Tanzania had a population of 35 million with widespread poverty and vulnerability, particularly concentrated in rural areas, exacerbated by a lack of access to basic services. At a national level, 36 percent of the population was living on less than US$ 1 per day and 19 percent were below the basic food poverty line. Twenty-nine percent of children suffered from malnutrition based on weight for age. Life expectancy was estimated at 45 years while maternal; child and infant mortality rates had continued to deteriorate, exacerbated by the prevalence of HIV/AIDS. Eighty-seven percent of Tanzanians lived in the rural areas and only half of these had access to safe water. Only 43 percent of births were attended by a skilled worker, revealing the limited access to health services and driving the country’s high maternal mortality rate of 860 per 100,000 live births. The Government’s elimination of school fees and adoption of compulsory enrollment boosted primary enrollment but exacerbated overcrowding and there was a continued demand for more classrooms. Although gross primary school enrollment in the country had reached 100 percent, there were challenges of increasing secondary school enrollment from 11 percent at appraisal. 2. The Government of Tanzania’s poverty reduction strategies were set forth in the National Poverty Eradication Strategy (NPES, 1997)and Vision 2025 (1998) and focused on three dimensions: reducing income poverty; improving human capabilities, survival and social well-being, and addressing extreme vulnerability among the poor. The Government adopted the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as the basic minimum achievement for its citizens. Through the NPES participatory process, priority sectors were identified that would have maximum impact encompassing education, health, water, agriculture, rural roads and justice, with the cross-cutting areas of gender, environment, HIV/AIDS, employment and good governance.

3. The World Bank’s Country Assistance Strategy, approved on May 22, 2000, and was aligned with the Government’s poverty reduction strategies. Areas of strategic importance furthered by TASAF II were: (i) sustainable rural development to improve the livelihoods of the rural poor, and (ii) improved social infrastructure to improve social indicators and enhance access to public services for communities with special emphasis on the poor. The rationale for Bank assistance was based on the Bank’s previous support through TASAF 1 and its recognized international role in safety nets and community-driven development (CDD). 4. The Government had significant experience in promoting a CDD approach as a way of reaching the local level and improving services, especially in primary education, agriculture, and social protection. Investments using a CDD approach, including the Tanzania Social Action Fund (TASAF), Participatory Agricultural Development and Empowerment Project (PADEP), and Primary Education

2

Development Program, were complemented by programs aimed at strengthening the decentralization process, such as the Local Government Support Program (LGSP), so that control over resources and decision-making could be better vested with local government authorities and village councils. The CDD approach was seen as a critical implementation strategy for effective poverty reduction and part of the country’s decentralization efforts. 5. The overall decentralization agenda in Tanzania at that time sought to vest greater levels of responsibilities in the country’s 169 districts. The Government’s decentralization process aimed to improve intergovernmental fiscal transfers, strengthen revenue generation for Local Government Authorities (LGAs), and make service delivery more efficient and equitable through its overarching policy, Decentralization by Devolution, enacted in 1998. This shifted greater political, administrative, and financial powers to LGAs. Accordingly, their responsibilities for service delivery in education, health, agriculture, and infrastructure also increased. However, fiscal decentralization lagged, to be buttressed in 2004-2005 with the implementation of a formula-based General Purposeblock grant including funding for local administration expenses and design of a Local Government Capital Development Grant (LGCDG) system to be used for funding development expenditures.The challenge to CDD efforts within this context was to align their operations with the evolving decentralization process as LGAs increased their role, while continuing to support the village and community levels.

1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators 6. The initial project development objective of TASAF II was “to empower communities to access opportunities so that they can request, implement, and monitor the delivery of services through subprojects that contribute to improved livelihoods and are linked to the attainment of the associated Millennium Development Goals indicators specified in the Tanzania National Strategy for Growth and Poverty Reduction.” 7. A set of key performance indicators were listed in the Project Appraisal Document (PAD) related to increased availability and use of basic and market services. The PAD further clarified that there were no targets set for these indicators as the project is demand-driven and the number of sub-projects in each specific sector could not be determined apriori.

i. Increase in citizen satisfaction with delivery of basic social services

ii. Increased income from wages earned from the implementation of public works subprojects

iii. Annual dropout rate percentage of students in primary and secondary schools

iv. Number and percentage of girls and boys in primary and secondary schools

v. Number and percentage of children under the age of five (5) suffering from malnutrition using the weight-for-age method

vi. Number of maternal deaths in the community

3

vii. Number of households using insecticide-treated nets viii. Number and percentage of persons with access to protected water sources

ix. Number of operational drug revolving funds x. Number of vulnerable individuals provided with assistance by type of

vulnerability xi. Number of households with access to safe waste disposal methods

xii. Number of individuals participating in community savings schemes

1.3 Revised PDO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification

8. During the mid-term review, the Bank and the Government jointly decided to rephrase the PDO. The original wording of the PDO was too high level, unclear and it included processes rather than the project outcomes. It was agreed to restate the PDO to align it with the specific outcomes of the project components. The reworded was: “to improve access of beneficiary households to enhanced socioeconomic services and income-generating opportunities”. The modification did not change the purpose of the project, it was intended to improve the project's results framework, thereby making the PDO more realistic and measurable. The reworded PDO was retained as the formally revised PDO in both of the additional financing projects, as approved by the Board in June 9, 2009 and June 4, 2010. 9. The key performance indicators were brought into alignment with the rephrased PDO and refined to a set of outcomes for which the Project could be held directly accountable of the 12 initial performance indicators 6 high-level outcome indicators were dropped, 2 modified, 4 retained; and additional indicators for the safety nets results chain included. The indicators were also aligned with the IDA 15 indicators:

i. Number of people with access to improved socio-economic services in health facilities, safe drinking water, sanitation, roads, irrigation, and markets.

ii. Education: student /classroom ratio. iii. Percentage increase in income of targeted vulnerable beneficiary. iv. Number of person-days provided in labor intensive public works program. v. Percentage of citizens satisfied with the delivery of basic social services.

10. Targets were set, though when they reflected sectoral choice by communities they were to be taken as indicative.

1.4 Main Beneficiaries

11. TASAF II sub-projects targeted: (i) service-poor communities that lack health, education, and other socio-economic infrastructure; (ii) able-bodied but food-insecure

4

individuals; and (iii) vulnerable groups which include orphans, widows and widowers, people affected by HIV/AIDS, unemployed youth and the elderly. 12. Capacity enhancement activities targeted implementing agencies at the national, regional, local and community levels to effectively support implementation of community investments. Vulnerable households were also targeted for promotion of savings and investment groups.

1.5 Original Components as approved

13. The Project had two components:

i. The National Village Fund (NVF) financed sub-projects for communities to improve their access to basic services, to enable poor households to increase their incomes, and to reduce their vulnerability. The NVF was and is divided into three types of beneficiary categories:

a) The Service Poor (SP) -targeted communities lack access to basic services and infrastructure, in particular health, education, roads, markets and water and sanitation, funding small-scale infrastructure investments to help communities attain the MDGs.

b) The Food Insecure (FI) – targeted households with an effective safety net through labor-intensive public works (PW) to increase cash incomes; ease acute shortages of food in some seasons and prevent these households falling even deeper into poverty.

c) The Vulnerable Groups (VGs) –targeted households with vulnerable individuals including orphans, widows and widowers, people affected and infected by HIV/AIDS, unemployed youths and the elderly working through community-based groups to implement income-generating activities (IGAs). This subcomponent also supported a moderate scaling-up of a conditional cash transfer pilot.

The NVF covered all 121 Local Government Authorities (LGAs) on the mainland and in Zanzibar - the two Islands of Unguja and Pemba. Resources were allocated to LGAs based on a formula (population, poverty level, and geography).Implementation responsibility is through local governments, with elected Community Management Committees (CMC) procuring materials and managing funds at the village level.

ii. The Capacity Enhancement (CE) component supported information education and communication campaigns, technical assistance, capacity building of LGAs and communities, participatory monitoring and evaluation, transparency and social accountability efforts, as well as general TASAF project management costs. Through the Community Savings Investment Program (COMSIP) it supports training to vulnerable individuals to help them develop group savings schemes.

5

1.6 Revised Components 14. The components were not revised. All additional financing was channeled through the original components although the intended beneficiary groups and coverage varied. The first additional financing project narrowed its focus to the Food Insecure (public works) and Vulnerable Groups (including CB-CCT beneficiaries), and funding only districts targeted as food insecure, in keeping with the nature of the emergency response. The second additional financing project expanded the scope to include Service Poor community projects due to the effects of inflation on completion of many sub-projects, in priority districts with food insecurity, having experienced natural disasters.

1.7 Other significant changes 15. The initial scope of the project was expanded in 2006 to include a pilot community-based conditional cash transfer (CB-CCT) program financed through a US$ 1,972,915 Japan Social Development Fund (JSDF) grant as a potential component of a national safety net, testing how the CDD approach could deliver these services. 16. One of the most significant changes in the project occurred in response to international economic shocks and local weather shocks. In 2008, the international food, fuel and finance crisis caused rising domestic prices for food and farm inputs. At the same time, the failure of the short rain season increased food insecurity and caused an expansion in the number of vulnerable households. Due to increased cost of transport and price of almost all kinds of construction materials there was substantial need for additional funds to enable communities complete on-going sub-projects as well as an expansion in the number of households in need. In response to these issues there were two additional financing credits. The first Additional Financing Project of US$30 million was part of the Tanzania Accelerated Food Security Program approved by the Board of Directors on June 9, 2009 under the Global Food Crisis Response Program The Additional Financing was directed only to food-insecure districts and included Food-Insecure and Vulnerable Groups sub-projects only. The Second Additional Financing Project of US$35 million under the Pilot Crisis Response Window (CRW) was approved by the Board of Directors on June 4, 2010 in response to the impacts of the global financial and food crisis, natural calamities as well as sustained inflationary pressures providing financing to meet the needs of increased sub-project costs. 17. The project had two Level-1 restructurings. The first one was approved on June 9, 2009 when the PDO was reworded; the key performance indicators were revised and the Closing Date was extended to June 30, 2012 during preparation of the first additional financing. The second one was approved on June 4, 2010 during the second Additional Financing whereupon the closing date was extended to June 30, 2013, and the IDA indicator on Direct Beneficiaries was added at PDO level. A Level-2 restructuring was also approved by the Country Director on May 29, 2013, where resources were reallocated across categories to allow for finalization of the agreed project completion activities.

6

2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes

2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry

18. The design of TASAF II built on the accomplishments of TASAF I. TASAF I was one of the first and most widely recognized CDD efforts in Tanzania, channeling sub-project financial assistance directly to the community level for priorities identified locally and managed through local project management committees. TASAF I 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 poor households in selected regions in the country. TASAF I proved the CDD approach could work, with important benefits for local transparency and empowerment, reduced unit cost and increased relevance of local investments. . 19. TASAF II had nationwide coverage, and it aimed at scaling up community service provision and capacity building from 40 districts and in Zanzibar in the two Islands under TASAF I. Under TASAF I, CDD intervention modalities were well-tested and lessons integrated in the design of TASAF II.TASAF I also served as the basis to pilot activities that would be scaled up in TASAF II. For example a pilot of community-managed public works created a basis for TASAF II’s labor intensive public works program. Support to vulnerable groups was also piloted in TASAF I that became one of the beneficiary categories in TASAF II. The World Bank’s global and regional expertise on CDD and safety nets and community savings and investment promotion also helped inform project design.

Key lessons learned that were reflected in the design of TASAF II include: 20. Better integration with sectoral norms. Experience in the implementation of TASAF I identified the problem of sector norms and standards that exist, but are poorly enforced at the Village Council (VC) and LGA levels for a variety of reasons. To address this issue, TASAF II adopted sectoral standards for facility design, for example schools and health posts, developed by the sectoral ministries. To address the lax enforcement of sectoral norms and standards at the local level, TASAF II established a Sectoral Expert Team, chaired by the Prime Minister’s Office -Regional Administration and Local Government and comprised of higher level representatives from sectoral ministries to review and authorize all subprojects for conformity with sector norms and standards and ensure any necessary staffing positions or additional equipment were integrated into sector planning. TASAF was now seen as helping sectors enforce their norms and deliver on their mandates. 21. Further integration with the on-going decentralization process. TASAF I as a pure CDD approach introduced the concept of direct funding of community-managed sub-projects. TASAF II marked the shift to greater LGA involvement to support the nation’s decentralization process. As the country moved to transferring greater responsibility to local governments, TASAF’s operating procedures were adjusted to integrate LGAs into the sub-project cycle. Specifically, rather than direct from TASAF

7

accounts to community accounts, sub-project funds would be transferred through the LGAs development accounts to the communities, consistent with the evolving Local Government Capital Development Grant (LGCDG) fiscal transfer system. 22. Greater support to local governments and communities. In addition to training and equipment, the design of TASAF II provided LGAs with 2.5 percent of a subproject budget to facilitate the community planning process, 5 percent to supervise implementation, with 2.5 percent provided to village councils to facilitate community mobilization and monitor implementation.

23. Shift to a greater safety net focus. TASAF II design sought to scale up TASAF’s role in the nascent national safety net in Tanzania as a way of reaching vulnerable communities and households. For example, public works implementation using the CDD approach was piloted under TASAF I and found to be more reliable for timely payments and vested with increased social accountability at the local level than when public works were managed by district governments. Similarly the piloting of a community based conditional cash transfer demonstrated a monitoring role of the community and the timely payment of transfers by the community management committees.

24. Piloting ways to help vulnerable groups create savings mechanisms. Under the Capacity Enhancement component, support would be given to individuals interested in the formation of voluntary savings groups of at least 10 members. The objective was to have income support via public works contribute to household risk management by creating opportunities for increased savings and investment. There were some minor shortcomings in preparation. The PDO was process-oriented and not sufficiently linked to outcomes for which the project could be held accountable. While it attempted to link the project with broader national goals like attainment of the MDGs, most key performance indicators focused on higher level sector objectives. This was an effort at improving over the output-oriented indicators used in TASAF I. It also reflected the evolution of Bank thinking on design of key performance indicators at the time. During the preparation of TASAF II in 2004, most PRSPs were strongly linked to the achievement of the MDGs. In that regard, TASAF indicators were also related to sectors’ contributions to that process. In attempting to move from output to outcome indicators, TASAF II overshot, incorporating higher level sectoral objectives where direct attribution of the project was less clear. This was very consistent with other project cohorts at the time. In addition, the monitoring and evaluation system was ambitious, calling for multiple levels of audits, evaluations and participatory monitoring tools to be carried out frequently. These minor shortcomings had no direct effect on the achievement of project development objectives and so are considered minor and reflective of the state of the art at the time rather than any real task team shortcomings. 25. Overall, risks were deemed modest. The risk of low capacity in LGAs was appropriately rated as high and addressed by simplifying processes in the Operational Manual and by designing a capacity enhancement program tailored to supporting the ability of LGAs to undertake the expanded sub-project cycle responsibilities. In addition, each LGA was required to assign a coordinator and accountant with direct responsibility for TASAF II activities. Memoranda of understanding were signed between the TASAF

8

Management Unit (TMU) and each LGA. And greater reliance on local governments also exposed the project to a risk, rated as substantial that the national decentralization process might stall. This risk was controlled at the national level through commitments to the process of decentralization agreed upon under the Local Government Support Project approved concomitantly with TASAF II. In addition, TASAF specified clear divisions of responsibilities between LGAs (supported under the LGSP) and village councils that had more direct implementation responsibilities using TASAF’s CDD approach. 2.2 Implementation

26. Implementation timeframe. The project was approved by the Bank’s Board of Directors on November 30, 2004 and effectiveness declared on May 11, 2005. The first Additional Financing (AF-I) was approved on June 9, 2009 and the second additional financing on June 4, 2010. The original closing date was December 31, 2009 which was extended to June 30, 2012, with the first additional financing. The closing date was extended again to June 30, 2013 following approval of the second additional financing project. 27. Implementation issues and corrective measures. At the end of the first year, implementation progress rating was downgraded to moderately unsatisfactory due to delays in filling director-level key positions in the TASAF management unit (TMU). Subsequently, a Results Based Action Plan was agreed upon to facilitate smoother and more efficient implementation and staff recruitment completed. 28. A mid-term review was carried out in two phases (Phase I in November 2007 and Phase II in March 2008).An institutional assessment of TASAF, a beneficiary assessment and a technical audit were conducted to inform the review. Satisfactory implementation progress was noted. Findings of the technical audit and beneficiary assessments pointed to good technical quality and high levels of beneficiary satisfaction. 29. Several issues were raised during the Mid-Term Review. The Bank team and Government agreed on the need to clarify the wording of the Project Development Objective and amend key performance indicators to better specify the project’s results framework TASAF’s organizational structure was adjusted to better address bottlenecks and work overloads between departments within TASAF II implementing structures. And, to address theeconomic price shocks facing communities and LGAs, the community contribution rate was reduced from 20 to 15 percent. The project had two resource reallocations responding to the need for the TMU to support the LGAs as they have insufficient capacity. 30. During the final year of project implementation, the government issued a circular in June 2012 freezing all LGA bank accounts, including TASAF accounts, in order to operationalize the new system limiting LGAs to six bank accounts as the basic structure of the fiscal transfer system. This had the unintended effect of causing delays in sub-project completion and delayed transfers to the CB-CCT beneficiary households, although this had no adverse impact on achieving project objectives.

9

31. Responding to Crises. The project was scaled up in 2009 to respond to the demand to support to the food insecure households through PWP in selected districts during the global financial, fuel, and food crisis. 32. Innovative initiatives taken during implementation. During implementation, there were several innovative initiatives not planned during project design:

i. Conditional cash transfers. A pilot community-based conditional cash transfer (CB-CCT) was initiated in 2008 in three district councils covering 80 villages (40 for treatment and 40 for control, according to the experimental evaluation model). The program started by providing transfers to about 2,500 households increased to 11,576 (28,480 beneficiaries) by project closing.

ii. Community foundations working in collaboration with the SDN, TASAF introduced the concept of community foundations to Tanzania. CF’s are non-profit organizations who seek philanthropic contributions primarily from inside the community and provide grants to a variety of local needs. TASAF supported the formation of CFs in Arusha, Kinondoni, Morogoro and Mwanza as a way of promoting local sustainability of efforts toward vulnerable groups.

