1

A. PROJECT DATA AND KEY DATES I. BASIC INFORMATION

Project Number: 2100150014945

Project Name: Agriculture Sector Development Programme - Phase 1

Country (ies): Tanzania

Lending Instrument(s): Loan Sector: OSAN Environmental Classification: Category 2

Original Commitment Amount: UA 40 million Amount Cancelled: Nil Amount Disbursed: UA 40 million

Percent Disbursed: 100

Borrower: United Republic of Tanzania

Executing Agency(ies) [List the main Ministries, Project Implementation Units, Agencies and civil society organizations responsible for implementing project activities.] Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Cooperatives

Co-financers and other External Partners [List all other sources and amounts of financing, technical assistance or other resources used in this project] European Union Community - UA 5,679,000; World Bank - UA 60,125,000; IFAD - UA 24,050,000; Japan -UA 2,040,000; Government of Tanzania - UA 19,200,000; Beneficiaries - UA 15,469,000; Others - UA 668,000.

II. KEY DATES

Project Concept Note Cleared by Ops. Com.: Appraisal Report Cleared: 02/07/2007 Board Approval: 05/09/2007

Restructuring(s) N/A

Original Date Actual Date Difference in months

[Actual-Original]

EFFECTIVENESS sept-07

févr-08 5

MID-TERM REVIEW N/A

N/A N/A

CLOSING déc-12 déc-10

[24]

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT (PCR)

2

III. RATINGS SUMMARY

All summary ratings are auto-generated by the computer from the relevant section in the PCR.

CRITERIA SUB-CRITERIA RATING

PROJECT OUTCOME

Achievement of Outputs 3

Achievement of Outcomes 2

Timeliness 3

OVERALL PROJECT OUTCOME 3

BANK PERFORMANCE

Design and Readiness 3

Supervision 3

OVERALL BANK PERFORMANCE 3

BORROWER PERFORMANCE

Design and Readiness 3

Implementation 2

OVERALL BORROWER PERFORMANCE 3

IV. RESPONSIBLE BANK STAFF

POSITIONS AT APPROVAL AT COMPLETION

Regional Director A. Ordu G. NEGATU

Sector Director A. ABOU-SABAA A. BEILEH

Task Manager J. COOMPSON D. RWEYEMAMU

PCR Team Leader

J. NYAMUKAPA

PCR Team Members

J. NYAMUKAPA and D. RWEYEMAMU

3

B. PROJECT CONTEXT

Summarize the rationale for Bank assistance. State: -what development challenge the project addresses, -the Borrower's overall strategy for addressing it, -Bank activities in this country (ies) and sector over the past year and how they performed, and -ongoing Bank and other externally financed activities that complement, overlap with or relate to this project. Please cite relevant sources. Comment on the strength and coherence of the rationale. [250 words maximum. Any additional narrative about the project's origins and history, if needed, must be placed in Annex 6: Project Narrative]

The ASDP is a "basket fund" project which addresses the development challenge of enabling farmers to have better access to and use of agricultural knowledge, technologies, marketing systems and infrastructure, all of which contribute to higher productivity, profitability, and farm incomes.

The overall strategy is through increasing control of resources by beneficiaries, providing a wider choice in service providers to increase cost-effectiveness and competition, ensuring that resource allocations are more transparent and equitable, and integration with existing government financing and planning systems to ensure sustainability, and avoid un-harmonised, project-based approaches with parallel implementation mechanisms.

Over the past 3 years, the Bank has supported the sector through ASDP Phase I and the District Agriculture Sector Investment Project (DASIP). The M&E reports, Annual Joint Reviews, and Progress Reports on implementation indicate that notable outputs and outcomes have been achieved towards realization of the project objectives of increased production and productivity of crops and livestock, and subsequently increased farm incomes. There is a high concentration of other externally financed activities in irrigation, production, and improving the business environment, all of which complement THE ASDP. This is through projects like Participatory Agricultural Development and Empowerment Project (PADEP), Participatory Irrigation Development Programme (PIDP), Private Agricultural Sector Support (PASS), and the Rural Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Support Programme.

The ASDP is consistent and supports AfDB’s Agricultural Sector Strategy, Tanzania’s National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP), and the Kilimo Kwanza (‘Agriculture First) initiative which is aimed at mobilizing all sectors of the economy to bring about an agricultural revolution in Tanzania.

4

C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

1. State the Project Development Objective(s) (as set out in the appraisal report)

The programme development objectives are: (i) to enable farmers to have better access to and use of agricultural knowledge, technologies, marketing systems and infrastructure, all of which contribute to higher productivity, profitability, and farm incomes; (ii) to promote agricultural private investment based on an improved regulatory and policy environment

2. Describe the major project components and indicate how each will contribute to achieving the Project Development Objective(s).

Component 1: Local Level Support This component supports sector activities at village, ward and district levels and will focus on three sub-components (i) local agricultural investments, (ii) local agricultural services, and (iii) local agricultural capacity building and reform. Component 2: National Level Support This component will focus on five sub-components which are as follows: (i) Agricultural Services, (ii) National Irrigation Development, (iii) Marketing and Private Sector Development, (iv) Food Security, and (v) Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation.

3. Provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences) of the project objectives along the following 3 dimensions. Insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES DIMENSIONS ASSESSMENT WORKING

SCORE

RELEVANT a) Relevant to the country's development priorities

The project objectives are very relevant to the country's development objectives as stipulated in major National Planning Frameworks inluding the Vision 2025, and the National Strategy for Groth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP) which aim at promoting growth and reducing income poverty. Agriculture sector development is central in realising those national priorities.

4

ACHIEVABLE

b) Objectives could in principle be achieved with the project inputs and in the expected timeframe

The project objectives can only partially be achieved given the scope (national coverage) and limited timeframe. Because of the slow build up of funding and establishment of local planning processes, significant results from ASDP are only now being observed, and national surveys are yet to pick

up these changes on a broad, representative basis.

2

CONSISTENT

c) Consistent with the Bank's country or regional strategy

The project objectives were consistent with the Bank Group’s strategy for the period 2006-2010 which was drawn from the Joint Assistance Strategy for Tanzania (JAST), the Joint Program Document (JPD), and articulated in an accompanying Cover Note with focus on poverty reduction.

4

d) Consistent with the Bank's corporate priorities

The project objectives are consistent with the Bank's corporate priorities which emphasized agriculture and value addition.

4

5

4. Summarize the log. Frame. If a log. Frame does not exist, complete the table below, indicating the overall project development objective, the major components of the project, the major activities of each component and their expected outputs, outcomes, and indicators for measuring the achievement of outcomes. Add aditionnal rows for components, activities, outputs or outcomes if needed.