2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization

33. Design of project monitoring and evaluation was based on a participatory monitoring and evaluation framework. The management information system (MIS) was based on the experience and systems used in TASAF I, but it was altered to reinforce the more prominent role of LGAs. Responsibility for the decentralized computerized MIS was transferred from TASAF to the LGAs. Participatory monitoring and evaluation tools were planned, consistent with the project’s CDD methodology included beneficiary assessments, Community Score Cards, and Citizens Report Cards, to capture the perspectives of beneficiaries and the wider public on the project. Technical audits, baseline studies, ex-post evaluations and randomized impact evaluations were designed to ensure robust measurement of project achievements. 34. The project was able to adequately track and report on progress as well as create a sufficient evaluative basis to draw conclusions about project performance. Measurements on achievement of several of the initial project key performance indicators were not being done by the project but the ministries through Household Budget Surveys or sector specific surveys and administrative data. These data were not available by 2007/8 during the project MTR, but as the country was reporting on the MDG indicator targets, the information is now available and has been used in the assessment of the PDO before the restructuring. At MTR there was agreement to change the KPIs to make them more focused and related to outcomes for which the project could be held accountable.

35. At an operational level, the integration and decentralization of the computerized MIS was not fully achieved because the EPICOR system at the district level did not take into consideration the needs of the project even though there had been agreements. This notwithstanding, the TASAF MIS system was able to sufficiently track inputs and outputs. The evaluations varied in breadth and rigor, though most provided significant evidence on outcomes as well as qualitative findings that drove program improvements.

10

For example, the process evaluation of the CB-CCT pilot was instrumental in designing an effective scale-up of the program. Some of the innovative participatory M & E tools, like the Community Score Cares and Citizens Report Cards piloted during implementation, proved to be difficult and costly to repeat with the required frequency. Randomized impact evaluations were carried out for both the Vulnerable Groups component and the CB-CCT program. The VGs evaluation measured consumption and assets but not income, which is more difficult to accurately assess but was the selected key performance indicator. 2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance

36. Safeguards. The Project triggered safeguard policies OP 4.01 Environmental Assessment and OP 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement due to the eligible types of sub-projects, with an environmental screening category of B. Environmental and social safeguard aspects were outlined in the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) and incorporated into the Operational Manual, the Service Guidelines for Community Participation and the Community Project Management handbook, Environmental screening was done by the district staff.Training was provided to all LGAs’ designated Environmental Management Officers to carry out this function. 37. Technical audits reviewed the ESMF and found it to be comprehensive and adequate to ensure the proper mainstreaming of environmental and social concerns into TASAF-II funded subprojects. Some shortcomings were observed in implementation due to inadequate knowledge in some LGAs and at community levels. However, field visits found, on the whole, no significant negative environmental and social impacts. Subprojects were undertaken in an environmentally sound manner due to being small in nature and focused on rehabilitation or improvements or existing infrastructure.Analysis of findings in various studies revealed that subprojects such as tree planting nurseries, village forests conservation, storm water drainage systems rehabilitation and livestock keeping that emphasized zero grazing have considerably contributed to environmental protection. The technical audit found still inadequate capacity in most of the LGAs as officials designated as Environmental Management Officers (EMOs) were not well trained to handle environmental and social issues comprehensively. 38. Fiduciary compliance. TASAF II’s fiduciary systems were based on the community management of sub-project procurement and financial management, an approach used successfully in TASAF I. The funds for sub-projects were transferred through LGA accounts to support the supervisory role they played, and then deposited into CMC accounts. Payments were made directly by the community management committees. Simplified financial management tools and training were provided to CMCs. 39. Financial management was downgraded to unsatisfactory during the initial year of implementation due to prolonged vacancies of the Director of Finance and Director of Internal Audit positions. It was upgraded to satisfactory by 2007 as the issue was addressed, with no negative lasting effects on the project. Community management of funds was found to be satisfactory throughout project implementation. Audits were submitted in a timely fashion and were unqualified.

11

40. In terms of procurement, under TASAF supported sub-projects, all procurement activities were undertaken by the CMCs. The activities included selection of contractors and/or purchase of inputs and payment of wages and transfers in the case of the cash transfer pilot. TASAF and LGAs provided training and support to communities in this process. Procurement under the Capacity Enhancement componentwas under the responsibility of TMU. Due to perceived weakness and lack of experience at the district and village council levels, procurement risks were rated as high. TASAF undertook training for LGAs and LGAs in turn trained communities. 41. In general, procurement performance was good throughout implementation. TASAF was one of the three projects in the Tanzania portfolio rated as doing well according to a 2009 CPPR survey. The Public Procurement Authority commended TASAF for its good performance. Community contracting of sub-projects was a successful learning by doing experience that not only created local capacity but also increased transparency in contracting. The Technical Audit found that community-management of procurement was “a transparent and economical procurement method at the grassroots community level”. This notwithstanding, procurement was temporarily downgraded to moderately satisfactory when the TASAF Procurement Manager remained vacant for eighteen months.

2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase

42. Sub-project operation and maintenance (O&M) arrangements. TASAF is not directly responsible for operations and maintenance, but performance in O&M affects the sustainability of the investments funded by TASAF. O & M arrangements vary by sub-project type:

i. Investments in classrooms and educational facilities have a strong likelihood of being sustained. The Government has prioritized the provision of teachers to reach its goal of full enrollment in basic education. School committees received training on routine maintenance, however funding is limited especially when major repairs are needed.

ii. In the health sector, sustainability of the services depends on provision of staffing and other essential inputs. Making health centers functional after completion was an issue in TASAF I, in the sector in Tanzania and most countries in the region. In TASAF II, the issue was raised to the highest levels of Government, detailing overdue health staffing needs. Performance improved and the impact assessment (July 2013) found that 98 percent of health centers were functioning. Only 10 percent of health center users felt staffing and/or medical supplies were insufficient.

iii. In the road sector, all major roads supported under TASAF II are included in the official national road network and these come under the responsibility of district councils to maintain. TASAF focused on road rehabilitation, avoiding opening new roads that would have created incremental costs of maintenance. Supported few new road constructions as can be witnessed to by the indicator on roads constructed vis-a-vis rehabilitations. Most of the improvements, like

12

installing culverts, may have increased sustainability of the roads. Labor-intensive road works were done to support food insecure households helped in keeping roads in better shape. Roads account for about one-tenth of TASAF sub-projects.

iv. Sustainability is a sector wide challenge in the water sector in Tanzania. Water systems are to be operated and maintained by water users associations with technical support from LGAs, which often lack sufficient technical or financial resources. A field review of TASAF subprojects found limitations reflective of these broader sectoral issues. While indicative, firm conclusions cannot be drawn due to the small sample size of projects visited (ten villages) in the ex-post field review. In half of the villages visited, water systems installed by TASAF support were either not functioning or only partially functioning. This was due to a variety of factors, including seasonal water shortages due to insufficient rains, technical problems, or irregular water supply from the water utility company, or failure of communities to pay for the water bills. For dams and shallow wells, seasonal drought during the moment visited explained the limited functionality finding. Overall, water sub-projects represent only about 5 percent of the overall TASAF portfolio.

v. Markets have a high likelihood of being operated and maintained as they generate revenue directly through stall fees.

43. Based on a sector breakdown of 63 percent of sub-projects in education, 14 percent in health, 10 percent in water and 13 percent other sectors, the majority of TASAF II infrastructure investments have reasonable expectations of sustainability. TASAF II paid greater attention to operations and maintenance plans (though ex-post assessments often found these insufficient) by involving LGA/Islands, sectors and communities in O & M expectations. System-wide sustainability challenges remain which must be addressed at the sectoral level, particularly in water and roads. 44. For Vulnerable Groups, members have been able to accumulate assets, particularly livestock assets, pointing to longer-term sustainability of these investments. The technical audit found that the businesses surveyed seem to be profitable but faced risks of liquidity also affected by inflation, not able to grow into bigger concerns due limited markets especially in remote districts. The cash transfer benefits from the safety net activities were intended to address immediate consumption needs. Sustainability of the CB-CCT operations is insured through the scale-up in the next phase of the program where beneficiaries will be reached with financial management information so they start to save both in cash and in-kind. 45. Sustaining institutional capacity. The likelihood of sustaining the institutional capacity created during TASAF II is high. TASAF continues to be a priority program of the Government and has been slated for a primary role in developing the nation’s safety net system. At the level of LGAs and communities, sustainability of the general skills and technical abilities is likely as they continue to be engaged not only in follow-on TASAF activities but in the broader range of development activities at the local level. The

13

capacity enhancement component also sought to promote savings and investment at the household level through the COMSIP program. Relatively high repayment rates reported on ex-post evaluations enables members to continuously access loans from own and group savings; and at the same time helps build sustainability of the groups. 46. Next phase/follow-on operations. The success of TASAF II helped consolidate a longer-term commitment of the Government of Tanzania and donors to scaling up a safety net system for the country. On March 29, 2012, the World Bank approved the first phase of the Tanzania Productive Safety Net (PSSN) Adjustable Program Loan (APL-1) of $220 million to create a comprehensive productive social safety net system for the poor and vulnerable. The first phase of PSSN (FY2013-FY2018) will support labor intensive public works and a cash transfer intervention using the institutional structure and capacity developed in TASAF II. APL II (FY2018-FY2022) second phase, would build on these foundations to consolidate the safety net, deepen technical improvements and further scale-up safety net activities. These efforts are being hastened now as the Government of Tanzania is in the process of scaling up the PSSN to reach 1.2 million households by 2015 in order to reduce extreme poverty.

3. Assessment of Outcomes

3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation

Rating: Substantial 47. Relevance of objectives. TASAF II and the subsequent additional financing projects were well-aligned with national goals and strategies aimed to improve service delivery to the poor and to increase income opportunities.TASAF II remained a core component of IDA strategies as well. The CAS (Report No. 38625), approved in March 2007, aimed to develop social safety nets to assist the rural poor and vulnerable, with IDA support through TASAF taking the lead in increasing capacities of communities to prioritize, implement, and manage sustainable development initiatives to improve socioeconomic services and opportunities. 48. Relevance of design. The project design built on the successful TASAF I experience but paid close attention to integrating lessons learned. In particular, the better integration with the on-going decentralization process and the sector programs in health, education, roads and water increased the project’s relevance.

49. Relevance of implementation. The project remained relevant throughout implementation, displaying flexibility to responding to evolving country needs (such as safety nets) as they emerged. The additional financing approved during implementation allowed for a rapid scale-up response to international economic and weather shocks. And, the piloting of the community-based CCT program under TASAF II created the foundation for a scaling up under the follow-on nationwide operation the Productive Social Safety Net Project.

14

3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives

Rating: Substantial

50. The project’s development objective was re-worded and outcome indicators were re-focused in the first Additional Financing package. According to the August 2006 ICR Guidelines (revised Oct 5, 2011), the project outcome should be assessed against both the original1 and revised2 PDO. In both, the project sought to enhance access to income and services. There was no substantive change in the PDO, just a clearer specification of the objective and revised indicators to better measure project outcomes. This section first discusses project outcomes prior to restructuring then goes into greater depth on the cumulative end of project outcomes. Assessing achievement of project development objectives prior to restructuring 51. The project’s development objective and outcome indicators were formally restructured in the Additional Financing package approved by the Board on June 9, 2009. According to the August 2006 ICR Guidelines (revised Oct 5, 2011), the final rating for project outcome should be assessed against both the original and revised project objectives. 52. Prior to restructuring, the project had been consistently rated as satisfactory in meeting development objectives. There were 12 key performance indicators prior to restructuring. Many of these original key performance indicators were higher-level sectoral objectives only collected through periodic national surveys or the final project impact evaluation, and therefore were not reported on at restructuring but can be reported for the ICR. KPI outcomes at the time of restructuring are presented in the table below. Six of the twelve had project-level data that confirmed satisfactory progress toward meeting the PDO. Several were sector wide measures with national data that showed progress toward meeting national sectoral objectives and/or MDGs, three of which had direct attribution linkages to TASAF II activities. Only one indicator out of the 12 was not met at either the project or sectoral level – the number of operational drug revolving funds – and this because sectoral reporting on the indicator was not available.

1Original PDO: “to empower communities to access opportunities so that they can request, implement, and monitor the delivery of services through subprojects that contribute to improved livelihoods and are linked to the attainment of the associated Millennium Development Goals indicators specified in the Tanzania National Strategy for Growth and Poverty Reduction”.” 2Revised PDO: “to improve access of beneficiary households to enhanced socioeconomic services and income-generating opportunities.”

15

Original KPI Reported prior to restructuring through project reporting

MDG 2005 (at baseline)

MDG 2008 (at restructuring)

Comments

1. Increase in citizen satisfaction with delivery of basic social services

85.6% Indicator shows meeting project development objective

2. Increased income from wages earned from the implementation of public works subprojects

-Beneficiary households taking three meals per day increased from 35% to 68 %; -Intermediate outcome indicator 4,000,000 person-days of temporary employment

Income not measured but frequency of food consumption increased; intermediate outcome indicator(person days of employment) shows meeting project development objective

3. Annual dropout rate percentage of students in primary and secondary schools

Higher level sectoral objective, , data not reported prior to restructuring

Primary dropout rate 2005/2006: 3.4%

Primary dropout rate 2007/2008: 3.1%

Improvement at national level. Direct project attribution limited.

4. Number and percentage of girls and boys in primary and secondary schools

Higher level sectoral objective, data not reported prior to restructuring

Mainland: Primary net enrollment rate 90.5% (2004) Islands: 75%

Mainland: 97.2 % primary net enrollment rate Islands: 83.4%

Improvement at national level. Direct contribution of TASAF II through classroom construction.

5. Number and percentage of children under five suffering from malnutrition ( weight-for-age method)


National: 29%

Mainland: 22 % Islands: 7.3%


6. Number of maternal deaths in the community


Total national860 per 100,000 live births

Total national790 per 100,000 live births

Improvement at national level. Direct contribution of TASAF II through health center construction and expanded access for girls’ schooling.

7. Number of households using insecticide-treated nets


Household ownership of at least one insecticide treated net: 18%

36% (2007)


8. Number and percentage of persons with access to protected water sources

30,750 National:

73% urban (2004)53.5% rural (2004)

Mainland: 57% rural 83% urban

Islands: 59% rural 83% urban

Indicator shows meeting project development objective. Improvement at the national level. Direct contribution of TASAF II through water sub-projects.

9. Number of operational drug revolving funds


Data not available

10. Number of vulnerable individuals provided with assistance by type of vulnerability

459,075 Indicator shows meeting project development objective

11. Number of households with access to safe waste disposal

430,000

Indicator shows meeting project development objective

12. Number of individuals participating in community savings schemes

21,153 individual COMSIP savers

Indicator shows meeting project development objective

16

53. There is sufficient information on expanded access to services which contributed directly and indirectly to attainment of the MDGS as per the original PDO (before restructuring) to indicate satisfactory progress towards the project development objective at the time of restructuring. These outcomes were achieved based on TASAF II outputs, including seventy-seven health centers constructed, increasing access for 395,000 beneficiaries and 1,515 classrooms built, helping address overcrowding. The beneficiary assessment found that these completed schools and other facilities were enabling communities to access the services within shorter walking distance. Four million person days of temporary employment was generated (even though income could not be measured), benefitting 248,000 people, with women representing 51 percent of beneficiaries who were able to smooth consumption and buy some assets. Assessing achievement of project development objectives at project closing 54. In terms of final project outputs (Annex 2 has the details), TASAF II financed 8,480 sub-projects benefitting an estimated 18.7 million people, including 3,764 Service Poor sub-projects, 1,683Food Insecure sub-projects and 3,033Vulnerable Group sub-projects. The achievements in terms of numbers of subprojects surpassed the original target by 14 percent. Technical audits confirmed the overall quality of the sub-projects and eighty-seven percent of citizens surveyed were satisfied with the delivery of these basic services. The beneficiary assessment found that sub-projects were perceived as having a significant contribution to social and economic improvements. 55. The final project outcomes are assessed against the revised PDO and key performance indicators. These were realigned to better reflect intended objectives and to better identify indicators against which TASAF II could reasonably be held accountable, as opposed to tracking sector-wide outcomes. There were 6 revised KPIs with a clearer specification of the results chain linking TASAF II outputs with these outcomes. The overall results are provided in the table below and discussed in detail in this section looking at the overall goals of increased access to basic services and income generating activities: Revised PDO Indicators Project Outcome Indicator

End of Project target Actual end of Project

Comments

1. Number of people with access to improved socio-economic services:

(i) health facilities (ii) safe drinking water, (iii) sanitation (iv) roads (v) irrigation (vi) markets

(i) 10,449,859 (ii) 1,310,256 (iii) 889,250 (iv) 2,823,263 (v) 248,291 (vi) 348,182

(i) 12,037,040 (ii) 1,664,000 (iii) 907,224 (iv) 3,558,000 (v) 744,000 (vi) 270,000

(i) 115% achieved (ii) 127% achieved (iii) 102% achieved (iv) 126% achieved (v) 300% achieved (vi) 78% achieved

17

2.Education: student /classroom ratio.

45:1 45:1 (end of sub-project)

100% achieved at sub-project completion

3. Percentage increase in income of targeted vulnerable beneficiary.

5%

Income not measured

- No change in consumption,

- 740% increase in livestock and other household asset holdings. - Economic intent substantially achieved.

4. Number of person-days provided in labor intensive public works program.

17,833,797

21,384,312

120% achieved

5. Percentage of citizens satisfied with the delivery of basic social services.

85%

87%

102% achieved

6. Direct Beneficiaries Of which Women

7, 192,269

54%

18, 682,208

54%

110% Achieved 98% Achieved

Notes: (i) The key indicators in the ICR are net of the achievements under the ring-fenced funds. This explains the difference in figures with the last ISR. (ii) The indicators were revised to include the IDA indicator on Direct Project Beneficiaries. Similarly the wording of indicators was aligned to the core sector indicators. (iii) The project has six indicators as in the table above. It is important to note that the first indicator has six sub-indicators (i) - (vi); in the ICR Data Sheet these appear as indicators 1 - 6 because the format is different.