COMPONENTS ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS EXPECTED OUTCOMES

INDICATORS TO BE MEASURED

Component 1: Agricultural Services

Activity 1: Provision of crop and livestock extension services (training extension officers and equipping them)

Output 1: Sustained access to extension services increases from 35% to 50%

Agriculture Growth Rate of 10% by 2010

Outcomes 1. Agriculture Growth Rate 2. Productivity increases for those farmers accessing improved services and infrastructure Outputs 1. Number of farmers accessing to extension services 2. Percentage increase in area equipped with irrigation infrastructure 3. Number of LGAs that qualify for increased DADG funds through performance assessments 4. The level to which the programme is effectively coordinated and managed.

Productivity increases of a minimum of 20% for those farmers accessing improved services and infrastructure

Component 2: Agricultural Investments

Activity 1: Provision of agriculture related rural infrastructure investments (rehabilitation and construction of irrigation schemes, feeder roads, and markets)

Output 1: Area equipped with irrigation infrastructure increased by 50% in PY 3 and 100% in PY 6

Component 3: Agricultural Capacity Building and Reforms

Activity 1: Strengthening institutional and management capacity of LGAs in planning and coordinating the implementation of the VADPs and DADPs.

Output 1: All LGAs qualify for increased DADG funds through performance assessment by PY3

Component 4: Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation.

Activity 1: Hold regular monitoring and supervision activities

Output 1: Programme coordinated and managed effetively in compliance with the ADB Loan Agreement.and an effective M & E System established

Activity 2: Hold steering committee meetings

Activity 3: Disburse funds regularly to LGAs /ASLM

6

5. For each dimension of the log. Frame, provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences) of the extent to which the log. frame achieved the following. Insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1. If no log. frame exists, score this section as a 1 (one).

LOG. FRAME DIMENSIONS ASSESSMENT WORKING SCORE

LOGICAL

a) Presents a logical causal chain for achieving the project development objectives

The log-frame partially presents a logical causal chain for achieving the project development objectives. However, with most of the components, activities are presented broadly not reflecting exactly what is to be done. There are also inconsistencies in defining outputs and outcomes.

2

MEASURABLE

b) Expresses objectives and outcomes in a way that is measurable and quantifiable

Objectives and outcomes are quantifiable. However, the routine data system for the agriculture sector and the national surveys are yet to pick up some of the identified outcomes and hence the difficulty in measuring.

2

THOROUGH c) States the risks and key assumptions

Some risks and key assumptions are stated. 3

D. OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES I. ACHIEVEMENT OF OUTPUTS

In the table below, assess the achievement of actual vs. expected outputs for each major activity. Import the expected outputs from the log. frame in Section C. Score the extent to which the expected outputs were achieved. Weight the scores by the activities' approximate share of project costs. Weighted scores are auto-calculated by the computer. The overall output score will be auto-calculated as the sum of the weighted scores. Override the auto-calculated score, if desired, and provide justification.

MAJOR ACTIVITIES Working Score

Share of Project Costs in percentage

(as stated in Appraisal Report)

Weighted Score (auto-calculated)

Expected Outputs Actual Outputs

1 Access to extension services increases from 35% to 50%

Access to extension services increases from 33% to 60% 3 42 1,26

2 Area equipped with irrigation infrastructure increased by 50% in PY 3 and 100% in PY 6

Area equipped with irrigation infrastructure has increased by 135,387 ha (51%) from 264,388 ha in 2006/7 to 399,775 ha as of March 2011

3 36 1,08

3 All LGAs qualify for increased DADG funds through performance assessment by PY3

About 98% of LGAs qualified for DADG in 2009/10 compared with 96% in 2008/09; 88% in FY2007/08 and 64%in FY2006/07.

4 17 0,68

7

4 Programme coordinated and managed effectively in compliance with the ADB Loan Agreement.and an effective M & E System established

Coordination structures have evolved with improved inter-ministerial coordination .However, the quality of ASDP outcome and impact indicators and data availability is weak and annual data have gaps as the rapid annual services delivery survey was not implemented as planned.

2 5 0,1

OVERAL OUTPUT SCORE [Score is calculated as the sum of weighted scores]

3

Check here to override the auto-calculated score

Provide justification for over-riding the auto-calculated score

Insert the new score or re-enter the autocalculated score 3

II. ACHIEVEMENT OF OUTCOMES

1. Using available monitoring data assess the achievement of expected outcomes. Import the expected outcomes from the log. Frame in Section C. Score the extent to which the expected outcomes were achieved. The overall outcome score will be auto-calculated as an average of the working scores. Override the auto-calculated score, if desired, and provide justification.

OUTCOMES

Working Score

Expected Actual

1 Agriculture Growth Rate of 10% by 2010 Agriculture Growth Rate of 5% in 2010 1

2 Productivity increases of a minimum of 20% for those farmers accessing improved services and infratsructure

Actual average yield increases recorded in irrigation schemes have been 100% for paddy and 100% for maize. Paddy yields have increased from 2.5 to 6.0 ton/ha due to the use of improved rice varieties and improved management practices. Average yield for paddy increased from 1.6 tons/ha to 3.2 tons/ha and from 1.3 tons/ha to 3.5 tons/ha for maize between 2007/08 and 2009/10 as a result of the use of ox-ploughing.

3

OVERALL OUTCOME SCORE [Score is calculated as an average of the working scores]

2

Check here to override the auto-calculated score

Provide justification for over-riding the auto-calculated score

Insert the new score or re-enter the autocalculated score 2

2. Additional outcomes. Comment on the project's additional outcomes not captured in the log. Frame, including cross-cutting issues (e.g., gender).

Cross-cutting and cross-sectoral issues (gender, environment youth, land use etc.) are not yet adequately addressed by the ASDP. Only few interventions are specifically focused on needs of women, youths, HIV/AIDS affected or other vulnerable groups. However, gender balance (men and women) in the planning process and extension activities is noted in most districts.Other long-term outcome indicators (e.g.food poverty levels, basic needs poverty levels, adoption rate of

8

relevant technologies etc.) are not captured because the programme really only became fully operational in 2008, and the national surveys (including the HBS and Agricultural Census) are yet to pick up changes in any meaningful way.

3. Risks to sustained achievement of outcomes. State the factors that affect, or could affect, the long-run or sustained achievement of project outcomes. Indicate if any new activity or institutional change is recommended to help sustain outcomes. The analysis should draw upon the sensitivity analysis in Annex 3, where appropriate.