Enhanced access to basic socio-economic services 56. TASAF II significantly expanded access to basic services. Specific outputs (see Annex 2) and outcomes by sector include:

i. In the education sector, TASAF II financed 7,779 classrooms as well as complementary educational facilities (1,250 teacher houses, 179 student dormitories, 626 staff offices, 222 administrative blocks, 166 laboratories, and 12 school libraries). Over 90 percent of these sub-projects were functioning at the time of the final project evaluation. These investments made a substantial contribution to achieving full enrollment, reducing congestion and increasing school quality. The provision of teacher housing with solar power facilities or connection to the national grid was important for keeping teachers in the poorer rural areas. Classroom construction supported the national drive to expand coverage of lower secondary school. TASAF II eased overcrowding in classrooms in project areas. The project targeted 45:1 student/classroom ratio, which was used as a sub-project design parameter following sectoral norms. Indicative findings from the final impact assessment report of a small sample of classrooms visited up to eight years later found 63:1 median at primary level and 47:1 at

18

secondary level, a significant reduction from the 70:1 as of 2004. Although robust conclusions cannot be drawn given the small sample size, indications point to TASAF’s longer-term contribution to reducing overcrowding at both the primary and secondary levels versus the situation at Project appraisal. The increase over time at the primary level reflects continued population pressure as well as adoption of Government policy of mandatory primary schooling which caused the Government to not enforce the sectoral student/classroom norms, In addition, in part the student demand at TASAF-supported schools was influenced by the more attractive learning environment created, including water supply and sanitation, availability of desks and greater security with fencing. Qualitative assessments of education beneficiaries reported increased teacher morale and lower teacher and student absenteeism, among other benefits.

ii. In the health sector, TASAF II supported 1,777 health centers or dispensaries which improved access to health services, 96 percent of which were operational at the time of final impact evaluation (2013). Health centers improved accessibility to basic health services compared to the situation before TASAF II interventions. The impact assessment found that TASAF II made a significant contribution in basic health services in nearly all studied communities. First, the geographical coverage of households within a short distance to improved health facilities has significantly improved the accessibility to basic health services for many people compared to the situation before TASAF interventions. Secondly, the construction of medical staff houses made the provision of emergency services to community members possible as the medical personnel were readily available at the health facilities Qualitative assessments of health beneficiaries reported reduce time and cost of accessing facilities, increased use of child and pre-natal health services, and reported decreases in morbidity and mortality.

iii. In roads, 7,382 kilometers of feeder roads were improved under TASAF II,

directly benefitting 3.6 million rural and peri-urban dwellers. The final impact assessment found that benefits from these road projects included better access to social services, like health facilities, schools; increased access to commercialization of farm products, decreased transport charges, and increased overall mobility.

iv. In the water and sanitation sector, 1.7 million Tanzanians had increased access to

improved water sources and 0.9 million to improved sanitation under TASAF II. Qualitative assessments of beneficiary perception of impacts found that water accessibility improved in terms of shorter distances to fetch water as well as reduced household expenditures on purchases from more expensive water vendors in urban and peri-urban areas. These positive impacts were tempered with in cases where systems faced temporary water shortages or mechanical problems.

v. Economic infrastructure was built and/or rehabilitated, including 90 markets, 248

irrigation systems and 5,289 hectares of land conserved. Over one million people benefitted from the irrigation and market sub-projects.

19

Increased access to income-generating opportunities 57. TASAF II sought to have a direct economic effect on vulnerable households through wages paid in labor-intensive public works to the able-bodied Food Insecure households, investments in income-generating activities for Vulnerable Groups and through the conditional cash transfer program.

i. PWP for the Food Insecure Households.1,577 public works sub-projects were implemented under TASAF II, reaching 265,872 beneficiaries, 47 percent of whom were women. A total of 15,952,320 person-days of temporary work were generated. On average each beneficiary earned about $110 for 65 days of work. Eighty-five percent of beneficiaries surveyed in the final impact assessment stated that the wages paid increased their household food security. Household expenditure analysis found that 91 percent spent PWP income on purchasing food. Other major expenditures included scholastic materials (45 percent), clothes (44percent), medical care (19 percent) and investment in income generating activities (18 percent). In addition, household surveys found a significant improvement in the frequency of meals eaten per day. In terms of longer-term impacts, 85 percent of the beneficiaries stated that they had acquired some work skills through their engagement in PWP.

ii. Vulnerable Groups sub-projects supported income-generating investments.

Reflecting the rural setting of the majority of the target vulnerable, about half of the IGA groups invested in poultry farming, 28 percent in dairy cattle (mainly for milk to sale and to improve nutrition), 11 percent for goat-keeping and the remaining 11 percent on agricultural processing/milling and tree husbandry. A rapid assessment (2013) found that nearly all respondents were earning income from the IGAs they had established. Over 50 percent of the respondents used their incomes on purchasing food for their families (80 percent), clothing (60 percent), paying scholastic requirements for their children (50 percent), or for health purposes (30 percent). Over 50 percent of the respondents were practicing banking even though the amounts banked were not large. A randomized impact evaluation found for the initial year of operation, there was a large and significant effect on asset accumulation by VG members, about eight-fold in value calculated among all subprojects. There was no change in consumption levels as this was the initial year when groups concentrated on building their enterprises with the exception of those keeping dairy cattle as they used some of the milk for improving the nutrition of those with HIV/AIDS and orphans. This accumulation of assets can lead to future increased consumption as well as provide households asset buffers in times of future shocks.

iii. Conditional cash transfers reached 28,480 beneficiaries providing eligible

households with direct income transfers to promote human capital development since conditionalities required that primary school aged children be enrolled and attend school, that children 0-2 be fully vaccinated and participate in regular growth monitoring, and that the elderly (60+)family members visit a health facility for a basic health check-up. A randomized impact evaluation found that:

20

a) Transfers were associated with significantly more visits to health clinics, especially in the first year. This is true overall and for the program’s target sub-populations: children and the elderly. Participating households were 5 percent less likely to be sick and children age 0-4 were 11 percent less likely to be sick. Health improvements due to the CB-CCT program are even more marked for the poorest households. In addition, participating households were much more likely to purchase health insurance by subscribing to the Tanzania Community Health Insurance Fund.

b) In education, the program showed clear positive impacts on whether children had ever attended school or if they completed Standard 7. The primary school completion effect is particularly striking for girls, who were 23 percentage points more likely to complete Standard 7 than comparison groups. In addition, literacy rates increased significantly for children who were out of school at baseline.

c) Other signs of improved well-being among beneficiary households include: a large impact on whether children own shoes (significant for health and school attendance), CB-CCT beneficiary households tend to purchase additional goats and chickens and had twice the likelihood of having non-bank savings versus control groups. CB-CCT households invested in more livestock assets. Focus groups revealed that households purchased chickens and other animals and used them to create businesses (e.g., selling eggs or chicks) or in order to have easily sellable, productive savings. The program did not significantly affect savings or spending on average, although the poorest half of households saw a five-fold, highly significant increase in non-bank savings.

iv. Community Savings and Investment Program (COMSIP) Training. In addition to these direct measures to improve the economic base of vulnerable households, the Capacity Enhancement component sought to promote savings and investment practices through training in formation of local savings and investment groups. TASAF only financed the training (in group formation, basic financial management, etc.). At end of the project, COMSIP facilitated formation of 1,778 savings groups with 22,712 individual savers. An earlier review had found an average mobilization of about $700 per group, with relending of about 79 percent of the saved amount to their members. An ex-post evaluation of COMSIP found that group members were gradually developing a culture of borrowing from own and group savings and repayment rate was high. Moreover, the practice of repaying promptly enabled other members to access loans and helped the sustainability of the groups.

21

3.3 Efficiency

58. Economic analysis of TASAF II investments is reviewed in Annex 3. Overall, economic efficiency was substantial as evidenced by:

a) For Service-Poor communities, sub-projects’ unit cost savings of between 19 and 153 percent were realized when compared to sectoral ministries and the National Construction Council’s standard costs for construction nationwide. The CDD approach was credited with these savings through community involvement in procurement and supervision and the avoidance of contractor overheads and profits.

b) For the safety net public works program, labor intensity requirements began with 40 percent and were subsequently raised to 50 percent, within international best practice for labor intensive public works programs. The daily wage rate also followed international best practice guidelines by being set at 10 percent below the prevailing labor market wages in the project area.

c) For the income-generating activities, measurement at 12 months found positive profits on average and large and significant increases in household assets, mainly increases in livestock (cows and pigs) as a result of animal husbandry IGAs.

3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating

Rating: Satisfactory 59. On the rating axes of relevance, achievement of PDOs and efficiency, the overall performance of TASAF II is satisfactory. The relevance of TASAF II remained substantial throughout, as reflected in both the Government and the Bank’s core policy and country strategy documents. TASAF II, via its public works program and conditional cash transfer pilot, has become the main vehicle for the national safety net system in Tanzania, to be scaled up through the follow-on Productive Social Safety Net Program. 60. TASAF II achieved its core Project Development Objectives (both original and revised) by increasing access to basic socio-economic services and income opportunities. The vast majority of the sub-project portfolio is operational and delivering benefits to the population. These outputs have led to improved household outcomes in many key areas, including increased food security as evidenced by greater food purchases and consumption, and improved health and education outcomes, among other impacts. In terms of key performance indicators, prior to project restructuring, of the 12 indicators, one could not be reported and for one other a proxy was used. All indicators reported showed substantial progress towards meeting project development objectives, although several of these were national sectoral and MDG targets (and thus one of the reasons for the restructuring of the KPIs). Following restructuring, eight of its 10revised project development outcome indicators were met or surpassed. Community demand for markets was 78 percent of the target. However, since these sub-project portfolio distribution targets are based on community demand that cannot be known ex-ante, they are indicative and not a reflection on project performance. In the remaining indicator, income was not measured for impact on vulnerable groups, however there was a substantial

22

increase in household asset accumulation, improving households’ economic standing which is the intent of the intervention. 61. Economic efficiency was substantial, as TASAF’s CDD approach delivered basic infrastructure at a lower cost than comparators, safety net parameters follow international guidelines for cost-efficiency, and initial assessments of IGAs found profits and asset accumulation.

62. It is worth emphasizing that several of the implementation challenges stemmed from the shocks experienced in Tanzania during project implementation, including the food, fuel and financial crisis that led to significant inflationary pressures on sub-project costs, as well as drought which raised vulnerability and affected communities economically and in water availability. The communities were affected to the extent that they were more concerned with survival that and were unable to meet the community contribution in most districts, hence the contribution rate was reduced. The two additional financing credits were an appropriate response to this situation and important in ensuring that project development objectives could be met. 63. Regarding the split evaluation rating, efficacy in meeting development objectives was substantial both prior to and following restructuring. Relevance and economic efficiency were substantial and consistent throughout the full implementation period. Therefore, the overall outcome rating for both the pre- and post-restructuring portions of TASAF II is rated as satisfactory. Using the split evaluation rating formula leads to an overall satisfactory rating, as per the following table:

Weighting of outcome ratings against original and revised project objectives

Against Original PDOs

Against Revised PDOs

Overall

Rating Satisfactory Satisfactory - Rating value 5 5 - Weight (% disbursed before/after PDO change) 57.2 % 42.8 % 100 % Weighted value (2 x 3) 2.86 2.14 5 Final rating (rounded) - - Satisfactory

3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts

(a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development

64. Poverty impacts. TASAF used a combination of geographical targeting, community-based targeting and self-targeting (through public works wage levels) to ensure that benefits reached poor households and communities. Geographical allocations were based on a funding formula comprised of a weighted score calculated from three criteria: population (40%), geographical size (20%), and poverty headcounts (40%). Since using these criteria alone could cause vast differences between district allocations, 25 percent of NVF was first deducted and distributed equally to all councils. The remaining amount was

23

then distributed using the composite index. Community-based targeting was used to identify local vulnerable households through the participatory planning and sub-project identification process. 65. Ex-post analysis confirmed that TASAF expenditures were concentrated among poorer districts, wards and communities. The poverty headcount index at the ward level has a statistically significant effect on the per capita funding received from TASAF. Although better-off areas were much more likely to produce sub-project applications, this was effectively neutralized by the pro-poor funding formula. For sub-projects that targeted households, such as the vulnerable group sub-projects, , the impact evaluation found that TASAF VG sub-projects were well-targeted to vulnerable populations with villages doing a good job of forming TASAF VG groups that are poorer than the eligible population in general. The CCT program targeted poor elderly and vulnerable children, with only 29 percent of the children residing in households with both parents. CCT households were very poor, with 94 percent having a mud floor and only 1 percent with access to electricity. 66. Gender impacts. Women were engaged in TASAF II both at the community level and in terms of their status as beneficiaries. For example, per program guidelines, women represented at least 50 percent of CMC membership.In Pemba it was declared all CMC treasurers should be women. The beneficiary assessment found that other communities often preferred women to hold the position of a treasurer claiming that they were ‘generally honest and not as daring as men to use community property without approval’. Most of the women focus groups in the beneficiary assessment revealed that TASAF’s approach was instrumental in ensuring their active participation in community affairs.

67. Women were also well-represented among TASAF II beneficiaries. Women represented 40 percent of safety net public works beneficiaries. The labor intensive techniques and below market wages helped promote women’s participation. For vulnerable group sub-projects, a rapid assessment found that 82 percent of beneficiaries were women, of which 44 percent were widows. In the CB-CCT pilot, the cash transfers were given to women. The qualitative assessment noted changes in household decision making processes due to the CB-CCT program, with greater mutual decision regarding the use of the money for the benefit of the household. For COMSIP for example that most of the saving groups were made up of women and there were increases in savings. 68. Social development. The project promoted inclusiveness. TASAF II targeted certain specific vulnerable groups through the income-generating activities, includingthe elderly, people with disabilities, widows, orphans, and those affected by HIV/AIDS. This inclusiveness, along with greater control over decisions and resources at the LGA and village council level through the CDD approach, helped promote local empowerment. The beneficiary assessment found that TASAF II interventions involved heterogeneous sections of the community in terms of cultural, political, social and economic aspects. People perceived that this unity for a common goal transcended other community differences.

24

(b) Institutional Change/Strengthening

69. Capacity enhancement activities were a key factor in achieving the desired project outcomes. Capacity enhancement activities targeted implementing agencies at the national, regional, local and community levels to increase their ability to effectively identify and implement community investments. During TASAF II, 244,715 people went through various training sessions, including 238,495 community members, 5,891 local government officials, and 329 national level officials of TASAF and other central agencies (Annex 2). 70. At the national level, TASAF is viewed as one of the more effective Government agencies and the lead agency in terms of national programs that work directly at the village and community level. The role of the central government was strengthened through the participation of the technical expert’s team in ensuring that sector norms and standards were adhered to. There was also strong and active engagement of the National Steering Committee and active engagement of the Ministry of Finance and in particular the Permanent Secretary /Secretary to the Treasury and his team. This kept the national level oversight strong.

71. TASAF’s CDD capacities resulted in TASAF attracting an additional US$33.6 million, allowing the financing of an additional 6,037 subprojects in 1,400communities.This‘ring-fenced’ funding was provided by the Marine and Coastal Environment Management Project (MACEMP), Participatory Forest Management (PFM) a sub-component under Tanzania Forest Conservation and Management Project (TFCMP), Community AIDS Response Fund (CARF) sub-component of the Tanzania Commission For Aids (TACAIDS), Community AIDS Response Fund (CARF), sub-component of Zanzibar AIDS Commission (ZAC), and Tanzania Poverty Reduction Project (TPRP) under the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). 72. The capacity built at the central level also allowed TASAF to pilot different approaches to social protection, including the first conditional cash transfer program in the country which led to the preparation of the PSSN in TASAF III. The experience with labor intensive public works, cash transfers and support to vulnerable groups helped establish in TASAF an institutional platform for the scaling up of a national safety net system, to be carried out in the follow-on operation. 73. TASAF II sought to support LGAs, including wards and villages. TASAF provided training, equipment and hands-on experience with implementation of a CDD program and, for many LGAs, an initial experience with safety net programs. In addition, they were exposed to procurement, facilitation, monitoring and supervision skills, applicable to a broad range of their development responsibilities. TASAF I worked directly with the communities by-passing the district and the village councils. The high degree of staff turnover and limited resources at the LGA level was a continuing challenge.TASAF II further reinforced local government by channeling resources through the nascent LGA fiscal decentralization systems as they became available.

25

74. At the community level, the CDD approach builds capacity through learning-by-doing, with direct responsibility for sub-project implementation vested in the CMCs. The project’s final impact assessment found that 59 percent of households respondents surveyed had been involved at different stages in subproject activities, for example participation in targeting process and prioritization sessions, provision of subproject implementation oversight, employed in public works and subproject management.The beneficiary assessment found that 83 percent of citizens were satisfied with the performance of the CMCs, with only 1 percent rating performance as poor. Training of CMCs in financial management and procurement procedures have enhanced financial transparency and accountability at the community level. 75. Addition capacity was built through the formation of four community foundations (Arusha, Kinondoni, Morogoro, and Mwanza City) which fund-raised over $250,000 from private sources for local needs. Local grants were given to support disables children, recycling efforts, health interventions (for example fistula operations), educational activities, and other local priorities. The CF was an intervention which TASAF II worked in close collaboration with the Social Development network.

(c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative) There were no significant unintended impacts. 3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops (optional for Core ICR, required for ILI, details in annexes) N/A

4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome

Rating: Moderate 76. At the highest levels, the risks to development outcomes are minimal. The Government remains committed to the mission and operations of TASAF as a core part of its national poverty reduction strategy and the centerpiece of its evolving national safety net system. Many of the main elements implemented under TASAF II, in particular the safety net elements of labor intensive public works, cash transfers, and community savings and investments promotion will be scaled up through the Productive Social Safety Net Program. At the community level, the assessment of sustainability of the infrastructure investments is largely positive, with some drawbacks in operations and maintenance in water and roads, though these account for a relatively small share of the overall portfolio. Because of these risks at the local level, the overall rating is moderate.

5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance

5.1 Bank Performance (a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry Rating: Satisfactory

26

77. From the outset, the Bank had a close working relationship with TASAF due to the experience of financing TASAF I. Design of the second phase was able to draw lessons from the experience phase I. In addition, the Bank played a key role in ensuring that international best practice on CDD and social funds was incorporated into the design of TASAF II. 78. The Bank ensured quality at entry through satisfactory technical, financial, social and economic appraisal. Risks were adequately assessed and mitigation measures identified. The monitoring and evaluation system as designed was satisfactory, albeit ambitious in terms of the intensity of participatory M & E mechanisms foreseen. The PDO could have been better worded to reflect the poverty reduction focus of the project. (b) Quality of Supervision

Rating: Satisfactory 79. Implementation support missions, including ex-post financial and procurement reviews were regularly held. With the Task Team Leader and fiduciary functions decentralized to the Country Office, the dialogue was continuous, rather than limited to discreet missions. A review of Aide Memoires and ISRs found that risks were appropriately identified and ratings were adjusted to reflect implementation challenges as they arose. 80. There were several particularly strong aspects to the Bank’s supervision efforts. The Bank was highly responsive to the needs of the country for emergency response to economic and natural shocks by processing two additional financing credits delivered in the same year in FY09/10. In addition, the Bank promoted innovation during implementation, including securing grant funding for the CB-CCT pilot and its impact evaluation as well as introducing expertise on community foundations. The Bank team was diligent in promoting TASAF’s participation in regional social protection training and experience-sharing events, including organizing south-south exchanges for the TASAF team twice to South Asia, and exposing them to similar social action fund programs in Malawi and Uganda; and through the community of Practice on CCT/UCT, TASAF has been one of the founding organizations in the Africa Region. The Bank team coordinated with other TTLs to channel resources through TASAF for ring-fenced activities. 81. Supervision had minor shortcomings. There were some delay in the start-up of the project due to delays in finalization of agreement on the Operational Manual, as well as occasional delays in no objections and difficulties in approving contracting of the national statistics agency for an impact evaluation, but overall these did not have a material effect on project outcomes. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance

Rating: Satisfactory The Bank’s role in ensuring both quality at entry and quality of supervision are both satisfactory, leading to an overall rating of satisfactory.

27

5.2 Borrower Performance

(a) Government Performance

Rating: Satisfactory 82. The project always received the highest level of support from the Government, from its launch by the President of the United Republic of Tanzania, the H.E Benjamin Mkapa, on May 23, 2005 to the designation of the follow-on operation, the Productive Social Safety Net as the cornerstone of the national safety net system. TASAF remained a key part of the Governments evolving national poverty reduction strategies throughout implementation of TASAF II. Counterpart funds were delivered in a timely fashion, with the actual amount expected reduced due to the fiscal constraints during the economic crisis. The Government decision to consolidate all development operations of local government agencies into only 6 accounts caused delays in execution during the final year of the project, but these delays did not affect final outcomes and were justified in the enhancement of the country’s fiscal decentralization framework. (b) Implementing Agency’s or Agencies’ Performance

Rating: Satisfactory 83. TASAF, as the management unit for the project, is acknowledged as one of the stronger implementing agencies in Tanzania. Because of this, TASAF attracted additional ring-fenced financing from other sources to implement its CDD approach in a variety of sectors. Implementation performance was rated satisfactory throughout TASAF II with the exception of two issues. In 2006, there were several key staff vacancies, like the Director of Finance, which took a relatively long time to recruit. However, recruitment was also dependent on World Bank no objection and formal approval through the Government personnel system, so timeframes were not fully within TASAF control. Towards the end of the project, implementation progress was again downgraded to moderately satisfactory facing the delays in disbursement brought about by the consolidation of local government accounts under the new fiscal system, also outside of the direct control of TASAF management. However, TMU were not aware that the LGAs were not sending funds to the communities until 6 months later. Ex-post procurement review and financial audits found few problems at LGA level, and those issues identified usually were addressed in a timely fashion. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance

Rating: Satisfactory 84. Despite minor shortcomings, the project was well-managed and achieved its development objectives. The project was considered one of the stronger performers in the Tanzania portfolio and had high levels of Government commitment throughout.

28

6. Lessons Learned

On the CDD approach:

85. The CDD approach was effective in bringing communities deeper into the development process, becoming agents for the changes they seek rather than passive recipients of aid. This increased satisfaction and transparency, helped forge community leadership, ownership and built capacities beyond the specific intervention. 86. Capacity building, through training, information campaigns and learning-by-doing, is essential in supporting the ability of poor communities to directly engage in their own development. Communities need simplified procedures, clear guidelines and effective technical support particularly from the local government level. 87. Demand-driven programs like TASAF need guidelines to correct against the inherent risk that better-off communities will be better at submitting proposals. This has been a common finding since the inception of such demand-driven programs and TASAF II implemented best practice by using a geographical resource allocation formula to ensure equity. This ensured that poorer districts and wards got more resources. 88. The integration with local governments and the national decentralization process should take a longer-term view given the timeframe needed to build capacity of local governments in weaker institutional environments and in the absence of sufficient fiscal decentralization to adequately fund local governments. 89. Integration with sector agencies is important. During TASAF I sector norms were not always followed and design of TASAF II included a sector experts’ team at the national level to ensure that the subprojects being funded were meeting sector norms and standards. The national Steering Committee approved funding only after receiving the sector experts recommendation. During implementation, the national level sector experts carried out monitoring to ensure that the district level sector experts were enforcing adherence to the sector norms. TASAF II funded interventions were seen as complementing the sectors to deliver on their mandates. This integration with sectors minimized any competition that would have been there had TASAF II implemented the project as a parallel entity direct with the communities. TASAF has been seen as complementing the sectors to deliver on their mandates.

In responding to shocks and building a national safety net: 90. The institutional and implementation arrangements for TASAF II were distinct at three levels: the national, district and community level. These arrangements have clearly informed the design of the country’s productive social safety net. The Government has indicated that TASAF is the entity chosen to champion CDD approach and implementation of safety nets in Tanzania. At national level and as a multi-sectoral intervention, TASAF is housed in the Office of the President, with technical oversight from the Ministry of Finance which coordinates Social Protection under its Poverty Eradication Division. TASAF II implementation has been through the decentralized Government structure from the National Steering Committee chaired by PMO, with representation from Regional Commissioners’ offices, and direct management by the

29

Local Government Authorities having technical oversight over the Village Councils. This arrangement has engendered more ownership which led to successful implementation of TASAF II. These same arrangements are in place for the productive social safety net as a government program. 91. TASAF II design was flexible and had developed robust systems that handled the scale-up response to the crises through the additional financings) and to opportunities through the ring-fenced arrangements). The TASAF II experience showed the importance of having safety net programs already in place that can be scaled up in response to shocks. TASAF’s ability to quickly put in place additional financing in the face of economic shocks and natural disasters was an important part of the national response. 92. Programs need to be flexible in responding to new circumstances resulting from such shocks For example, in the face of the food, fuel and financial crisis in 2009, communities found it difficult to come up with the required cash contribution, which became a drag on implementation. Reducing or waiving such requirements during times of crisis can improve response time during shocks. 93. TASAF II was one of the few community based conditional cash transfer programs in the world. This experience with grafting a CCT program onto the existing structures and operating procedures of a CDD program was successful in meeting program objectives while demonstrating that community management committees were capable of acting as effective safety net implementation agencies in poor communities. CMCs were able to provide greater transparency and more timely payments, both critical in a safety net program, than when public works were managed directly by LGAs in TASAF I. Under the follow-on PSSN, CMCs will continue to play this role in more remote localities, with a scale up of electronic cash transfers for areas where mobile phone networks are available. 94. Promoting savings and investment among vulnerable groups can be an important complement to safety net income transfer programs. The TASAF II experience with community savings and investment promotion showed that the poor were interested in and able to form savings groups and extend investment resources to their members, while developing basic financial literacy and basic skills.

95. Building an integrated national safety net system requires integration of its essential components, creating coordination and synergies. TASAF II established the basic effectiveness of cash-for work through labor intensive public works, conditional cash transfers and promotion of local savings groups. There were some linkages, for example through the unified local participatory planning and CMC/LGA structures and processes used, the synergies between income generation via public works and vulnerable groups and the establishment of community savings and investment groups. On the supply side the CCT programs require availability of schools and health services, strengthened through the community infrastructure sub-projects. The follow-on operation will take this integration to the next level, with other interventions including the Most Vulnerable Children program under the Department of Social Welfare in creating a unified registry of safety net beneficiaries for the country; developing case management

30

of households to ensure coverage in other programs; and establishing a common targeting mechanism among safety net interventions. The experience of TASAF II has created the basic institutional conditions and program experience to take this next step.

7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners

(a) Borrower/implementing agencies (b) Cofinanciers Not applicable (c) Other partners and stakeholders (e.g. NGOs/private sector/civil society) Not applicable

31

Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing

(a) Project Cost by Component (in USD Million equivalent)

Components Appraisal Estimate (USD millions)

Actual/Latest Estimate (USD millions)

Percentage of Appraisal

Original TASAF II

Additional Financing I

Additional Financing II

Total

National Village Fund

144.00 25.50 31.00 200.50 207.80 104%

Capacity Enhancement

34.50 4.50 4.00 43.00 54.00 126%

Total Project

Costs 178.50 30.00 35.00 243.50 261.80 108%

(b) Financing

Source of Funds

Appraisal Estimate (USD millions)

Actual/Latest Estimate

(USD millions)

Percentage of Appraisal

Original Additional Financing I

Additional Financing II

Total

Borrower 15.00 15.0 11.2 75% Local Communities 13.50 13.5 29.8 221%

International Development Association (IDA)

150.0

30.0

35.0

215.0

220.8 103%

Total 178.5 30.0 35.0 243.5 261.8 108%

33

Annex 2. Outputs by Component

Table 2a: Outputs created by sector, TASAF II and Ring-Fenced Sub-Projects

Sector/Assets NVF-Credit

NVF-Grant

AF - I AF - II SUB TOTAL

RING-FENCED SUB TOTAL

GRAND TOTAL OPEC-I OPEC-II MACEMP PFM ZAC

Education

Chairs 5,070 - - 653 5,723 117 4 - - - 121 5,844

Classrooms 4,389 - - 804 5,193 305 27 - - - 332 5,525

Desks 20,381 - - 2,742 23,123 1,518 92 - - - 1,610 24,733

dormitories/hostels 130 - - 35 165 8 - - - - 8 173

Libraries 11 - - 1 12 1 - - - - 1 13

Schools admin. Blocks

172 - - 24 196 13 2 - - - 15 211

secondary schools’ laboratories

138 - - 12 150 7 - - - - 7 157

Tables 4,011 - - 628 4,639 113 4 - - - 117 4,756

teachers’ houses 849 - - 66 915 75 9 - - - 84 999

teachers’ offices 129 - - 24 153 1 - - - - 1 154

toilet/pit latrine holes

2,402 - - 201 2,603 205 12 - - - 217 2,820

vocational training centres

4 - - - 4 - - - - - - 4

- - -

Health - - -

health facilities OPD/MCH)

444 - - 111 555 69 - - - 52 121 676

staff houses 258 - - 29 287 21 21 308

34

outpatient toilet holes

981 - - 72 1,053 6 - - - - 6 1,059

Incinerators 155 - 1 34 190 - 4 - - - 4 194

delivery beds 37 - - 2 39 2 - - - - 2 41

deep well - - - 1 1 - - - - - - 1

ultra sound machine 1 - - - 1 - - - - - - 1

- - -

Water - - -

domestic water points (public tapes)

1,016 - - - 1,016 - - - - - - 1,016

charcoal and water dams

26 - 14 17 57 - 7 1 - - 8 65

shallow/ deep wells and bore holes

825 - - 11 836 26 - - - - 26 862

cattle troughs 1 - 1 - 2 - - - - - - 2

gravity schemes 23 - 2 - 25 1 - - - - 1 26

water canals 2 - - - 2 - - - - - - 2

water pumps 95 - - 93 188 - - - - - - 188

water tanks 193 - 5 6 204 3 - - - - 3 207

wind mills 2 - - - 2 - - - - - - 2

- - -

Road - - -

km roads (rural and urban)

2,173 - 2,163 881 5,217 174 235 - - - 409 5,626

Bridges 45 - 17 1 63 2 - - - - 2 65

line and box culverts

677 - 140 57 874 25 2 - - - 27 901

Drifts 531 - 42 2 575 5 2 - - - 7 582

35

- - -

Marketing - - -

market buildings 56 - 2 15 73 7 - 7 - - 14 87

slaughter slabs 2 - - - 2 - - - - - - 2

- - -

Livestock - - -

Cattle 473 3,338 168 108 4,087 78 10 385 - 36 509 4,596

cattle deeps 3 - 3 - 6 - - - - - - 6

Goats 1,003 2,323 802 1,961 6,089 134 51 236 - 14 435 6,524

Pigs 335 1,925 65 114 2,439 102 - - - - 102 2,541

Poultry 47,025 170,084 4,013 - 221,122 1,080 3,924 27,640 300 14,900 47,844 268,966

Beehives 534 12,522 - 100 13,156 50 - 1,182 400 - 1,632 14,788

animal shelters 594 1,466 239 363 2,662 102 15 222 2 107 448 3,110

- - -

Social Welfare - - -

sets of carpentry equipment

35 119 - - 154 - - - - - - 154

day care centres 5 - - - 5 - - - - 10 10 15

milling machine houses

36 106 2 1 145 - - - - 7 7 152

milling machines 42 141 3 7 193 - - 1 - 1 2 195

tailoring machines 141 536 6 37 720 - - 10 19 22 51 771

social halls - 3 - - 3 - - - - - - 3

sets of welding machines

3 24 - - 27 - - - - - - 27

police post 1 - - - 1 - - - - - - 1

public toilets 54 - -- 54 12 - - - - 12 66

36

- - -

Food Security - - -

milling machines 23 29 - - 52 5 - - - 1 6 58

sets of farm implements

- 77 - - 77 - 74 - - - 74 151

primary products processing machines

- 40 - - 40 - - - - - - 40

milling machine shelters

2 2 - - 4 - - - - - - 4

Stores 12 - - - 12 - - - - - - 12

public toilets 12 - - - 12 - - - - - - 12

storage facilities 56 - 1 - 57 11 - 1 - 1 13 70

- - -

Irrigation - - -

water canals 3,226 - 1,533 666 5,425 - 19 - - 4 23 5,448

sim-tanks 6 - 1 - 7 - - - - - - 7

water pumps 95 - - 1 96 10 - 2 - - 12 108

main irrigation schemes

17 - 10 4 31 - 2 2 - - 4 35

- - -

Mining - - -

drilling machine - - - - - - - 1 - - 1 1

sets of mining equipment

- 60 - - 60 - - 9 - - 9 69

hectares of mining plots

1 2 - 2 5 - - 3 - - 3 8

sets of mining sorting tools

2 4 - - 6 - - 16 - - 16 22

protective gears 20 - - - 20 - - - - - - 20

37

- - -

Marine - - -

fishing boats 92 109 - - 201 2 - 334 1 1 338 539

cold rooms/cool boxes

9 22 - - 31 1 - 5 - - 6 37

fish collection sheds 33 88 - - 121 - - 253 1 - 254 375

fish ponds 20 14 - - 34 - - 236 - - 236 270

- - -

Forest Management

- - -

Beehives 3,751 40,719 - - 44,470 - 3 6,229 3,380 450 10,062 54,532

hectares of land conserved

55 88 5,134 12 5,289 - - - 59,556 - 59,556 64,845

planted trees 1,843,419 1,271,685 762,249 10,000 3,887,353 5,500 - 100,000 3,819,500 15,000 3,940,000 ,827,353

39

Annex 2b.Outputs of the Capacity Enhancement Component

Goods Acquired During TASAF II

Description Amount (USD)

Motor Vehicles 3,661,111.95

Office Equipment 914,134.31

Computers and Accessories 618,811.82

Furniture and Fittings 68,972.56

Plant & Machinery 132,221.57

Building & Other Civil Works 101,235.82

Total 5,496,488.02

Trainings and workshops conducted • 167,515 CMC member trained: Training in simple book and store keeping, subproject

management and procurement, subproject administration and supervision

• 107,087 VCs/MCs/SACs trained

• 1778 COMSIP groups and 22,712 individual savers trained financial records keeping and entrepreneurship

• 133 Environmental management officers oriented

• 245 VFCs and VFJAs trained in MIS

• 5,478 LGAs’ technical and Ward level extension staff trained on various aspects

• 30 Sector Expert Team members

• 113 TMU staff.

Studies and consultancies conducted under Capacity Enhancement component Study/consultancy Contracted to:

Beneficiary Assessment (BA) Study in TASAF II Operational Areas

M/s ACHRID Limited

Environmental and Social Audits in TASAF II funded Sub- Projects Areas

M/s Health and Environmental concerns limited

Technical audit for TASAF II supported sub-projects M/s Associates professional services (Kapsel) in association with G-Pes ltd

40

Study/consultancy Contracted to:

Technical audit in TASAF II operating areas M/s Don Consult Ltd in association with Netwas (T) Ltd, Dar es salaam, Tanzania

Rapid assessment of implementation of Public Works Program and Vulnerable Support

M/s ACHRID Limited

Impact Evaluation on support to Vulnerable Group Beneficiary

M/s Economic Development

Initiatives (EDI) ltd

Citizen Report Card M/S Public Affairs Foundation ,

Bangalore, India

Consultancy services for development of targeting and monitoring mechanism and defining eligibility Criteria

M/s ACHRID limited

Consultancy services for analysis to modifying the Public Works Program to increase labor intensity to 75 Percent

M/s. Wema Consult (T) Ltd

Consultancy services for assessment of the viability of the income Generating Activities Interventions Implemented in Tanzania

M/s Ecom Research group ltd

Assessment of institutional and implementation arrangements required at Local Government and community Level to implement TASAF III Interventions

M/s ACHRID limited

Study to determine requirements for the graduation system for Targeted Households and develop guidelines for the generosity of the Safety Net based on this assessment

M/s Unique consortium of the consultancy services limited (UCCS)

Assessment of TASAF Information Systems M/s Advantech consulting ltd

Conducting Community Score Card round one for CB-CCT Pilot program

M/s Public Affairs Foundation

Conducting Community Score Card second round for CB-CCT Pilot program

M/s public affairs foundation

Conduct TASAF II IEC Impact assessment in TASAF supported areas

M/s Unique Consortium of the Consultancy Services Limited (UCCS)

Assessment of the performance of the Four Pilot community foundations in Arusha, Kinondoni, Morogoro and Mwanza

M/s Daima Associates Limited

Impact assessment of the Service poor and Capacity enhancement (training and COMSIP) and PWP

M/s Achrid Limited

41

Study/consultancy Contracted to:

To conduct an institutional assessment study of TASAF M/s TISCO Consultants and Associates ltd

Process evaluation of the community based Conditional Cash Transfer (CB CCT) pilot program

M/s GESOC Agencia Para El Desorrollo A.C (GESOC A.C)

Assessment of IEC/CE materials for CB-CCT Pilot program

M/s Achrid Limited

Survey of household enterprises and group economic activities

M/s Institute of Management and Entrepreneurship and Development

Linkages of social protection interventions and process at community and district level

M/s Alpha and Omega Consulting Group Limited

Payment delivery systems ideal for application in TASAF - III

M/s Data works Associates Limited

42

Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis

(Including assumptions in the analysis) 96. Economic analysis of the service-poor community sub-projects and safety net public works program centers on cost efficiency, as a full cost-benefit analysis for these types of basic social services not appropriate. 97. Service-poor community sub-projects. To assess cost efficiency, TASAF’s unit costs of investment were compared with other basic social infrastructure programs operating in the country. This analysis helps to assess the relative efficiency of small-scale community infrastructure investments carried out by the communities using a CDD approach under TASAF versus more centralized implementation methods through, for example, the sectoral ministries.