There is continuing pressures among some Agriculture Sector Line Ministries (ASLMs) to develop their own projects, plans and systems. These pressures will continue to affect coordination as well as M&E. Poor performance of Irrigators' Organizations: the maintenance aspect in a number of schemes is reportedly weak. Some Water User Associations (WUAs) do not collect sufficient O&M fees and almost all of them do not follow the O&M Guidelines. Climatic variability has a negative effect on agricultural productivity and on investments given uncertainty of returns. Catchment area of many of irrigation schemes is under threat of land degradation and unpredictable water flows, causing water shortages and sedimentation of canals. National shortage of irrigation personnel, consultants and contractors continues to affect the construction of irrigation schemes especially in remote areas Late Disbursement of funds together with a mismatch of the fiscal year and the construction season have adversely affected the use of irrigation funds for irrigation expansion. This problem has resulting in an increase in the final cost of the schemes.

E. PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

1. State the extent to which the Bank and the Borrower ensured the project was commensurate with the Borrower’s capacity to implement by designing the project appropriately and by putting in place the necessary implementation arrangements. Consider all major design aspects, such as extent to which project design took into account lessons learned from previous PCRs in the sector or the country (please cite key PCRs); whether the project was informed by robust analytical work (please cite key documents); how well Bank and Borrower assessed the capacity of the implementing agencies and/or Project Implementation Unit; scope of consultations and partnerships; economic rationale of project; and provisions made for technical assistance. [200 words maximum. Any additional narrative about implementation should be included at Annex 6: Project Narrative]

Implementation arrangements seek to strengthen Government systems and not create parallel structures. At national level, institutions responsible for implementation are the Agricultural Sector Lead Ministries (ASLMs). At local level, it is the responsibility of the Prime Minister Office-Regional Administration and Local Government and Local Government Authorities (LGAs). A Government and DPs Steering Committee reviews work plans and budgets and approves disbursements against financial and physical reports.

The Bank together with the other DPs and Government carry out Joint Implementation Reviews of the programme to assess progress against objectives; evaluate implementation against work plan targets; and identify specific actions that will facilitate future implementation. Monitoring of implementation is through quarterly financial and physical reports. Poverty and sector growth indicators are monitored through periodic surveys and annual national accounts. Country systems govern the procurement of works, goods and services as defined in Tanzania’s procurement code, which is in compliance with ADF procurement rules. External audit is carried out annually in accordance with the Public Finance Act 2001. In addition, the audit is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the MoU (Basket Fund) and the agreed terms of reference (TOR) for the audit of the financial statements of the Programme.

9

2. For each dimension of project design and readiness for implementation, provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences). Insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1.

PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS FOR IMPLEMENTATION DIMENSIONS

ASSESSMENT WORKING SCORE

REALISM

a) Project complexity is matched with country capacity and political commitment.

There was strong political commitment to implement the programme and an institutional framework was put in place to ensure effective delivery of services countrywide. However, implementation capacity on the ground especially at district (LGA) level is still inadequate to match project complexity.

2

RISK ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION

b) Project design includes adequate risk analysis.

Some level of risk analysis was carried out and mitigation measures incorporated. However, capacity challenges still remain a critical setback in implementation despite the programme providing training to all key implementing bodies.

2

USE OF COUNTRY SYSTEMS

c) Project procurement, financial management, monitoring and/or other systems are based on those already in use by government and/or other partners.

The programme was designed to fully use Government financial and accounting systems and procurement guidelines. The programme funds flow is through the government budgetary system and external audit carried out by the National Audit Office (NAO). The ASLMs are working towards an integrated sector-wide M&E system, though this is not yet completed.

3

For the following dimensions, provide separate working scores for Bank performance and Borrower performance:

WORKING SCORE

Bank Borrower

CLARITY

d) Responsibilities for project implementation were clearly defined.

Responsibilities for project implementation were clearly defined in the programme document. ASDP coordination structures have evolved over the five years, with improved inter-ministerial coordination, which has led to improved allocation of funds, stronger sector coordination, improved quarterly reporting and expenditure tracking.

3 3

10

PROCUREMENT READINESS

e) Necessary implementation documents (e.g. specifications, design, procurement documents) were ready at appraisal.

Tanzania enacted its Public Procurement Act in 2001 and revised it in 2004. The Act is applicable in Government, which is interpreted to mean Central Government Ministries (including Departments and Agencies), State Enterprises and Corporations, public institutions and Local Authorities. The Act establishes the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA), Tender Boards, Procurement Management Units, Evaluation Committees, and the Public Procurement Appeals Authority for dealing with bidder complaints and appeals. The Act is a sound legal framework supported by detailed Regulations and meets the basic procurement principles of economy, efficiency, transparency and equal opportunity. PPRA also prepared Standard Bidding Documents for Goods and Works and these instruments combined should enable the country implement public procurement in a non-discriminatory manner and achieve value for money.

3 3

MONITORING READINESS

f) Monitoring indicators and monitoring plan were agreed upon before project launch.

ASDP established an M&E framework and guideline. The Sector Lead Ministries are working towards an integrated sector-wide M&E system, though this is not yet completed. The agreement around a shortlist of headline indicators is a valuable step, and summary M&E reports have been produced. Most success has been on capturing financial and physical progress, and in strengthening LGA and regional capacity to report in a timely and accurate manner. However, capturing outcome and impact indicators still remains a challenge.

2 2

BASELINE DATA

h) Baseline data were available or are were collected during project design.

Only limited baseline data was collected during project design. The national surveys conducted in 2007-09 (the Agricultural Sample Census and the National Panel Survey) are in effect baseline rather than mid-term measures of impact

1 1

11

F. IMPLEMENTATION

1. State the major characteristics of project implementation with reference to: adherence to schedules, quality of construction or other work, performance of consultants, effectiveness of Bank supervision, and effectiveness of Borrower oversight. Assess how well the Bank and the Borrower ensured compliance with safeguards. [200 words maximum. [Any additional narrative about implementation should be included at Annex 6: Project Narrative.]