98. The 2007 Technical Audit compared unit costs in the education and health sectors, the most prominent part of the TASAF portfolio. A sample of TASAF and non-TASAF projects were compared based on unit costs (cost per square meter), with measurements taken during site visits and scrutiny of the subproject financial records using costs post-completion. In addition, comparison was made with classrooms constructed under the Ministry of Education against the National Construction Council’s standards. Comparison was made with standard costs used by National Construction Council (NCC) of Tanzania. National Construction Council rates are based on the average construction cost for the projects all over the country. All educational and health facilities, even if executed by different institutions, are constructed based on standard designs of the respective ministries that guide the projects. The technical audit found:

Sector

TASAF cost per square meter

Min. Education cost per square meter

NCC standard costs

TASAF cost savings

Education

122,000 Tsh

145,000 Tsh

380,000 – 420,000

19% - 244%

Health

178,000 Tsh

N/A

430,000 – 450,000 141% - 153%

99. The TASAF construction costs were lower than comparators. The technical audit posits that one of the major reasons for this was community involvement in supervision and procurement procedures. The 2013 technical audit confirmed continued unit cost efficiency, again citing the role of avoiding contractor overhead and profits via the CDD implementation method. 100. Safety net public works projects. The cost efficiency of safety net public works programs typically depends on the level of labor intensity and the level of the wages paid.

43

At the outset, the minimum requirement was 40 percent. This was subsequently raised to 50 percent after the mid-term review. At the end of the project, the PWP operation was delivered at 47% of the total subproject budget accounting for the unskilled wages. In addition, the daily wage rate follows international best practice guidelines by being set below prevailing market rates. This increases the program efficiency and promotes self-targeting. The TASAF II wage rate was set at 10 percent below the prevailing labor market wages in the project area. 101. Income-generating activities for vulnerable groups. Several assessments were carried out on the Vulnerable Groups income-generating activities. All provided insights into the economic viability and impacts, though formal cost-benefit analysis was not carried out. The 2007 technical audit found that it was difficult to extract meaningful financial information for business performance assessment. From discussions held with CMCs the businesses seem to be profitable but faced risks of liquidity and loss problems due to lack of financial management skills. The more robust randomized impact evaluation was carried out on short-term effects, but still too short of a period to effectively assess business viability. Measurement at 6 months showed negative profits, indicating that the groups were still investing more resources to get their IGA going. Measurement at 12 months found positive profits on average and large and significant increase in household assets, mainly increases in cows and pigs as a result of animal husbandry IGAs.

44

Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes

(a) Task Team members

Names Title Unit Responsibility/ Specialty

Lending Francis Ato Brown Sector Manager, Water MNSSD Pascale Helene Dubois Evaluation and Suspension Officer OES Tseggai Elias Consultant AFTTR Lori A. Geurts Operations Analyst SASHN Matthew D. Glasser Lead Urban Specialist SASDU Muthoni W. Kaniaru Sr Counsel LEGFI Evelyne C. Kapya Program Assistant AFCE1 AmadouKonare Sr Environmental Specialist AFTEN Suleiman Namara Sr Social protection Specialist AFTSE NginyaMungaiLenneiye Country Manager AFMZW Ida Manjolo Sr Social Protection Specialist AFTSE Prasad C. Mohan Lead IEC Specialist AFTRL Donald Herrings Mphande Sr Financial Management Specialist AFTFM Norbert O. Mugwagwa Operations Adviser HDNED Krishna Pidatala Senior Operations Officer TWICT Mercy MataroSabai Sr Financial Management Specialist AFTFM Pascal Tegwa Senior Procurement Specialist AFTPC Hope C. Phillips Volker Senior Operations Officer EASHH

Supervision/ICR

Wim H. Alberts Sr Social Protection Specialist AFTH1 - HIS

Mary C.K. Bitekerezo Senior Social Development Specialist AFTCS

NginyamungaLenneiye Country Manager Serigne Omar Fye Consultant AFTSP Lori A. Geurts Operations Analyst SASHN Evelyne C. Kapya Program Assistant AFCE1 Jane A. N. Kibbassa Sr Environmental Specialist AFTEN Emmanuel G. Malangalila Consultant AFTHE Ida Manjolo Social Protection Specialist AFTSP

ZainabSemgalawe Senior Rural Development Specialist AFTAR

Blessing Manyanda Disbursement Asst. AFMZW Donald Paul Mneney Senior Procurement Specialist AFTPC Prasad C. Mohan Lead IEC Specialist AFTRL

Donald Herrings Mphande Sr Financial Management Specialist AFTFM

Norbert O. Mugwagwa Operations Adviser HDNED David MayalaMulongo Urban Specialist AFTUW Anne Muuna Team Assistant AFCE1

45

Suleiman Namara Sr Social Protection Specialist AFTSP Krishna Pidatala Senior Operations Officer TWICT Mercy Mataro Sabai Sr Financial Management Specialist AFTFM Pascal Tegwa Senior Procurement Specialist AFTPC AnjuVajja E T Consultant IEGSE Agnes Nderakindo Mganga Team Assistant AFCE1

(b) Staff Time and Cost

Stage of Project Cycle Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only)

No. of staff weeks USD Thousands (including travel and consultant costs)

Lending FY04 186.62 FY05 267.57 FY06 0.00 FY07 0.00 FY08 0.00

Total: 454.19 Supervision/ICR

FY04 0.00 FY05 86.60 FY06 145.02 FY07 149.96 FY08 137.58

Total: 519.16

46

Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results

(if any) N/A

47

Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results

Not Applicable.

48

Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT (ICR)

For The

Tanzania Second Social Action Fund (TASAF II) (2005 to 2013)

Dar Es Salaam August 2013

49

TANZANIA SECOND SOCIAL ACTION FUND (TASAF II) IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT (ICR)

1.0 Background 102. Tanzania had instituted a number of policies and strategies aimed at reducing poverty in the country. Despite the efforts, poverty remained rampant, particularly in rural and peri-urban areas. Poverty in Tanzania is characterized by low income, falling life expectancy, poor social and economic infrastructure and food insecurity. Accordingly, the main development challenge for the government is widespread poverty which as per 2000/01 Household Budget survey, indicated 19% of the population living below the food poverty line while 36% living below the basic needs poverty line.

103. Enrollment in primary school stands at an average of 100% but secondary school enrollment is still low due to inadequate infrastructure that support a relatively small number of entrants compared to those who finalize primary education. Further, on the health indicators, (maternal and infant mortality, malaria-related morbidity, and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (HIV/AIDS) -related illness), rates remain high in spite of the efforts that have so far been exerted by the government, Development Partners and NGOs. As such, achieving the MDGs indicators remained a challenge to the government that needed additional resources and efforts to reach them.

104. It is against this background that the Government sought to implement the Second Phase of Tanzania Social Action Fund (TASAF II) to all Local Government Authorities to strengthen the gains that had been established under TASAF I, which was implemented in selected 40 districts in Tanzania Mainland and in Unguja and Pemba in Zanzibar and to achieve MDGs indicators as elaborated in the National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP) popularly known as MKUKUTA and Zanzibar Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (ZSGRP) popularly known as MKUZA from its Kiswahili acronym

1.1 TASAF II Development Objective 105. The Project Development Objective (PDO) of TASAF II was to empower communities to access opportunities so that they could request, implement, and monitor sub projects that contribute to improve livelihoods linked to MDG indicator targets in the Tanzania Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS). The target groups to benefit from the designed Project were i) households with limited access to and use of specified service packages; ii) vulnerable individuals that needed assistance; and iii) food insecure households with limited employment opportunities. TASAF II was to be implemented for the period of five years from May, 2005 to June 2010.

50

106. During Mid Term Review (MTR) which started in November 2007 and concluded in March 2008 the Government of Tanzania (GOT) and World Bank (WB) agreed to rephrase the PDO in order to align it with the Project focus rather than the Government level without changing its meaning. The Government level objective is broad; the project level objective ought to be at lower level and more focused reflecting project contribution to the Government level objective. Therefore the PDO was rephrased to read, “To improve access of beneficiary households to enhance socioeconomic services and income-generating opportunities”. Even the Additional Financing I and II which came after MTR did not change the PDO since they were implemented within the same framework and hence TASAF II implementation period was extended to June 2013.

107. Project Appraisal Document (PAD) of 27th October 2004 and Project Operational Manual of 5th October 2005 which was revised in March 2008, and Financing Agreement dated 19th January, 2005 states the PDO of the project. However, Program Paper of 27th May 2009 and Project Paper of 13th May 2010 have a slightly different PDO reflecting the change.

2.0 Institutional Set Up and Project Components 2.1 Institutional Set Up 108. TASAF II was located in the President’s Office-State House as it was in the First Phase, The President appointed the TASAF Executive Director who was in charge of day-to-day management of TASAF implementation. As well, he appointed the National Steering Committee (NSC), which was responsible for policy guidance and overall implementation oversight. The NSC had 12 members drawn from Permanent Secretary, Vice President’s Office; and representatives from the: Vice President’s Office; Ministry of Finance; Ministry of Community Development, Gender and Children; President’s Office Regional Administration and Local Government; Ministry of Labour, Youth Development and Sports; Chief Minister’s Office from Unguja and Pemba;; Presidential Trust Fund for Self Reliance; Research on Poverty Alleviation; President Office – State House. 109. In the course of implementation, the project secured Additional financing I &II, as a result two more NSC members were added; representative of financial institutions and representative of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives. 110. TASAF Management Unit was established led by the Executive Director. At the National level, consultants were engaged to strengthen financial management, procurement, internal audit, monitoring and evaluation, management information system, research, training, and development communication. This team formed the core of a Management Unit (MU), whose primary function was to disburse funds to the CMC directly, or via the “Mfuko Wa Kijiji” (MWK), or to the MWK via the LGA, once the requests had been reviewed by the SET and endorsed for funding by NSC. The MU also coordinated the provision of capacity enhancement interventions in response to demands from LGAs and communities.

51

111. All LGAs were strengthened to address issues of participatory planning, subproject appraisals, approvals, monitoring, and evaluation using 2.5% of NVF sub-project contributions, which was increased to 3.5% after MTR on the ground that the initial allocation was inadequate to address aforementioned issues. Upon meeting access criteria, the LGAs received a further 5% of NVF contribution to finance supervision during implementation, and the funds were also used to hire Local Service Providers (LSP) to assist with technical supervision of subprojects where there was a shortage of skills within the LGA. Vehicles, computers, and other supplies were provided to the LGAs from the CE component for the oversight function and there were provisions for the LGAs to demand capacity strengthening funds from NVF for the successful facilitation of the Community Subproject Cycle (CSPC). The 42 TASAF Accounts Officers were re-assigned with the responsibility of providing support on fiduciary as well as implementation issues to the Cluster of LGAs as Village Funds Systems Auditors (VFSAs) who were later re-categorized as Finance and Operation Officers (FOOs). 112. Within the LGAs, Ward-level extension staffs were also capacitated from the LGAs so that they could respond to the technical needs of Village Governments and communities in the implementation of subprojects as an extension of the LGA. 113. TASAF resources at Village Government were made available to strengthen the implementation of accountability measures at that level over the use of resources. All subprojects approved for NVF funding, 2.5% of the NVF contributions were provided for use by Village Council (VC) to facilitate, monitor and report on adherence to CSPC which was later decreased to 1.5%. For LGAs that were not LGCDG compliant, a further 5% of NVF total contribution was made available to the VC. 114. At the Community level, each Community Management Committee (CMC) was given training and other support needed in the implementation of subprojects. The CMCs were better equipped to ensure that they play their roles in assisting poor communities, the vulnerable, poor households, and potential savers to access NVF resources.

2.2 Project Components 2.2.1 National Village Fund (NVF) Component (Total US$144 million, IDA

US$120million, Government US$12 million, Communities US$12 Million) 115. The NVF Component provided money to a Village level fund, Mfuko wa Kijiji/Shehia/Mtaa (MWK), as the principal input for households to produce outputs that would improve service availability and use, in health, roads, education, water and sanitation, markets etc. as well as incomes for the able-bodied individuals in poor households by working in NVF-financed public works programs, and assistance to households, with vulnerable individuals which included but not limited to, orphans, disabled, elderly, affected/ infected by HIV/AIDS. Beneficiaries were facilitated to identify priority needs, design interventions, and prepare proposals that NVF financed in the form of subproject grants given to MWK. TASAF II resources for NVF were allocated globally to the LGAs/Unguja and Pemba on the basis of a formula that included

52

population (40%), poverty (40%), and geographical area (20%) for funding subprojects. An element of equity, 25%, was applied prior to utilizing the allocation formula. Local Government Authorities (LGAs) approved subprojects for funding from the NVF meeting the following conditions: (a) have been generated from communities through an E-PRA process, (b) meet the stipulated minimum community contributions, and (c) are in line with sector norms and standards. Any subprojects outside these criteria were ineligible to receive financing from the NVF.

2.2.2 Capacity Enhancement (CE) Component (Total US$34.5, IDA US$30 Million, GOT US$3.0 million, Communities US$l.5 million) 116. The CE component provided resources for community mobilization as well as the monitoring and evaluation of activities financed from the NVF component; the main outputs being the number of subprojects completed in a satisfactory manner. Support was also given to individuals interested in the formation of voluntary savings groups of at least 10 members. 117. Under the CE component, beneficiaries were agencies (public and private) that supported communities to make the best use of resources made available under the NVF, as well as poor individuals participating in group savings and taking advantage of investment opportunities created by various private-public partnerships. The CE component responded also to LGAs where various agencies needed capacity to support Village Governments implement subprojects using the CSPC. This component complemented activities funded by the Local Government Support Program (LGSP) at the LGA levels. 118. The CE activities supported the NVF by (a) facilitation of the processes of the NVF; (b) capacity enhancement to LGAs; (c) the promotion of savings by the poor as a way of equipping them with tools to better manage social risks and respond to shocks; and (d) demand driven capacity enhancement to NVF stakeholders. 119. To facilitate the stakeholders in making contributions to the implementation of interventions through the CSPC, a key aspect of the CE regarding transparency and accountability was implemented. This included raising awareness concerning the rules of access to the NVF, as well as the systems necessary to monitor and evaluate the NVF, and the publication of these findings.

3.0 Assessment of the Project 120. This section assesses the PDO and design principles in the context of the Government of Tanzania (GOT) development priorities and prevailing conditions at the design stage. The assessment of the implementation is done in light of the overall Project performance and the achievement of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) which were agreed upon.

3.1 Project components 121. The National Village Fund (NVF) was implemented pursuant to local government act of 1982 whereby decision making was vested upon the local governments at lower

53

and district level (District Councils, Village/Mtaa/Shehia Assemblies). Apart from identification of subprojects which was done by beneficiary communities, the approval of the same was done by the village councils and/or Planning and Finance Committee at district level depending on the threshold of specific subprojects. NVF was in compliance with the government policy on decentralization whereby decision making was vested to local level authorities. Likewise NVF decentralized fiduciary responsibilities to local level authorities by disbursing directly to the lower level of government authorities. This is in line with the government policy of decentralization by devolution. TASAF II locus was the Village, the Shehia and Mtaa aimed at giving the poor the voice and access to resources held in NVF. The resources were availed to the communities to finance their priorities in sub project managed by Community Management Committee (CMC) of their choice on the one hand, and empowering them to demand technical support from Village Councils/Shehia Advisory Councils as well as LGA/Island Management Team on the other hand. 122. TASAF spearheaded the CDD approach through the implementation of the ring-fenced funds in the amount of US$ 47 million from Tanzania Multi sectoral AIDS Program (TMAP) (Zanzibar AIDS Commission (ZAC) and Tanzania Commission for AIDS (TACAIDS), Marine and Coastal Environmental Management Project (MACEMP), OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID) (Lindi and Mtwara regions), Participatory Forest Management (PFM) and the Community Based – Conditional Cash Transfer (CB- CCT) Pilot Project. The ring fenced funds arrangement enabled TASAF II to reach more vulnerable individuals and communities and increase opportunities for meeting the PDO. 123. Capacity Enhancement component provided awareness sessions at all levels which enabled the public to know what the project was all about, target beneficiaries, principles, procedures, access rules, and governance and accountability aspects. It trigged various communities to express their interest based on their felt development needs which were expressed through Subproject Interest Form (SPIF). 124. The component also provided technical skills to key LGA and Ward level staff and Community Management Committees in order to provide required technical assistance to communities implementing subprojects, COMSIP where establishment of savings groups was enhanced. The component facilitated improved participation in decision making, improved governance and accountability aspects.