Because of the slow build up of funding and establishment of local planning processes, significant results from ASDP are only now being observed, and national surveys are yet to pick up these changes on a broad, representative basis. In terms of the quality of construction or other works, findings from the JIR reports reveal a mixed picture. While some of the completed projects were satisfactorily constructed, there are a number of cases with substandard infrastructure. Apart from citing capacity limitations as the main cause of most technical deficiencies, the reports do not critically analyze the type, magnitude, and effect of the technical deficiencies. Donor Partners and Government carry out Joint Implementation Review (JIR) of the programme every year to assess the progress against objectives, evaluate implementation progress, and assess the implementation of any policy initiatives or institutional reforms agreed upon in the work programmes. These reviews have been effective in identifying specific actions to facilitate future implementation. Borrower oversight has evolved over the five years, and improved inter-ministerial coordination, has led to stronger sector coordination, improved quarterly reporting and expenditure tracking. The Basket Fund Steering Committee has been effective in providing a forum for dialogue between GoT and DPs, and has had broad representation, with attendance by all ASLMs, collaborating ministries and development partner (DPs)

2. Comment on the role of other partners (e.g. donors, NGOs, contractors, etc.). Assess the effectiveness of co-financing arrangements and of donor coordination, if applicable.

Donor commitment to ASDP has fluctuated but a core group has remained consistently involved. The departure of several DPs from the ASDP basket fund in 2005-2007 has been balanced by increased support from the three major MFIs (WB, AfDB and IFAD). Nevertheless, there is now some renewed interest from non-ASDP basket donors to support agriculture within the ASDP framework, but this will require flexibility in financing and coordination mechanisms. Recognizing government leadership and ownership in the development process, DPs are committed to supporting implementation of the ASDP, and an important element of this support is working to build more effective donor harmonization. To this end, an Agriculture Working Group (A-WG) of the Development Partners Group (DPG) has been established. The purpose of the A-WG is to promote coherence and consistency in development assistance to the agricultural sector through coordination of Development Partners’ support to the sector with a view of achieving harmonization, promoting coordinated policy dialogue and reducing transaction costs. The A-WG focuses on informative meetings as a way of enhancing its coordination.

3. Harmonization. State whether the Bank made explicit efforts to harmonize instruments, systems and/or approaches with other partners.

Following the adoption of the ASDP as the umbrella framework for interventions in the sector, AfDB like other DPs is working towards streamlining current and future interventions into the Programme. Institutionally the programme is organised at local and national levels, building on existing GoT structures rather than creating new ones. The programme uses Government financial and accounting systems, and procurement guidelines which generally operate in a satisfactory manner. The Bank together with the other DPs and Government carry out Joint Implementation Review of the programme every year. the overall objective of this review is to assess performance of ASDP towards generating relevant outcomes which will lead towards achieving programme objectives. Specifically, the review employs the programme M&E indicators to measure outputs and outcomes. Each donor then uses the review findings as an input into their own standard performance measurement ratings.

12

4. For each dimension of project implementation, assess the extent to which the project achieved the following. Provide a brief assessment (up to two sentences) and insert a working score, using the scoring scale provided in Appendix 1.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION DIMENSIONS ASSESSMENT WORKING

SCORE

TIMELINESS

a) Extent of project adherence to the original closing date. If the number on the right is: below 12, score 4 between 12.1 to 24, score 3 between 24.1 to 36, score 2 beyond 36.1, score 1

Difference in months between original closing date and actual closing date or date of 98% disb. Rate.

The closing date is 30th June 2012. AfDB funding was 100% disbursed before the closing date. The timeliness score has however been downgraded to 3 because other partners have not yet disbursed their full commitments and the programm is still ongoing.

3

-18

BANK PERFORMANCE

b) Bank complied with:

Environmental Safeguards

Bank ensured that environmental safeguards were enforced. In accordance with the Bank’s ESAP, this Programme was classified as Category 2, considering that the potential environmental and social effects of its sub-projects are expected to be site-specific and non-significant.

3

Fiduciary Requirements

Bank ensured that fiduciary requirements were enforced. Programme activities were subject to Internal Audit review and follow-up of internal audit recommendations formed part of the Local Government Capital Development Grant (LGCDG) performance measures. The Banlk also made sure that external audit was carried out annually by the National Audit Office (NAO) in accordance with the provisions of the MoU (Basket Fund) and the agreed terms of reference (TOR) for the audit of the financial statements of the Programme. A follow-up of audit recommendations was done.

3

Project Covenants Project convenants were enforced.

3

c) Bank provided quality supervision in the form of skills mix and practicality of solutions

The Bank participated in all 3 Joint Implementation Reviews (JIRs) with the TZFO Agriculture Expert and Financial Management Specialist joining the Teams that undertook the reviews. Other DPs contributed experts (e.g procurement, irrigation, etc) hence obtaining the required skill mix.

3

d) Bank provided quality management oversight

The Bank provided quality management oversight and participated actively in the the Programme's Basket Fund quarterly Steering Committee meetings.

3

BORROWER PERFORMANCE

e) Borrower complied with:

Environmental Safeguards The borrower complied with environmental safeguards specified in the appraisal report.

3

Fiduciary Requirements The borrower complied with the Banks fiduciary 2

13

requirements in the sense that Annual financial audits were carried out and submiited in a timely manner. However, in all the Audit Reports, recommendations were made on key issues which required management attention and action for improvement. It became quite clear that some of the same systemic issues still prevail (e.g. ineligible expenditure), and in some instances the situation became worse and the amounts involved larger. It is therefore possible that the programme may have attended to specific cases identified in the audits, but the weaknesses in the system of internal control remain.

Project Covenants Project convenants were generally honoured. 3

f) Borrower was responsive to Bank supervision findings and recommendations

The borrower was only partially responsive to joint supervision findings and recommendations. In every JIR Report, there is a section which shows implementation status of agreed actions from the previuos review mission.

2

g) Borrower collected and used monitoring information for decision making

An integrated sector-wide M&E system is not yet completed, and therefore it is still difficult to collect all the relevant data and information required. However, information that is currently collected is used to inform decision making.

2

G. COMPLETION

1. IS THE PCR DELIVERED ON A TIMELY BASIS, IN COMPLIANCE WITH BANK POLICY?

Date project reached 98% disb. Rate (or closing date if applicable)

Date PCR was sent to pcr@afdb.org

Difference in months WORKING SCORE (auto-calculated) if the difference is 6 months or less, a 4 is scored. If the difference is 6.1 or more, a 1 is scored

12/07/2010 05/02/2011 5 4

2. Briefly describe the PCR Process. Describe the Borrower’s and co-financers' involvement in producing the document. Highlight any major differences of opinion concerning the assessments made in this PCR. Describe the team composition and confirm whether a site visit was undertaken. Mention any major collaboration from other development partners. State the extent of field office involvement in producing the report. Indicate whether comments from Peer Reviewers were received on time (provide names and positions of Peer Reviewers). [100 words maximum]

The PCR mission was carried out between 8th and 28th March 2011. This mission was done alongside the ASDP Evaluation exercise which was undertaken jointly with other Development Partners (DPs) contributing to the ASDP basket. The PCR mission comprised Mr. Jonathan Nyamukapa - Financial Management Specialist (OSAN.1) and Mr. Dennis Rweyemamu – Agriculture Expert (AfDB-TZFO). A Team of one local and four external consultants undertook the ASDP Evaluation exercise. As part of the ASDP Evaluation, field trips were undertaken in four regions (Arusha, Dodoma, Morogoro and Pwani). Findings from the ASDP Evaluation were used as input to PCR.

14

H. LESSONS LEARNED

Summarize key lessons for the Bank and the Borrower suggested by the project’s outcomes [250 words maximum. Any additional narrative about lessons learned, if needed, must be placed in Annex 6: Project Narrative]

The performance of the ASDP, though not perfect, has shown that a sector wide approach in agriculture can be possible where sufficient political and donor commitment is in place. ASDP was launched to cover all districts in Tanzania and this may have slowed its impact as funds were spread too thinly. Because of the scale and complexity of implementing a new programme nationally, phasing is a better option which would allow for better focus on all aspects of the programme. The initial planning process for ASDP should have developed mechanisms for greater creativity and flexibility around the operation of a basket funding mechanism. This would have prevented some donors from leaving and attract others who were put off by the strictness of the basket mechanisms. Districts do not have the necessary capacity to develop, plan and implement agriculture development plans. Overall, LGAs are unable to efficiently implement the programme because of insufficient personnel, lack of expertise in some key areas and inadequate physical infrastructure. LGAs respond to incentives. The use of base and top up grants is a good model. The number of LGAs achieving the top up grants has increased consistently since the programme began. This mechanism can be further developed as new targets are set to encourage further development in the future. The design of the ASDP M&E framework shuold not have been based around costly national statistical surveys which in practice have not been timely in producing needed estimates of programme achievements.

I. PROJECT RATINGS SUMMARY

All working scores and ratings are auto-generated by the computer from the relevant section in the PCR.

CRITERIA SUB-CRITERIA WORKING SCORE

PROJECT OUTCOME

Achievement of outputs 3

Achievement of outcomes 2

Timeliness 3

OVERALL PROJECT OUTCOME SCORE 3

BANK PERFORMANCE

Design and Readiness

Project Objectives were relevant to country development priorities. 4

Project Objectives could in principle be achieved with the project inputs and in the expected time frame.

2

Project Objectives were consistent with the Bank’s country or regional strategy

4

Project Objectives were consistent with the Bank’s corporate priorities 4

The log frame presents a logical causal chain for achieving the project development objectives. 2

The log frame expresses objectives and outcomes in a way that is measurable and quantifiable. 2

15

The log frame states the risks and key assumptions. 3

Project complexity was matched with country capacity and political commitment. 2

Project design includes adequate risk analysis. 2

Project procurement, financial management, monitoring and/or other systems were based on those already in use by government and/or other partners. 3

Responsibilities for project implementation were clearly defined. 3

Necessary implementation documents (e.g. specifications, design, procurement documents) were ready at appraisal. 3

Monitoring indicators and monitoring plan were agreed upon during design. 2

Baseline data wre available or were collected during design. 1

PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS SUB-SCORE 3

Supervision:

Bank complied with:

Environmental Safeguards 3

Fiduciary Requirements 3

Project Covenants 3

Bank provided quality supervision in the form of skills mix provided and practicality of solutions.

3

Bank provided quality management oversight. 3

PCR was delivered on a timely basis 4

SUPERVISION SUB-SCORE 3

OVERALL BANK PERFORMANCE SCORE 3

BORROWER PERFORMANCE

Design and Readiness

Responsibilities for project implementation are clearly defined. 3

Necessary implementation documents (e.g. specifications, design, procurement documents) are ready at appraisal.

3

Monitoring indicators and monitoring plan are agreed upon and baseline data are available or are being collected

2

PROJECT DESIGN AND READINESS SCORE 3

Implementation

Borrower complied with:

Environmental Safeguards 3

Fiduciary Requirements 2

Project Covenants 3

Borrower was responsive to Bank supervision findings and recommendations.

2

Borrower collected and used of monitoring information for decision-making. 2

IMPLEMENTATION SUB-SCORE 2

OVERALL BORROWER PERFORMANCE SCORE 3

16

J. PROCESSING

STEP SIGNATURE AND COMMENTS DATE

Sector Manager Clearance

Regional Director Clearance

Sector Director Approval

APPENDIX 1

Scale for Working Scores and Ratings

SCORE EXPLANATION

4 Very Good- Fully achieved with no shortcomings

3 Good- Mostly achieved despite a few shortcomings

2 Fair- Partially achieved. Shortcomings and achievements are roughly balanced

1 Poor- Very limited achievement with extensive shortcomings

NA Non Applicable

Note: The formulas round up or down for decimal points. Only whole numbers are computed.

17

LIST OF ANNEXES

Mandatory

1. Project Costs and Financing a. Project costs by component b. Financing by sources of funds

2. Bank Inputs. List the key team members, and their specialties, during preparation and supervision. Provide a consolidated list of Preparation, Supervision and Completion Missions in chronological order. Provide the date and ratings of the last supervision report.

3. Economic Analysis (ERR) and Financial Analysis, if appropriate Re-estimate the economic rates of return based on costs and benefits at completion, and compare with apprailsal estimates. Break down by components as appropriate. Analyze the sensitivity of the ERR to key assumptions. Present a financial analysis for project beneficiary entities.

4. Procurement Plan. Please attached the most recent Procurement Plan

5. List of Supporting Documents

Optional

6. Project Narrative. Key factors not covered in the main template that affected the design and implementation of the project. Such factors, both positive and negative, could include: climate and weather, political changes, contractual or personnel matters, technical issues, procurement processes, and interactions with other partners. If any of these factors is significant enough to affect the evaluation ratings, it should be noted in the template with a reference to this annex.

18

ANNEX 1: PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING

ANNEX 2: BANK INPUTS

ANNEX 3: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

ANNEX 4: LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

ANNEX 5: PROJECT NARRATIVE

ANNEX 6: MAP OF PROGRAMME AREA

Contents

19

ANNEX 1: PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING

The total cost of ASDP-I is estimated at USD 315.6 million (equivalent to UA 210.8 million). A summary of the programme

costs and sources of financing at Appraisal are presented in the tables below.