3.2 Project Design 125. The Project design did not change the CDD approach throughout the project life. The implementation followed key principles, namely: autonomous but operating in harmony with other on-going initiatives within the Local Government Reform Program, in order to ensure sustainability of the Fund’s achievements; demand-driven and follows a bottom up planning and decision-making approach; finances community-initiated projects directly; acts as a safety net by targeting vulnerable households and poor communities; conform to sectoral norms and standards; non-partisan and apolitical; clear modalities to access the fund; delivery structure ensures speedy operations; adequate and

54

timely technical support; transparent and demonstrate full public accountability; processing and management are cost-effective; and strengthen community empowerment. 126. These principles were instrumental in bringing a sense of ownership, transparency and accountability across the TASAF stakeholders. IEC intensive campaigns and other capacity enhancement initiatives were used as instruments to disseminate these principles. The Beneficiary Assessment Study carried out in December, 2007 confirmed that the CDD approach was core in reaching the poor communities. The process has changed the community mind set from traditional top down to bottom up approach towards owning the process to identify, prioritize, design, implement and operate and maintain the subprojects and other development initiatives.

4.0 Project achievements 127. This section assesses the achievements that have been attained through implementation of activities for each component. The outputs from these components played a great role to the poor communities to access quality services that resulted in improving their well-being, which emanated from usage of social services and engagement in economic activities that they could not do before. In general the benefits acquired from the created assets and various trainings are immense. These included the improved livelihood through mobilized informal and formal mechanisms for responding to shocks, access to socio-economic services, improved learning and health environment and reduced distance to water, health, education and market facilities.

4.1 National Village Fund (NVF) 128. The target beneficiary groups that were supported under NVF component included: communities that lack access to basic social and market services; have able-bodied but food insecure households; and have vulnerable individuals (i.e. orphans, people with disability, elderly, affected/infected by HIV/AIDS, widows/widowers, Unemployed youths etc). 129. A total of 14,356 community subprojects applications were received from LGAs/Unguja and Pemba. However, only 8,480 (baseline 1,483) subprojects were processed and endorsed by NSC for funding, its distribution across beneficiary groups was: 3,764 service poor, 1,683 food insecure and 3,033 vulnerable groups. The achievement in terms of number of subprojects has surpassed the projected target of 7,400 sub-projects by 15 percent. 130. CB-CCT achievement was realized whereby a total of 11,576 households with 28,480 individual beneficiaries were supported. The plan was to reach 22,582 individual beneficiaries, by the end of the pilot programme. Therefore, the target has been surpassed by 26 percent. In sum, TZS 4.0 Billion cash benefits were transferred to beneficiaries in three pilot LGAs. Initially the CB-CCT was piloted as a standalone under the CE Component, while, its moderate expansion during preparation of AF I was placed under NVF Component.

55

131. The over achievement of NVF Component was attributable to (i) more resources being available through Additional financing (AF I and AF II) and (ii) currency exchange gains between the Special Drawing Rights and US Dollar. AF I and AF II funded 2,305 subprojects and under ring fenced arrangement 3,867 subprojects were supported representing 19 percent and 31 percent of all funded subprojects, respectively. 132. Under education sector, facilities and assets created and the baseline were as follows: 5,193 classrooms (baseline 2,586), 153 teachers’ offices (baseline 468), 915 teachers’ houses (baseline 335), 150 secondary schools’ laboratories (baseline 18), 165 dormitories/hostels (baseline 13) and 196 schools administration blocks (baseline 26). Other created facilities and assets were 2,603 toilet/pit latrine holes, 12 libraries, 4,639 tables, 5,723 chairs, 23,123 desks and 4 vocational training centres. 133. Under health sector, facilities and assets created and the baseline were as follows: 555 health facilities (health centres and dispensaries OPD/MCH) (baseline 312), 287 staff houses, 1,053 outpatient toilet holes, 190 incinerators, 39 delivery beds, 1 deep well and 1 ultra sound machine. 134. Under water sector, facilities and assets created and the baseline were as follows: 1,016 domestic water points (public tapes) (baseline 650), 57 charcoal and water dams, 836 shallow and deep wells and bore holes, 2 cattle troughs, 49 drainage systems, 25 gravity schemes, 2 water canals, 188 water pumps, 204 water tanks and 2 wind mills. 135. Under roads sector, assets created and the baseline were as follows: 5,217 km roads (rural and urban) (baseline 2,174 km.), 63 bridges, 874 line and box culverts, 575 drifts and 3,169 drainage systems. 136. Under market sector, facilities and assets created and the baseline were as follows: 73 market buildings (baseline 16), 2 slaughter slabs and 113 food storage facilities. Under livestock sector, created assets were as follows: 4,087 cattle, 6 cattle deeps, 6,089 goats, 2,439 pigs, 221,122 poultry, 13,156 beehives and 2,662 animal shelters. 137. Under social welfare sector, facilities and assets created were as follows: 154 sets of carpentry equipment, 15 day care centers, 145 milling machine houses, 193 milling machines, 720 tailoring machines, 3 social halls, 27 sets of welding machines, 1 police post and 54 public toilets. 138. Under food security sector, facilities and assets created were as follows: 52 milling machines, 77 sets of farm implements, 40 primary products processing machines, 4 milling machine shelters, 12 stores, 12 public toilets and 57 storage facilities. Under irrigation sector, assets created were as follows: 5,425 water canals (baseline 11), 7 sim-tanks, 96 water pumps and 31 main irrigation schemes.

56

139. Under mining sector, facilities and assets created were as follows: 60 sets of mining equipment, 5 hectares of mining plots, 6 sets of mining sorting tools and 20 protective gears. 140. Under marine and fisheries sector, facilities and assets created were as follows: 201 fishing boats, 31 cold rooms/cool boxes, 88 fish collection sheds and 34 fish ponds. Under forest management sector, facilities and assets created were as follows: 44,470 beehives, 5,289 hectares of forest conserved and 3,887,353 planted trees.

4.2 Capacity Enhancement (CE) Component 141. The objectives of CE component were to promote transparency and accountability in the management of TASAF funded activities at all levels; promote formation of voluntary savings groups; and enhance capacities of communities and other stakeholders. Communities, sectors and other recognized stakeholders were capacitated to access and make the best use of resources made available under NVF component, to implement activities that contributed towards achievement of NSGRP’s targets. 142. Staff of TASAF Management Unit and LGAs’s technical staff involved in the management of TASAF supported activities benefited from project financed trainings to improve their capacities. LGAs’ technical staffs, community management committees, village council’s members, beneficiaries and other stakeholders were provided with various types of trainings, such as subproject management, simple book-keeping/business plans, procurement and store keeping. Other trainings were; subproject write ups, community score cards, citizen report card, auditing, financial management, monitoring and evaluation, among others. 143. The project procured Motor vehicles, ICT equipment, generators, IEC equipment, Air Conditioners, furniture etc and distributed them to facilitate implementation. 144. A total of 218,576, individuals have been reached with training and support at national, LGA and community levels as follows; 30 SET members, 113 TMU staff, 124,575 (22,687 Baseline) CMC Members, 88,380 Village Council Members, 5,478 LGAs’ technical and Ward level extension staff. 145. According to internal monitoring reports, CE component facilitated formation of 1,778 Voluntary savings groups under Community Savings and Investment Promotion (COMSIP), with 22,712 individual savers, from 44 LGAs and Zanzibar (Unguja and Pemba)., Groups’ savings accumulated to TZS 711 Million, of which TZS 499 Million were given out as loans and its repayment rate stood at 78 percent. Groups were provided with cash boxes, ledgers, cash books, register books, individual passbooks etc. Types of trainings provided included; group formation and management, basic financial management and book keeping and record keeping, business plans and entrepreneurship skills, borrowing and loan management, and other specialized trainings. Beneficiaries of COMSIP benefited from loans given out; consequently, they were able to establish small individual income generating activities, such as petty businesses, rice production, Vegetable growing, cassava growing, poultry keeping and the like.

57

146. Under CE Component there was a research window whereby new initiatives were piloted and tested in order to inform future interventions design. Three initiatives were piloted, namely; CB-CCT (piloted in three LGAs of Kibaha, Bagamoyo and Chamwino), CFs (piloted in Arusha and Mwanza City Councils, Morogoro and Kinondoni municipal councils) and Carbon financing. 147. Community Foundations (CFs) concept was introduced by TASAF to four urban communities of Arusha, Kinondoni, Morogoro and Mwanza in 2006 and 2007. These are independent organizations governed by local boards with members drawn from local Government, business community and civil society. They seek philanthropic contributions primarily from inside the community, build capital endowment and provide grants to support a variety of projects identified and implemented by local citizens. Reasons for establishment of CFs included: tapping extra resources for the development of poor communities and empowering them; Capacity utilization and enhancement; and improving governance. 148. The CFs raised funds accumulated to equivalent of US$ 125,582, (Kinondoni CF (KMCF) US$ 33,000; Morogoro Municipal CF (MMCF) US$ 45,660; Arusha City CF (ACCF) US$25, 740 and Mwanza City CF (MCCF) US$21,182). The CFs provided grants amounting to US$47,460, of which Kinondoni CF provided grant of US$ 7,692 for surgeries of 25 fistula patients at CCBRT Disability Hospital in Dar es Salaam; Morogoro CF US$ 3,273 to seven needy groups for initiated projects: Environment cleanliness, Elderly services, centralized environmental conservation through primary school pupils, Environmental cleanliness coupled with waste recycling to organic manure, Empty cans recycling and Support to disabled children; Arusha CF US$ 7,030 to 168 orphaned and vulnerable children in secondary schools and Mwanza CF US$ 6,925 to support training of six students in South Korea and treatment of the sick. CFs provided support to flood victims.

5.0 Assessment of outcomes 5.1 Relevance of the Project 149. The project was highly relevant to Tanzania’s National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of poverty (NSGRP) popularly known by its Kiswahili acronym as MKUKUTA. Also the project design took into consideration the country’s local context and in line with existing Government’s policies and strategies. The project provided benefits to the poor households that under the macro-economic reforms could not get the impact of the economic recovery.

5.2 Achievement of PDO 150. The project has achieved its development objective and the outcome is rated satisfactory. The project managed to put in place mechanism of identifying beneficiaries and hence was able to allocate resources to the most poor communities and to the most poor areas as evidenced by Impact assessment of SP, PWP intervention and Capacity Enhancement (Training and COMSIP) Report (June, 2013). According to the report on

58

Short-term Impacts of TASAF II VG component (2011); procedures for selection of the poor communities, households and individuals as direct beneficiaries were put in place which, as such, provided bases for targeting recourses to the poorest areas in the country as well as identifying poor households as beneficiaries of the `project.

151. The project contributed to improved availability, use, and access to basic social services by beneficiaries. With regard to contributing to capacity building it provided resources to facilitate training that led to development of capacities at community, LGA and national levels. TASAF II beneficiaries have substantially benefited from interventions by improving their livelihood and the benefits are as elaborated below: 152. Education sector: There has been a noticeable impact, such as improved learning environment through the provision of permanent classroom blocks and furniture, which led to improvement of student classroom ratio from 1:70 to 1:45; increased teacher motivation as a result of improved housing conditions; and reduced distances to schools. It also increased enrolment especially in secondary schools since it coincided with the national drive to build more ward secondary schools in order to absorb more primary schools leavers. Pupils’ attendance increased due to fencing of school buildings which minimised truancy and absenteeism. Construction of classrooms and dormitories has increased more number of students especially girls to join ward secondary schools .As unintended impact some community members around schools have established Income Generating Activities (IGA) for examples; shops, food vending, recharging mobile phones etc. 153. However, the quality of education is a combination of various factors such as availability of teachers for all subjects, books etc. As a nation, it has not reached a point of having all these requirements to a satisfactory level due to shortage of resources; as well TASAF could not support all communities due to the same reason. The government has instituted some measures to address these challenges. For instance to increase the number of teachers for primary and secondary schools, enrollment of teacher trainees in colleges has been increased for the coming five years. The Government has allocated more funds for purchase of text and reference books. Through annual budget allocation, the Government will continue gradually avail necessary conditions to ensure that services are availed to its optimal level as per sector standards and norms. 154. Health sector: Key health impacts as a result of the interventions include: easy access of health services including, emergency cases within a short distance and throughout the day and night time, specifically where staff houses are available, reduced use of traditional birth attendants, decreased referral cases for pregnant mothers due to availability of delivery services, deaths of mothers and babies has been reduced due to improved delivery services at an appropriate time, improved mother and child health as a result of readily available immunization, nutrition education and child general care as well as family planning provided at health facilities, reduced distances for outreach health programs as beneficiaries especially pregnant mothers and children can access the services at health facilities within short distances.

59

155. The target was to increase access to health services to a total of about 10.5 million people. The current status shows that a total of 12.0 million people have access to improved health facilities supported by the Project. The target has been surpassed by 15%. 156. Road sector: The impacts as a result of the interventions, as confirmed by Impact assessment of SP, PWP intervention and Capacity Enhancement (Training and COMSIP) Report (June,2013) include: Sick people and pregnant mothers can now easily access services to health facilities in case of emergencies due to existence of passable feeder roads, economic activities have been stimulated due to accessible roads; examples: traders from outside beneficiary areas are coming to buy crops in areas which were formerly inaccessible due to lack of roads, transportation has become much easier because vehicles e.g. pick-ups, motor cycles (popularly known as ‘Boda boda’) can use the roads even during rainy seasons; improved housing due to easy transportation of building materials and land value has become relatively high in project areas since they are now accessible. 157. The number of people with access to all weather roads has significantly increased from baseline. As well, the end-of-project target has been surpassed by 26 percent from 2.8 million to 3.5 million people. Improvement of roads enables communities to get access to other services that are found away from their own localities such as hospitals, schools, markets, trade between villagers and people outside the villages. 158. Market sector: The services from markets enable communities to sell their produce from time to time, as well as buy items from other places brought by other people who are interested in doing business with respective community members. In addition, the markets are good sources of revenue through taxes for the local governments, leading to further improvement of other services 159. People with access to market services have gradually increased to 270,000 this period from 48,000 in 2005, an increase of over 500 percent. Though, the end of the project target of 348,182 people is yet to be reached because many communities did not consider markets as their pressing needs. However the target was over achieved by 29 percent in the indicator by number of markets constructed/renovated. 160. Water sector: The creation of water facilities close to beneficiaries’ dwellings means less time spent for fetching water and hence more time have been available for other socio economic activities. Some community members have been contracted to collect water user fees, improved gender relations at households’ level and source of income for O&M management. Part of user fees from water used to support MVCs e.g. scholastic materials and the like. 161. The target was to increase access to improved water sources to 1.3 million people by end of the Project. The current status shows the achievement towards this target has been surpassed by 27% by reaching about 1.7 million people. By mid-term, people with access to improved water sources had reached more than half of people at the baseline year.

60

162. Irrigation sector: Irrigation schemes provided beneficiaries employment in agricultural activities throughout the year. Increased food productivity since they provided reliable sources of water throughout the year. 163. The population with access to irrigation facilities has shown a very big increase from only 33,000 people in 2005 to 744,000 people in 2013. The target has been surpassed by 200 percent. Between the project effectiveness and mid-term, the increase was moderate (about 340 percent) but the increase from mid-term to date has been significantly on the higher side. The access is important in addressing the challenges on food security. In many areas, the beneficiaries are engaged in agricultural activities for more than one season and the productivity per acre has increased. 164. Sanitation: There has been (i) reduced incidence of water borne diseases (ii) good sanitation facilities created in health and education sector and (iii) hygiene education. 165. In this aspect 907,224 people have access to improved sanitation through constructed drainage systems and toilet facilities in education sector. The implementation has surpassed the set target of 889,250 by 2 percent.

Efficiency 166. During implementation cost effectiveness was ensured by provision to communities of standard design and specifications drawings, subject menu, standard Operational Bill of Quantities (OBoQs). The Technical Audit Report, (October, 2007), confirmed that the project has created assets of good quality that meets required standards in a cost effective manner. 167. Unit cost of construction of TASAF supported subprojects was compared with that of similar projects implemented with similar approach. The unit cost of constructing classrooms supported by TASAF is Tshs 125,000 per square meter as compared to Tshs 158,000 per square meter by MMES or Tshs 380,000 – Tshs 420,000 per square meter by National Construction Council (NCC) standards. Also the unit cost of constructing dispensaries supported by TASAF is Tshs 160,000 per square meter as compared to Tshs 430,000 – Tshs 450,000 by NCC standards. TASAF construction costs are lower when compared to other similar projects. There are several reasons for this trend but community involvement in supervision and procurement procedures have influenced lowering the costs. 168. In addition, the delivery cost of TASAF II original Project was only 11% of the overall cost of the Project which is 14 % less than the threshold (25%). That indicates the extent to which TASAF implementation has been very efficient in resources utilization by lowering the administrative costs. The able below shows the breakdown:

61

Table 1 (a) Break down of delivery cost

Category of Expenditure

Revised Allocation Final Absorption Final

(In USD) %age (In USD) %age NVF Vs.