Programme Costs (UA'000)

06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 Total

Component 1: Local Level Support

Agric. Investments 3,827 11,350 12,508 14,445 12,546 13,945 68,622

Agric Services 1,140 4,468 6,588 8,150 9,567 10,874 40,787

Agric Capacity Building and Reforms 5,024 5,013 5,379 6,026 5,754 5,280 32,476

Sub-total 9,991 31,182 36,637 42,842 41,712 45,054 141,885

Component 2: National Level Support

Agric Services 5,755 9,312 9,075 7,576 7,197 6,734 45,649

Irrigation Development 1,011 1,145 1,070 1,044 1,075 1,075 6,421

Marketing & Private Sector Dev. 905 945 923 925 - - 3,698

Food Security 220 679 696 699 710 - 3,004

Coordination and M&E 1,940 1,330 1,776 1,427 2,348 1,336 10,157

Sub-total 9,831 13,410 13,540 11,671 11,330 9,146 68,928

Total 19,821 44,592 50,177 54,513 53,043 54,200 210,813

20

Sources of Financing (UA'000)

06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 Total

Sources of Funds

Government - 1,743 3,098 3,279 4,151 6,930 19,200

Farmers (Beneficiaries) 737 1,736 3,383 3,232 3,017 3,365 15,469

Development Partners (Requested) 19,084 30,763 31,536 33,782 32,029 28,950 176,144

Development Partners (Committed)

Comprised of:-

- AfDB - 8,000 13,935 15,862 2,203 - 40,000

- World Bank 9,456 13,755 12,095 12,799 8,679 3,340 60,125

- IFAD 3,783 5,501 4,838 5,120 4,808 tbd 24,050

- European Union (STABEX) 2,839 2,839 tbd tbd Tbd tbd 5,679

- Embassy of Japan 668 668 668 tbd Tbd tbd 2,004

- Irish Aid 668 tbd tbd tbd Tbd tbd 668

Total 17,414

30,763

31,536

33,781 15,690 3,340 132,526

Shortfall in Funding (1,670) 0

0 0 (16,338) (25,610)

(43,618)

21

ANNEX 2: BANK INPUTS

2.1 BANK STAFF INPUTS

Name Position Division

A. Abou-Sabaa Director OSAN

C. O. Ojukwu Manager OSAN. 1

S. Moyo Resident Representative TZFO

T. Kandiero Resident Representative TZFO

A. Mend Officer In charge OSAN. 1

J. Coompson Principal Agro-economist OSAN. 1

A. Clark Principal Macro-economist OSGE. 1

P. Kariuki Country Economist OREA

L. P. Mousseau Senior Environment Specialist OSAN. 3

I. Amadou Principal Agro-economist OSAN. 1

J. Nyamukapa Financial Management Specialist OSAN. 1

G. Kaijage Financial Management Specialist TZFO

V. Nyimbo Agriculture Expert TZFO

D. Rweyemamu Agriculture Expert TZFO

22

PROJECT2.2 PERFORMANCE RATING

INDICATORS

RATINGS

13.10.2008 28.09.2009 16.08.2010

A. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Compliance with loan conditions precedent to entry into force 3 3 3

Compliance with General Conditions 3 3 3

Compliance with Other Conditions 3 3 3

B. PROCUREMENT PERFORMANCE

Procurement of Consultancy Services 2 2 2

Procurement of Goods and Works 2 2 2

C. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

Availability of Foreign Exchange 3 3 3

Availability of Local Currency 3 3 3

Disbursement Flows 3 2 1

Cost Management 2 2 2

Performance of Co-Financiers 2 2 2

D. ACTIVITIES AND WORKS

Adherence to implementation schedule 2 2 2

Performance of Consultants or Technical Assistance 2 2 2

Performance of Contractors 2 2 1

Performance of Project Management 2 2 2

E. IMPACT ON DEVELOPMENT

Likelihood of achieving development objectives 3 2 2

Likelihood that benefits will be realized and sustained 2 2 2

Likely contribution of the project towards an increase in 2 2 2

Current Rate of Return N/A N/A N/A

F. OVERALL PROJECT ASSESMENT

Current Supervision Average 2.29

Current Trend over time 2.35

RATINGS: 3 = Highly Satisfactory, 2 = Satisfactory, 1 = Unsatisfactory, 0 = Highly Unsatisfactory

23

2.3 LIST OF MISSIONS

TYPE OF MISSION START DATE END DATE

1 Field Mission 13.10.2008 24.10.2008

2 Field Mission 28.09.2009 11.01.2009

3 Field Mission 16.08.2010 27.08.2010

4 PCR Mission 08.03.2011 28.03.2011

24

ANNEX 3: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

ASDP Investments

ASDP investments have produced significant improvement in productivity and household income. Some programme

achievements are detailed below. No attempt of financial analysis was made for reasons of data limitation and reliability.

There is a need to systematically collect, collate and analyze the data from individual investments to allow aggregation of

programme benefits as a whole.

64,469 FFS have been established and 774,156 farmers trained. This has led to significant productivity increases. For

example, rice yields have increased from 2.5 to 6.0 ton/ha due to the use of improved rice varieties (SARO) and improved

management practices (Morogoro DC). At a price per ton of 600,000 TZS, this represents an increase in the value of

production from 1,500,000 TZS/ha to 3,600,000 TZS/ha; maize productivity has increased from 1.5 to 3.8 ton/ha (Arusha). At

a price per ton of 250,000 TZS, this increase represents an increase in the value of production from 375,000 TZS to 950,000

TZS. In this context, there is evidence to show that the transfer of the results of research by extension has positive impacts

on agricultural growth and household incomes.

Livestock development centres. Forty one livestock development centers have been established. Through ASDP support

LGAs have been facilitated to procure and distribute 139 dairy cattle, 213 heifers, 374 bulls and 5,285 cockerels aimed at

enhancing livestock production potential to increase productivity. Recorded results are: average milk production from

smallholders has increased from less than 2 to 3 litres per cow per day from ungraded local cattle up to 16 litres per cow after

grading to F3. The average price per litre per season during the 2007/2008 agricultural year has been reported by the

National Sample Census of Agriculture as being on the Mainland 400 TZS in the wet season and 451 TZS in the dry season,

the corresponding value of this increase would therefore be 5,400 TZS and 6,088 TZS respectively; the majority of livestock

keepers in Meru (Arusha DC) have been encouraged to use A.I. It was also reported that crossbreeds are fetching good

prices between TZS 800,000 to 1,900,000 per in-calf heifer. As a comparison, average price reported in Tabora for cattle

150,000-200,000 TZS; cross-breeding between egg production from 40 to 60 eggs per hen per year (50 % increase) and

improved the average weight of local chickens from 1.5 to 2.5kg (67 % increase Income for livestock keepers increased

because of selling improved cattle which attain an average live weight of 190kgs in 3 years as compared to local breeds with

150kgs in 5 years. An approximately 30 % increase in live weight in a shorter production time has resulted in significant

income increases.