CE

1-A Food Insecure Households 8,090,609.00 22.9 8,074,619.06 22.8

88.7

1-B Vulnerable Groups 3,053,060.00 8.7 3,047,003.02 8.6

1-C Service Poor Communities 20,150,196.00 57.1 20,298,636.26 57.3

1-D Cash Transfer - - - -

2 Goods - - - -

11.3

3 Consultants' Services 1,526,530.00 4.3 1,950,094.96 5.5

4 Training 255,918.00 0.7 285,872.28 0.8

5 Operating Costs 2,186,530.00 6.2 1,755,080.09 5

6 Un allocated - - - -

DA-A - - - -

35,262,843.00 100 35,411,305.67 100 100

After additional financing II the delivery costs were increased to 21.4 % which is again lower than the threshold of 25%. The revised allocation together with actual cost is summarized in the table below; Table 2 (b): Break down of delivery cost


Revised Allocation

CR 40020 TA /H1340 46360 TA 47410 TA TOTAL %age

1-A Food Insecure Households 10,656,882.50 17,097,136 8,090,609.00 35,844,627.50 16.1

78.5

1-B Vulnerable Groups 11,281,517.50 5,079,590 3,053,060.00 19,414,167.50 8.7

1-C Service Poor Communities 95,536,965.66

- 20,150,196.00 115,687,161.66 52.1

1-D Cash Transfer

- 3,579,590

- 3,579,590.00 1.6

62


Revised Allocation


2 Goods 4,675,761.39

-

- 4,675,761.39 2.1

21.5

3

Consultants'

13,375,455.86 1,926,530 1,526,530.00 16,828,515.86 7.6 Services

4 Training 8,438,657.84 826,530 255,918.00 9,521,105.84 4.3

5 Operating Costs 12,155,146.25 2,326,530 2,186,530.00 16,668,206.25 7.5

6 Un allocated

-

-

-

- -

DA-A

-

-

-

- -

TOTAL 156,120,387.00 30,835,906 35,262,843.00 222,219,136.00 100 100 Table 3;( c) Breakdown of delivery cost

Category of Expenditur

e

Final Absorption Final


NVF Vs CE

1-A

Food Insecure Households 10,540,937.40 16,900,404.31 8,074,619.06 35,515,960.77 16.1 78.6

1-B Vulnerable Groups 11,283,039.67 5,392,140.19 3,047,003.02 19,722,182.88 8.9

1-C

Service Poor Communities 94,735,636.07

- 20,298,636.26 115,034,272.33 52.1

1-D Cash Transfer

- 3,389,724.05

- 3,389,724.05 1.5

2 Goods 4,666,487.20

-

- 4,666,487.20 2.1 21.4

3 Consultants' Services 13,348,904.35 1,922,526.42 1,950,094.96 17,221,525.73 7.8

63

4 Training 8,421,909.29 870,215.64 285,872.28 9,577,997.21 4.3

5 Operating Costs 12,131,619.52 1,823,628.80 1,755,080.09 15,710,328.41 7.1

6 Un allocated

-

-

-

- -

DA-A -

-

-

- -

TOTAL 155,128,533.50 30,298,639.41 35,411,305.67 220,838,478.58 100 100

5.3 PWP and VG outcomes 169. Through Public Works Program, a total of 265,872 (baseline 113,414) beneficiaries (males 141,656 and females 124,216) were provided with temporary employment. These beneficiaries provided a total 15,952,320 (baseline 5,431,992) people’s days of labour. On average each beneficiary earned Tshs 178,750 based on 65 days worked. The PWP operation was delivered at 47% of the total subproject budget accounting for the unskilled wages against a revised target of 50%, this achievement is less by 3 percent from the target established under AF I and II. Yet, compared to the initial target of 40%, the achievement is 7% point above. The overall 47 percent is as a result of averaging the sub projects initially implemented when the wages for unskilled labour was 40% and those implemented when the wage was increased to 50% after MTR. 170. The Income Generating Activities (IGAs) carried out enabled vulnerable individuals to improve their income level, build their entrepreneurship capacity, enhance their social status, strengthened social ties among group members, consolidated their confidence and commitment, improved their standard of living compared to pre-project period and enhanced their purchasing power. 171. The study conducted in 2010 on rapid assessment on implementation of Public Works and Vulnerable groups subprojects indicated that beneficiaries were able to meet their family needs. Nearly all respondents had earned income from temporary employment from PWP or in some ways earned income from the IGAs they had established, as they had indicated to have used the earnings for different purposes. Over 50 percent of the respondents used their incomes on purchasing food for their families (80 percent), clothing (60 percent) and paying scholastic requirements for their children (50 percent). Others used part of their earnings for health purposes (30 percent), and a few of them spent their incomes on other small but important needs either for re-investing in the IGAs, paying rent, transport or drugs for their livestock. 172. There has been an increase in accumulation of assets, largely livestock assets such as chickens, ducks, cows, goats and pigs, linked with project support and increase in incomes as revealed by Short-term Impacts of TASAF II VG component report (2011).

64

173. The Baseline and Midline study report for CB-CCT (2012), reveals impacts on conditioning, such as an increase in school enrolment of school aged children from beneficiary house households; more health-seeking behaviour was occurring among 0-5 year’s children and the elderly. There has been about 31percent increase in the likelihood of visiting a dispensary or hospital for health problem leading to reduction in the burden of disease. Also it was observed that parents can afford three meals as a result of the programme. There has been a notable increase in the non-bank savings among beneficiaries and higher expenditures on children’s clothing and footwear. The findings suggest that the CB- CCT has increased people’s trust on their community leaders. There is a higher expenditure on community health insurance among beneficiaries. Also there is an increase in accumulation of assets among beneficiaries, such as, chicken, goats, bicycles etc. CB-CCT has enabled pupils, especially girls to remain in school until completion. 174. The environmental and social audit and review report (2011) indicated an increased group income from livestock keeping between Tsh.2 million and 4 million per month. Improvements at subproject level have been on group productivity which is considered profitable as it is contributing positively to poverty alleviation. The beneficiaries in this category are able to meet daily requirements such as having 3 meals per day, paying children’s school fees and buying new clothes for the entire family during festivals. It is indeed a remarkable success of the subprojects which have improved the quality of life of the beneficiaries. 175. In addition, the enterprises established as a result of VG and FI subprojects created self-employment for those who were directly working on the day to day basis.

5.4 Capacity Enhancement outcome 176. The Technical Audit Report (2007) observed that effectiveness of supervision by the communities was generally satisfactorily. The CMCs had demonstrated supervisory strength in cooperation with village leadership (ability to inspire and motivate others, foster trust, establish a non-threatening environment, and promote team work), increased confidence among community members to manage their own projects. Some CMC members were elected in the leadership positions such as Village chairpersons, Councillors simply because they had demonstrated good performance when they were working in the positions of CMCs .Supervision of Service Poor and Public Works Program/Food Insecure subprojects created public assets for improved community access to basic services. Transparency in handling financial matters and procurement of materials and services was enhanced at LGA and community level. 177. The grants provided through Community Foundations had an effect on most vulnerable school children’s performance in terms of school attendance and interest in learning had substantially improved. Women with fistula regained their social status in the community. CFs provided support to people hit by natural calamities such as floods. In a long run the capacity built of CFs will be important by providing timely assistance to the needy people during natural calamities events. This is because the CFs is very close to

65

the people and therefore can deal with emergencies as they occur. Hence the need for strengthening CFs and build awareness so that new institutions in other places can be established 178. According to Impact assessment of SP, PWP intervention and Capacity Enhancement (Training and COMSIP) Report (June,2013); COMSIP impacts have been; increased income levels of some group members through small scale businesses/investments, savings and loan repayment culture gradually being created among members, proper record keeping, groups have helped to build solidarity bonds and networks i.e. social cohesion, economic empowerment especially women group members, increased school attendance as group members can afford paying scholastic requirements for their children, Group members have reliable sources for credit facilities as groups are used as collateral to access loans from financial agencies such as the Foundation for International Community Assistance (FINCA), Promotion of Rural Initiative and Development Enterprises (PRIDE), Village Community Banks (VICOBA), Savings and Credits Cooperative Societies (SACCOS) and ability of group members to manage own incomes through acquired knowledge. The study also revealed that the level of beneficiary satisfaction with COMSIP is 95%. Therefore, if COMSIP is scaled up it can work as an instrument of poverty reduction and sustainability for the poorest individuals in rural and urban areas.

6.0 Monitoring and Evaluation System 179. The M&E facilitated data collection for utilisation in the management of the project. The computerized MIS data base was maintained at TMU. The tracking of output, outcome and impact indicators was adequately done. Monitoring the progress towards achievement of the PDO was done through: (i) Project Tracking System (PTS); (ii) preparing project progress reports and (iii) undertaking surveys and studies. 180. The M&E contributed to timely improvement in project Management. During implementation, SPIFs were used to express demand from communities. The numbers of SPIFs received were balanced for all NVF beneficiary categories (SP, PWP &VG) but LGAs favoured SP subprojects categories where at the beginning most of applications received from LGAs were of SP subprojects. Through monitoring reports on the situation based on the data collected and evidence from the field, the Management issued directives to LGAs to set aside 20 percent of their allocated funds for PWP and VG beneficiary categories which formally were not prioritized for approval by the Village Government and LGAs. Thereafter subprojects from these categories started coming out. 181. The process evaluation conducted for C-CCT Pilot Program provided recommendations for improvement in the targeting method to minimise inclusion and exclusion rate. This has improved household targeting. As well, the assessment on the community targeting did indicate that there were inclusion and exclusion errors to some extent. The project management implemented the recommendations by revising and strengthening the targeting method to minimise inclusion and exclusion errors initially experienced, by ensuring that data are collected and used for targeting poor communities

66

instead of giving prerogatives to the District Councils to decide. This has improved the way geographical targeting is done 182. During implementation tools used to collect subproject data from LGAs were improved and automated. Result framework was modified during MTR, AF I and AF II to accommodate revised and new added indicators. Also, Financial Monitoring Report (FMR) was improved that facilitated tracking of expenditure and timely decision to address any deviations revealed. 183. The introduction and use of Accountability tools in the project, such as Community Score Cards and Citizen Report Card empowered beneficiaries to know their entitlements, as well as, demand more accountability from services providers in the intervention areas where these tools were used. The approach to implement Citizen Report Card along with advocacy for reforms has been accepted by the Government as an appropriate approach to achieve value for money in service delivery. Further, the service providers have come to an understanding that accountability tools play an important role in strengthening participation of the poor people and improve service delivery through forging a common planning for redress of identified gaps in service delivery.

7.0 Key Factors Affecting Implementation and outcomes 184. In the course of project implementation a number of challenges were encountered and they have been grouped as follows:

7.1 Implementation Challenges i. There was a tendency during TASAF II implementation to favour service poor

sub projects and thus ignoring other beneficiary groups. This was a result of a service gap which was established during TASAF I districts and later adopted by new TASAF II LGAs who wanted to have the same. On the other hand District officials preferred appraising SPIFs for service poor rather than VGs and FIs. To address the issue, TMU issued directives to all LGAs reminding them on the threshold for each LGA regarding grant and credit categories.

ii. Frequent change of LGA staff allocated to coordinate TASAF supported

activities, namely VFCs and VFJAs, and others not undertaking TASAF activities on full time basis. This delayed delivery of required technical support to need communities due to time lag in familiarizing with CDD principles and procedures for new appointees.

iii. Low Community contribution. Besides communities’ purchasing power being

affected by the food crisis, they were also required to contribute to other development activities. During MTR the community contribution was lowered from 20 percent to 15 percent that was believed community could contribute. The situation was addressed by LGA contributions and AF I&II were addressing areas for Food insecurity and completion of subprojects.

a) Political interferences b) Inadequate sensitization by LGA as it was left to LGA staffs to

67

sensitize the whole district; the sensitization message was incorrectly delivered.

iv. Rising prices of construction materials due to increase in fuel prices and depreciation of currencies had drastically affected the budgets of sub projects which threatened to leave sub projects incomplete and non-functional.

v. Operationalisation of new system with six (6) Bank accounts at LGAs in year

2012 caused delays in transfer of funds from the LGAs to Subprojects Bank Accounts and supervision of TASAF supported activities. All funds were frozen to Development Account managed. The learning curve took long and connectivity was a challenge in some LGAs. TMU consulted all stakeholders who were involved but it could not been resolved by TASAF II closure.

vi. Due to limited capacity in some LGA’s subprojects especially in remote areas,

there were marketing problem.

vii. Sustainability: Unmet community demand for support as expressed by SPIFs. A total of 102,309 SPIFs has been received from communities in all LGAs/Islands. Out of those only 12,347 applications were approved and supported. This indicates that communities are in dire need for development support in order to get out of poverty but resources are not adequate to meet their requirements. For some reasons, some of the expressed interests were not reflecting the genuine sectors for which the Project could support but majority of them were worth supporting. The resources were not adequate to support all of them. However, not all SPIFs could be turn into fundable sub projects.

7.2 Design Challenges i. The design assumption that all LGAs had capacity and did not require TMU

staff to provide support to effective delivery of TASAF II. This resulted into less technical support to communities. However TMU decided to hand hold the LGAs to ensure that communities are fully supported. Only 1% of funded subprojects were uncompleted at closure waiting for LGA contribution.

ii. Lack of funds to buy new vehicles for TASAF II at TMU caused the TMU to use TASAF I inherited vehicles which led to rising of operating and maintenance costs due to aged project vehicles at TMU. Frequent breakdowns also affected provision of technical backstopping services to LGAs. The project was rolled over to all LGAs in the country but resources under CE component were inadequate, hence TASAF II inherited aged vehicles that were used in TASAF I. The TMU decided to dispose the aged vehicles and use funds collected to buy few new ones to manage the operations.

68

iii. The subproject ceiling of US$ 30,000 resulted into incomplete and non-functional subprojects. During the Mid-Term Review (MTR) the ceiling was increased to US$ 45,000 for SP and FI subprojects still could not address the challenges of completion and functionality. This led to additional Financing II in 2010 to address completion and functionality of subprojects.

iv. There were no proper computerized systems at LGAs for the project to be interfaced as agreed during the design stage that would facilitate capturing of information and reporting. Tracking of the sub-project physical and financial progress was difficult because the computerized systems which were developed at a later stage couldn’t accommodate Project data requirements hence it was manually collected. TMU designed a Subproject Data Sheet (SPDS) that assisted LGAs to collect required information.

v. Due to resource constraint un-allocation of funds specifically for

implementation of COMSIP affected smooth implementation of the same. Whereas initially COMSIP was initiated in 44 LGAs and Unguja and Pemba it was later scaled down leaving many beneficiaries unsupported.

vi. The VG subprojects ceiling were set too low such that it could not leave

enough working capital, but during MTR were increased from USD 10,000 to USD 15, 000.

vii. The use of SPIFs in some cases resulted into non-adherence to CDD principles, since some did not express the genuine need of the communities but expressed individual aspirations.

viii. (Viii) Effects due to seasonality factors and Labour analysis. The implementation of some of PWP subprojects coincided with agricultural activities and hence it was difficult to get adequate number of beneficiaries to engage in planned activities. Analysis on seasonal and labour factors was not properly done during TASAF II.

8.0 Financial Management issues 185. The TASAF II total project cost was estimated (as per Project Appraisal Document - PAD) at US $178.50 million. Contributions were US $ 150 million, US $ 15.0 million and US$ 13.5 million, IDA, Government and Communities respectively. In the course of implementation there were two Additional Financing (AF I & AF II). Additional Financing I was US$ 30.0 million and Additional Financing II US$ 35.0 million. Therefore the total IDA contribution was US$ 215.0 million. 186. The actual disbursements show that IDA funding was US $ 220 million, the Government of Tanzania availed a total of US$ 11.2 million and community contributed US$ 29.8 million. This represents 85 percent, 4 percent and 11 percent contributions

69

respectively. Since the Government was not supposed to provide counterpart funds to match with the additional financing credits, both the Government and community seem to be low. But when computed on actual disbursement before the additional financing credits, as shown in Table 4, the share of contribution become; 78%, 6% and 16% respectively. Table 4: Actual disbursement excluding Additional Financing Credits

US$ Million

(1) Allocation

(2)

Percentage allocation under

(3)

Actual disbursement

(4)

percentage actual disbursement

(5)

IDA 154.2 86 154.2 78

GOT 11.2 6 11.2 6

COMM 13.5 8 29.8 16

178.9 100 195.2 100 The actual disbursement by components is as follows: a) The National Village Fund (NVF) Component

The disbursement for the NVF component is illustrated in Table 5 below: Table 5: NVF Disbursement

US$ Million

(1) Allocation

(2)


(3)

Actual disbursement

(4)


(5)

IDA 116.1 86 116.1 77

GOT 6.0 5 5.8 4

COMM 12 9 28.3 19

134.1 100 150.2 100

70

b) Capacity Enhancement Component Table 3: CE disbursement

US$ Million

(1) Allocation

(2)


(3)

Actual disbursement

(4)


(5)

IDA 38.1 87 38.1 85

GOT 4.0 9 5 11

COMM 1.5 4 1.5 4

43.6 100 44.6 100

187. Ring-fenced window attracted US$ 46.6 million from other co-financiers as follows:

i. OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID) channeled US$ 22.0 million

ii. Marine and Coastal Environmental Programme (MACEMP) channeled US$ 8.2 million

iii. Tanzania Forest Conservation and Management Project (TFCMP) channeled US$ 4.0 million.

iv. Community AIDS Response Fund (CARF), a sub-component under Tanzania Commission for Aids (TACAIDS) US$ 10.0 million

v. Community AIDS Response Fund (CARF) a sub-component under Zanzibar AIDS Commission (ZAC) US$ 1.0 million.

vi. Japan Social Development Fund (JSDF) contributed US$ 1.8 million.

188. The total project cost, including Ring fenced funds has amounted to US$ 201Million and overall community contribution was US$ 29.8 Million that represents 15 percent of the project cost. 189. Designated Accounts for TASAF II main credit had thresholds of US$ 10.0 million for the Credit and Grant US$ 2.0 million whereas AF I and AF II had a threshold of U$ 6.0 million and US$ 7.0 million, respectively. There were no changes in the Designated Accounts throughout the Implementation Period. 190. There were three changes in the financing schedule of the Development Financing Agreement (DFA) as a result of approved Additional Financing I and II and after the final reallocation of the unallocated amount in the order of the approved funds and related categories.

71

9.0 Procurement Issues 191. Procurement at TASAF Management Unit, Local Government Authorities (LGAs) and community levels was undertaken in accordance with laid down procurement procedures. The procurement processes and contracts administration were of generally good quality, reliable, timely and transparency. TMU conducted capacity building in procurement to LGAs’s technical staff, which in turn provided training to implementers at community level. This enabled Community Management Committees (CMCs) to procure construction materials, transport services, Local Service Providers (LSPs) and other services and proper keeping of procurement records. 192. In the course of implementing of the project, procurement audits were conducted aimed at enhancing adherence to procurement procedures and good record keeping at all levels. Procurement reviews conducted by the Bank has rated the project satisfactory, as an overall rating. Also, the Procurement audits conducted by Public Procurement Regularity Authority (PPRA) assessed the project to have good performance with compliance levels of 89 percent , 91 percent and 89.29 percent for the financial years 2008/2009 and 2011/2012 and 2012/2013, respectively.

10.0 Sustainability 193. 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 user committees, school committees/boards 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. Adoption of project cycle management by the LGAs in managing their development projects perpetuates the CDD approach in empowering communities to manage their own development process. According to Impact assessment of SP, PWP intervention and Capacity Enhancement (Training and COMSIP) Report (June, 2013); this approach has created a sense of ownership and commitment on the part of the communities which are the strong pillars for sustainability of completed subprojects. Income generating groups have developed group constitutions which assures the group cohesion. With respect to other assets like roads in regard to Operation and Maintenance (O&M) arrangement, the LGAs have included the O&M component in the Annual Plan. However in Water sector, poor technical support drought stricken, vandalism natural spring boxes cease to yield water due to reduced rain. For roads many roads have been upgraded into district roads, O&M starts after handing over of subprojects, timing of planning cycle at LGA to incorporate completed subprojects into district plans. Some roads are washed away after a short period of time due to rain and floods and there is low capacity at community to repair.

11.0 Environmental and social safeguards 194. The project was classified under environmental category B, which encompassed sub-projects whose potential negative environmental impacts were less adverse and few and site specific which in most cases had mitigation measures which could readily be designed and implemented. Two safeguard tools were in place; namely, the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) and the Resettlement Policy

72

Framework (RPF) to ensure the proper mainstreaming of environmental and social concerns into TASAF supported subprojects. These tools were prepared in line with the World Bank safeguard policies OP/BP/GP 4.01(on environmental assessment) and OP/BP 4.12 (on involuntary resettlement) as well as Tanzania’s environmental policies, legal and regulatory framework. As the types and specific geographical locations of the subprojects were not known, the ESMF was an appropriate safeguard instrument at the appraisal stage that established a unified process for addressing all environmental and social safeguard issues throughout the implementation of the project. 195. In the course of project implementation, sub-projects were subjected to an environmental and social screening process conducted at the community, LGAs/Unguja and Pemba and national levels. The aim was to avoid any adverse and undesirable environmental and social consequences of the interventions. 196. Communities were facilitated to implement sub projects that were small in size at particular sites chosen by them by taking into account environmental and social considerations. LGAs’ staff facilitated undertaking an environmental and social screening process through Environmental and Social Screening Forms (ESSFs) as part of preparation of any sub-project proposal. If potential negative impacts were identified, an Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) was prepared and became part and parcel of the subproject activities that were implemented. Also Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP) was prepared for monitoring and supervision of implementation of proposed mitigation measures at communities by LGAs’ technical staff at agreed time frame. 197. The implementation of subprojects did not trigger major resettlement issues, as there were no subprojects involved the resettlement of affected persons that necessitated preparation of Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs) as per RPF requirements. Most of the subprojects acquired land from the Village Government and minor resettlement were handled through mutual agreement between affected households and the respective Village Governments. Other subprojects were offered land by members of beneficiary groups through a signed form of commitment. 198. Environmental and Social audit conducted in March 2011, established that beneficiary communities seemed to have reasonable knowledge on environment and social issues that might affect the implementation of their sub-projects. Subprojects such as tree planting, Village forests conservation, establishment of nurseries, rehabilitation of storm water drainage systems and livestock’s subprojects such as dairy cattle, pig production, goat keeping that emphasized on zero grazing, considerably contributed to environmental protection. Most of subprojects related to construction works, such as construction of classrooms, dispensaries, Maternal blocks and health centres, teachers’ houses, administration blocks, toilets, godowns and market structures was done as an extension to existing premises or built on village land with no disputes. 199. In order to enhance capacity of LGAs’ staffs in response to the recommendation of the Environmental and Social Audit conducted in March, 2011, re-orientation sessions

73

for 399staff of LGAs, Unguja and Pemba were conducted to facilitate adequate subproject screening and completion of ESSFs.

12.0 Bank and Borrower performance (i) Bank Performance

200. The Bank‘s performance is rated satisfactory. At the design stage the Bank provided adequate technical support by availing relevant subject matter specialist to interact with Government officials and technocrats. Similarly Implementation Support Missions (ISM) were conducted after every six months. The joint decisions were well documented in Aide Memoirs that were prepared at the end of each mission. Accordingly, the Bank addressed issues pertaining to rephrasing of the PDO and related indicators, revising the percentage of community contribution that led to the amendment of the DFA to reflect the changes. In addition, the Bank made reallocation of funds between categories in order to address challenges in implementation as agreed upon between the Government and the Bank. 201. However, the Bank needs to address the issue of delay in clearing the requests sent to it with respect to procurement. There had been delays in getting feedback on prior reviews and No Objections. It is recommended that the Bank should expedite reviews and issuance of No Objections. 202. The start of implementation for TASAF II experienced a delay for a year that could have been used for creating awareness raising. Basically, the Project effectiveness is attained after accomplishment of all obligations that are required to be met by the government as a precondition for the same. Despite the project being effective, the Operational Manual was not approved for five months from the date of effectiveness. The implementation could not start, which created misunderstandings between the Government and the World Bank’s TASAF II, Task Team Leader at that time. The matter was resolved and the Project continued with implementation

(ii) Borrower’s Performance 203. The Borrower’s performance is rated satisfactory. The government met all its obligations during preparation and implementation that enabled the Project to meet its Development Objective. As per requirements, the Government formed Project Preparation Team (PPT) for the design of the project, as well as provision of office premises for TASAF Management Unit. All LGAs and the Chief Minister’s office in Zanzibar provided office premises and appointed respective Village Fund Coordinators (VFCs) and Village Fund Justification Assistants (VFJAs) in their respective areas of jurisdiction. In addition, secretaries, drivers, office attendants were as well appointed.. The National Audit Office (NAO) provided the audit services as per requirement spelt out in the DFA which was of high quality and professional conduct. 204. The Government also appointed the members who formed the NSC on a three years term serving a maximum of two terms. The NSC provided policy guidance and overall project implementation oversight. In support for the NSC, was the Sector Expert Team whose members were drawn from all sectors that TASAF was supporting

74

community interventions. This team, maintained sector norms and standards in assessing all applications from communities and provided guidance on implementation by providing technical expertise to the LGA facilitators

13.0 Lessons Learnt 205. Implementation of TASAF II has led to a number of lessons and experiences that need to be considered in designing future CDD operations. These lessons have been crystallized from TASAF’s own reporting experiences, studies, direct feedback from communities and other stakeholders. The lessons learnt include:

i. The project was highly relevant, as one of the instruments used by Government in implementing its National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of poverty strategy (NSGRP) since it is in harmony with the poverty strategy adopted by the Government. It was learnt that project design should take into consideration the country’s local context and be in line with existing Government’s policies and strategies.

ii. The Project Operations Manual (POM) should be in place prior to project effectiveness for smooth implementation because it details project implementation procedures and principles. The creation of a ring fenced funds’ window provides opportunities for other co-financiers to channel resources to finance community sub-projects in the targeted intervention areas. The existence of this facility eliminates procedures, time and formalities involved in designing and formulating new projects before resources reach targeted beneficiaries.

iii. The existence of Sector Experts Team (SET) at the national level, which was responsible for review of community subprojects proposals, provided assurances to TMU on compliance to sector norms and standards before funds were disbursed for implementation. Technical Audit conducted in November, 2012 confirmed that 86 percent of the sampled subprojects complied with sector norms and standards.

iv. Technical support from TMU was instrumental to LGAs due to inadequate capacities at that level. This has been demonstrated by the fact that, where inadequate performance was revealed, TMU intervention was necessary that brought about significant change.

v. Through the CDD approach community attitudes and mind-set was gradually changed from the traditional thinking that outsiders can solve their problems. The approach enhanced the self-reliance spirit among the communities thus enabled them to decide on their own development destiny with or without external support.

vi. Good cooperation between the World Bank and the Government (Borrower) leads to smooth project implementation. This was highly practiced during implementation support missions where joint missions were planned, organized and conducted.

vii. Distribution of resources to LGA using a formula based on poverty, population and geographical area was very effective, in directing resources to

75

the poorest and most needy LGAs. viii. Simultaneous piloting of new initiatives provided an opportunity for learning

and gathering lessons for future scale up and improvement of implementation for on-going projects

ix. Extensive IEC campaigns about the project have significant impact on creating awareness to beneficiaries and the general public. As part of the roll out activities oversight of TASAF management Unit is critical in order to ensure timely delivery of correct message at all levels.

76

Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders N/A

77

Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents

World Bank Documents Country Assistance Strategy of the World Bank Group for the United Republic of Tanzania. Report No. 20426-TA, May 22, 2000. World Bank Group, Africa Region. Country Assistance Strategy Report for the United Republic of Tanzania for the Period FY 2012-2015. Report No. 60269-TZ, May 9, 2011, World Bank Group, Africa Region. Emergency Program Paper. Tanzania: Accelerated Food Security Program under the Global Food Crisis Response Program – Additional Financing Credit for the Agricultural Sector Development Project and an Additional Financing Credit for the Second Social Action Fund Project. Report No: 48549-TZ, May 27, 2009, Agriculture and Rural Development and Human Development 1, Country Department 1, Africa Region. Implementation Completion Report, Tanzania Social Action Fund Project, Report No: 33856-TA, March 30, 2006, Human Development 1, Country Department 4, Africa Regional Office. Joint Assistance Strategy for the United Republic of Tanzania, FY2007 – FY2010, Report No. 38625-TZ, March 1,2007, Africa Region. Project Appraisal Document. Tanzania: Second Social Action Fund Project, Report No: 29664-TA, October 27, 2004, Human Development 1, Country Department 4, Africa Region. Project Appraisal Document. Tanzania Productive Social Safety Net Project (PSSN) Report No: 67116-TZ, March 6, 2012. Social Protection Unit, Human Development, Eastern Africa 1 (AFCE1), Africa Region Project Paper for a Second Additional Financing Credit in Pilot Crisis Response Window Resources for the Tanzania Second Social Action Fund Project. Report No: 53757-TZ, May 13,2010, Eastern Africa 1, Human Development, Social Protection Unit, Africa Region All project Aide Memoires and Implementation Status Reports. Government of Tanzania Documents National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP), Vice President’s Office 2005. National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty II (NSGRP II), Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs. June 2010.

78

TASAF Program Documents TASAF II Environmental and Social Management Framework, July 2004. TASAF II Operational Manual.2005. Revised for Additional Financing July 2009. TASAF Quarterly Reports, 2009 - 2013. TASAF Annual Reports, 2006-2012. Studies and Evaluations Achrid, Ltd. “Beneficiary Assessment Study in TASAF II Operational Areas” December 2007. Achrid, Ltd. “Rapid Assessment of Implementation of Public Works Program and Vulnerable Groups Support under Tanzania Social Action Fund (TASAF)”,June, 2010. Achrid, Ltd. Assessment of IEC/CE Materials for Community-Based Conditional Cash Transfer Program.” October, 2012. Achrid, Ltd.” Impact assessment of the Service poor and Capacity enhancement (training and COMSIP) and PWP”, June 2013. Alpha and Omega Consulting Group, Ltd. “A Study of Linkages of Social Protection Interventions and Processes at Community and District Level”, September, 2012. Avantech, Ltd. “Consultancy Services for Assessment of the Current Information Technology Systems and Infrastructure at TASAF”, July 2012. Daima Associates, “Assessment of the Performance of Four Pilot Community Foundations in Arusha, Kinondoni, Morogoro, and Mwanza”, December 2010.

Don Consult Ltd, “Technical Audit in TASAF Operating Areas, Final Report”. October 2007. Ecom Research Group. “Draft Report on the Assessment of the Viability of the Income-Generating Activities Interventions Implemented under TASAF II”, April 2011. Evans, D., S. Hausladen and K. Kosec. “Community Based Conditional Cash Transfers in Tanzania: Results from a Randomized Trial: Baseline & Midline Surveys”, July 2012. Gesoc, A.C. Process Evaluation of the Community-Based Conditional Cash Transfer (CB-CCT) Pilot Programme of the Tanzania Social Action Fund (TASAF)”, October 2011.

79

Health and Environmental Concerns Ltd. “Environmental and Social Audit and Review of TASAF-Funded Sub-Projects in Selected LGA’s”, March 2011. Institute of Management and Entrepreneurship Development.“Survey of Household Enterprises and Group Economic Activities”, September, 2012. K & Associates Professional Services Ltd (KAPSEL). “Technical Audit in TRASAF Supported Operations”, May 2013 Özler, B. “Short-term Impacts of TASAF II VG component”, October 31, 2011 Public Affairs Foundation. “Citizen Report Card on Public Services in Tanzania”, 2010. Public Affairs Foundation. “An Evaluation of the Conditional Cash Transfer program in Tanzania, Community Score Card”, August, 2011. Singh, Vijay. “Community-based Conditional Cash Transfer Pilot for TASAF: Evolving Operational Modalities of Mobile Phone Transfers”, World Bank, November 2011. Synovate. “CB-CCT Pilot Qualitative Assessment Report”, September, 2011. TASAF.TASAF Community Score Card Accountability Report, January 2007. Tenga, S. “Summary Report on Study Findings of TASAF II”. ST Associates Process Consultants and Facilitators, August 2013. Unique Consortium of Consulting Services, Ltd. “Information, Education and Communication (IEC) Impact Assessment in TASAF Supported Areas”. November, 2010. World Bank.“ TASAF II Targeting Performance: Executive Summary”, 2011.

KaliuaKaliua

KasuluKasuluKondoaKondoa

ManyoniManyoni

KibondoKibondo

KahamaKahamaNzegaNzega

BuoenBuoen

MpuiMpui

TundumaTunduma

SameSame

TunduruTunduru

MasasiMasasi

UteteUtete

KilwaKilwaKivinjeKivinje

WeteWete

LindiLindi

MbeyaMbeya

KoaniKoani

TangaTanga

MoshiMoshi

SongeaSongea

MtwaraMtwara

IringaIringa

KibahaKibaha

MkoaniMkoani

TaboraTaboraKigomaKigoma

ArushaArusha

MwanzaMwanza

GeitaGeita BariadiBariadi

MusomaMusomaBukobaBukoba

SingidaSingida

MorogoroMorogoro

ZanzibarZanzibarMkokotoniMkokotoni

ShinyangaShinyanga

SumbawangaSumbawanga

BabatiBabati

NjombeNjombe

MpandaMpanda

Dar es SalaamDar es Salaam

DODOMADODOMA

K E N Y AK E N Y A

UGANDAUGANDA

ZAMBIAZAMBIA

MOZAMBIQUEMOZAMBIQUE

RWANDARWANDA

BURUNDIBURUNDI

DEM

. R

EP.

OF

CO

NG

OD

EM.

REP

. O

F C

ON

GO

A R U S H AA R U S H A

MANYARAMANYARA

M A R AM A R A

N J O M B EN J O M B E

S I M I Y US I M I Y U

R U V U M AR U V U M AMTWARAMTWARA

KILIMANJAROKILIMANJARO

I R I N G AI R I N G A

L I N D IL I N D I

DODOMADODOMA

K I G O M AK I G O M A

MWANZAMWANZA

GEITAGEITA

SHINYANGASHINYANGA

RUKWARUKWA

K A T A V IK A T A V I

M B E Y AM B E Y A

PWANIPWANI

TA B O R ATA B O R A ZANZIBARZANZIBARNORTHNORTH

PEMBAPEMBANORTHNORTH

PEMBAPEMBASOUTHSOUTH

ZANZIBARZANZIBARSOUTH &SOUTH &CENTRALCENTRALZANZIBARZANZIBARWESTWEST

DAR ES SALAAMDAR ES SALAAM

KAGERAKAGERA

SINGIDASINGIDA

TA N G ATA N G A

MOROGOROMOROGORO

Iwem

bere

Ste

ppe

MasaiMasaiSteppeSteppe

Nguru M

ts.

Mbeya Range

Kipengere Range

KilimanjaroKilimanjaro(5895 m)(5895 m)

Kaliua

KasuluKondoa

Manyoni

Kibondo

KahamaNzega

Buoen

Mpui

Tunduma

Same

Tunduru

Masasi

Utete

KilwaKivinje

Wete

Lindi

Mbeya

Koani

Tanga

Moshi

Songea

Mtwara

Iringa

Kibaha

Mkoani

TaboraKigoma

Arusha

Mwanza

Geita Bariadi

MusomaBukoba

Singida

Morogoro

ZanzibarMkokotoni

Shinyanga

Sumbawanga

Babati

Njombe

Mpanda

Dar es Salaam

DODOMA

K E N Y A

UGANDA

ZAMBIA

MOZAMBIQUE

RWANDA

BURUNDI

DEM

. R

EP.

OF

CO

NG

O

A R U S H A

MANYARA

M A R A

N J O M B E

S I M I Y U

R U V U M AMTWARA

KILIMANJARO

I R I N G A

L I N D I

DODOMA

K I G O M A

MWANZA

GEITA

SHINYANGA

RUKWA

K A T A V I

M B E Y A

PWANI

TA B O R A ZANZIBARNORTH

PEMBANORTH

PEMBASOUTH

ZANZIBARSOUTH &CENTRALZANZIBARWEST

DAR ES SALAAM

KAGERA

SINGIDA

TA N G A

MOROGORO

Mbemkur

u

Matandu

Rufiji

Great Ruaha

Rungwa

Wam

i

Simiyu

Ruvuma

Mara

Kagera

Moyow

osi

Ugalla

Pangani

Kilo

mbe

ro INDIAN

OCEAN

Lake

Victor ia

LakeTanganyika

LakeMalawi

LakeRukwa

LakeNatron

LakeEyasi Lake

Manyara

To Nakuru

To Malindi

To Kasama

To Kasama

To Kasungu

To Lichinga

To Marrupa

To Chiúre

To Nakuru

To Tororo

To Kampala

To Kampala

To Kama

Iwem

bere

Ste

ppe

MasaiSteppe

Nguru M

ts.

Mbeya Range

Kipengere Range

Kilimanjaro(5895 m)

30°E

0°

2°S

8°S

10°S

0°

2°S

4°S

8°S

10°S

12°S

32°E 34°E 36°E

32°E 34°E 36°E 40°E

TANZANIA

This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other informationshown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World BankGroup, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or anyendorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

0 50 100 150

0 50 100 150 Miles

200 Kilometers

IBRD 33494R1

JUNE 2013

TANZANIAMAIN ROADS

RAILROADS

PROVINCE BOUNDARIES

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES

SELECTED CITIES AND TOWNS

PROVINCE CAPITALS

NATIONAL CAPITAL

RIVERS