Environmental practices. Practices favourable to the environment are beneficial to household incomes both in the short term

and in terms of sustainability. The advantage is in the use of low cost inputs and the avoidance of negative impact on

incomes due to excessive exploitation of natural resources. This is particularly important given the negative consequences of

exacerbation of climate change effects on the environment. For example, The adoption of the use of livestock manure from

zero grazing system in Kinenulo village, led to increased maize production from an average of 0.6 tons/ha to 1.7 ton/ha.

Forestry activities at community level were also encouraged for improvement in soil conservation.

Diversification. Diversification of production is an important contributor to diversification of household incomes and the

consequent reduction of risk of poor financial returns from the main activity. Activities which can be undertaken in periods of

low activity periods can be particularly beneficial. In this context, the establishment under ASDP of 9 fish farming ponds could

be further developed. In addition, forestry activities could also make an important contribution.

Charco Dams. 194 charco dams have been constructed and 78 rehabilitated. In addition, 80 water shallow wells have been

established. Recorded results are: significant improvement in the availability of water for livestock and reduction of the

25

Distance that the livestock keepers have to walk in search for water. The reduction in Sengerema District was from 2-3 hours

to about 30 minutes on average.

Milk collection centres shows successful milk collection centre investments in which high increases in the collection of milk

and consequently of incomes of livestock holders were recorded. These were important developments because before the

project livestock keepers had large losses due to the lack of facilities which would increase the shelf life of milk. An average

investment of 22,627,172 TZS generated an average increase in income of 43 % for beneficiaries.

Dip Tanks. According to DADPs monitoring reports, the LGAs have constructed 271 and rehabilitated 187 dip tanks. As a

consequence the number of livestock tick related diseases were reduced. As a result, the number of livestock tick related

disease deaths was reduced. Box A6 shows successful dip tank investments in which increases in animal productivity and

incomes of livestock holders were recorded. It provides also further information on benefits from dipping tank investments.

33,728 animals were reached, 31,651 cattle and 2,020 goats. The average non weighted reduction in mortality has been 25.8

%. Taking average prices in Tabora in 2010/2011 as an example, cattle (150,000–250,000) and goat (30,000–50,000), a 25.8

% reduction in mortality would represent a benefit of 51,600 TZS for each herd of cattle and 10,320 TZS for each herd of

goat. Since 31,651 of cattle and 2,020 of goats have been reached by this selection of dip tanks, it can be derived that for 10

dip tanks the benefit was 1,633 billion TZS for cattle and 20,846,400 TZS for goats. The average cost of these dipping tanks

was 20.4 million approximately. The relationship between the costs and the generated benefits provides a significant result.

Veterinary Clinics - 2,627 animals were reached, 2,562 cattle and 65 goats. The average non weighted reduction in mortality

has been 22.2 %. Taking average prices in Tabora in 2010/2011 as an example, cattle (150,000–250,000 TZS) and goat

(30,000–50,000 TZS), a 22,2 % reduction in mortality would represent a benefit of 44,400 TZS for each unit/herd of cattle and

8,880 TZS for each unit/herd of goats. Since 2,562 cattle and 65 of goats have been reached by this selection of veterinary

clinic investments, it can be derived that for 10 veterinary clinics the benefit was about 113.75 million TZS for cattle and

577,200 TZS for goats. The average cost of these veterinary clinics is approximately 11.5 million TZS. The relation between

the costs and the generated benefits provides a significant result.

Farm Machinery. A total of 65 tractors, 1,972 power tillers and 1,321 ploughs were procured through cost sharing

arrangements, in 2009/10. These investments have had positive effects on the size of land area cultivated by households

and on the increase in the efficiency of production. Recorded results are: in Kondoa DC, the use of power tillers has enabled

farmers to cultivate 5-8 acres per day compared to 1 acre per week; in Kigoma DC the work load has been reduced from use

of hand hoe to power tiller which enable them to cultivate 2-2.5 acres compared to hand hoe only 0.25 acre per day, per man

was cultivated. The use of the power tiller for carrying inputs or produces in large quantity is also considered. Cultivated area

expanded from 0.5-1 acre to 2-4 acres for each group Member. This has produced income generation since the group is now

earning 10,000 TZS each month after removing operational costs while previously their own contribution enabled them to

collect only 6,500 TZS per month.

Animal draught. 105 Oxen training centers have been established. Recorded results are increases in the cultivated land area

and in the time efficiency of production: the cropped acreage has increased from an average of 2 acres to 5 acres per farmer

(Muheza DC); time spent on cultivating one ha was reduced from 30 days when using hand hoes to 2 days when using oxen

(Kilwa DC); the use of oxenization and water conservation technology in Mayale village in Njombe district, resulted in

increased maize production from 0.6 ton/ha in 2000 to 2-3ton/ha in 2009. At a price per ton of 250,000 TZS, this increase

represents an increase in the value of production from 150,000 TZS up to 750,000 TZS. For selected oxenization centres, the

average yield for paddy obtained is 3.2 tons/ha and the yield for maize 3.5 tons/ha. The average cost of the centres was 15.4

Million TZS. Taking the yield for paddy as 1.6 in 2007/2008 and the yield of maize as 1.3, as given in the latest ASDP

Performance report (February 2011), this represents an increase of 1.6 tons/ha for paddy and 2.2 tons/ha for maize. At a

26

price of 600,000 TZS/ton for paddy and 250,000 TZS/ton for maize, this represents an incremental value of 960,000 TZS/ton

for paddy and 550,000 TZS/ton for maize for the households.

Storage. ASDP has financed 608 crop storage structures. Recorded results are: a storage structure at Lulembela Village has

been constructed and completed. Farmers use the structure through the Warehouse Receipt System to add value for money

for their products and sales increased from 2,500 to 5,000 TZS per 18 kg maize (Bukombe DC). The value has therefore

doubled.

Crop and Livestock Markets. About 96 crop markets and 20 livestock markets have been established (DADP Monitoring

report, 2010). Recorded results are: farmers could sell their produces at increased prices (25-35 %) at crop markets.

Processing. 1,852 various processing machines have been procured. Processing has positive effects on value added and

increased shelf life for agricultural produce. For example, the introduction of coffee hullers in Muleba district has led to an

increase in the value of coffee hence raising price from 1,800 to 2,500 TZS per kg. This represents an increase of

approximately 40 %. KILI-CAFÉ helped in getting established the ‘Association of Specialty Coffee Growers’ in all the areas

that had been under small scale coffee production - mainly Northern Zone, Mbinga District and Mbeya Region. The

"Association of specialty coffee Growers" was established (Mbey & Ruvuma - Mbinga DC). This was achieved through the

services provided by KILI-CAFÉ, that include training on quality coffee production; provision to the association of quality

processing units and searching for export markets, the association’s quantity sold grew from a low of 569,859 kg in 2002/03

(with no exports made by the association - only sold at local auction market), to 4,132,693kg in 2008/09, an increase of 625

% (or average annual increase of over 100 %). Out of this 2008/09 volume sales, 1,112,859 kg (or 27 %) was done on the

export market, and the rest at local auctions. Total Revenue received from the association’s coffee sales jumped from

584,934 US$ in 2002/03 to 6,804,085 US$ an average annual increase of about 177 %.

Road Construction. About 492.2 km of rural feeder roads have been rehabilitated allowing for improved accessibility to crop

and livestock input and output markets. Recorded results are: In Kagera, Karagwe DC, the transport cost for one ton of

coffee has been reduced from 40,000 TZS to 10,000 TZS and the cost of agricultural produce at farm gate increased as

banana bunch increased from 1,000 TZS to 2,000 TZS following the construction of rural roads. The rehabilitation and

construction of three culverts along Kilalangona roads had been improved enabling transportation of farm inputs and crops.

Walking distance was 22 Km but now has been reduced to 9 Km and the maize production and productivity has been

increased from 10 bags to 25 bags per acre.

27

ANNEX 4: LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

1. Appraisal Report (2007)

2. Quarterly Progress Reports (2007- 2011)

3. Joint Implementation Reviews Aide Memoires (2007- 2011)

4. Agriculture Sector Reviews (2007- 2011)

5. Public Expenditure Reviews (2007- 2011)

6. Report on the Evaluation of Performance and Achievements of the Agricultural Sector Development Programme

(ASDP) (2011)

28

ANNEX 5 - PROJECT NARRATIVE – GENERAL

Programme Background The Government of Tanzania (GoT) recognized that higher and sustained agricultural growth is an utmost priority to meet the development targets of the recently developed National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP or MKUKUTA, in Kiswahili) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of halving poverty and food insecurity by 2015 for four main reasons: i) about 80% of the poor live in rural areas and agriculture accounts for 75% of rural household incomes, hence significant reductions in overall poverty levels, particularly rural poverty, will require raising agricultural incomes; (ii) agriculture accounts for about 46.2% of Tanzania’s GDP (2004) and for about 50% of exports, with agricultural growth having a larger direct impact on GDP than comparable growth in other sectors; (iii) agriculture stimulates economic growth indirectly through larger consumption linkages with the rest of the economy than other sectors; and (iv) meeting the country’s food security needs in both rural and expanding urban areas requires higher agricultural growth contributing to higher incomes and lowering food prices. Its strategic vision, outlined in Tanzania Development Vision-2025 (1999), aims for decentralized development efforts that provide for a modernised agriculture sector, and the creation of an enabling environment for improving agricultural productivity, profitability and farm incomes, ensuring food security and increasing export earnings.

The agriculture sector has been facing a number of constraints to achieving Tanzania’s agricultura l growth targets, including both the shift from subsistence to commercial agriculture and the growth in existing commercial enterprises. The constraints include: (i) high transaction costs due to the poor state or lack of infrastructure to facilitate production and access to markets; (ii) under-investment in productivity enhancing technologies; (iii) limited access to technology demand and delivery channels (with 60-75% of households having no contact with research and extension services); (iv) limited access to financing for the uptake of technologies; (v) un-managed risks with significant exposure to variability in weather patterns with periodic droughts; and (vi) weak formulation and implementation of local investment plans, especially with insufficient participation of communities in the planning process.

In response to these challenges, the GoT approved the Agriculture Sector Development Strategy (ASDS, 2001). The objective of the ASDS is to achieve a sustained agricultural growth rate of 5% per annum, primarily through the transformation from subsistence to commercial agriculture. The transformation is to be private sector led through an improved enabling policy environment and public expenditure. Among the core features of the ASDS is to use of district-level demand identification, project management and implementation, through the preparation of District Agricultural Development Plans (DADPs), which are seen as the most effective methodology for achieving sustainable development.

The Agriculture Sector Development Programme (ASDP) is the Government’s operational response to the ASDS and the main mechanism for its implementation. The key methodology underlying this Programme is based on a participatory and iterative approach in its design, beneficiary demand-driven approach in its need assessment and decentralized and result/incentive-based in its implementation.

The Programme is in line with the Bank’s key policy documents, such as the (i) Vision Statement, (ii) Poverty Reduction

Policy; (iii) Agricultural and Rural Development Sector Policy (2000); and (iv) Tanzania Joint Assistance Strategy and Joint

Programme Document – Cover Note (2007). It also supports the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program

(CAADP).

29

Sector Goal and Programme Objective

The Sector Goal is to contribute to increased GDP growth, and reduced rural poverty and enhanced food security. The

programme development objectives are: (i) to enable farmers to have better access to and use of agricultural knowledge,

technologies, marketing systems and infrastructure, all of which contribute to higher productivity, profitability, and farm

incomes; (ii) to promote agricultural private investment based on an improved regulatory and policy environment.

Brief Description of the Programme

The programme design incorporates the lessons learnt from past and on-going national and donor interventions in

Tanzania. The Programme comprises two components with eight sub-components, as detailed below:

Component 1: Local Level Support

This component supports sector activities at village, ward and district levels and will focus on three sub-components (i)

local agricultural investments, (ii) local agricultural services, and (iii) local agricultural capacity building and reform.

Component 2: National Level Support

This component will focus on five sub-components which are as follows: (i) Agricultural Services, (ii) National Irrigation

Development, (iii) Marketing and Private Sector Development, (iv) Food Security, and (v) Coordination, Monitoring and

Evaluation.

Programme Costs and Sources of Financing

The total cost of ASDP-I is estimated at USD 315.6 million (equivalent to UA 210.8 million). As of now the following donors

have pledged to contribute to the funding of the programme: World Bank – USD 90.0 million (UA.60.125 million); European

Union – USD 8.5 million (UA 5.679 million), Japanese Embassy- USD 3.0 million (UA 2.004 million), Development

Cooperation Ireland (DCI) – USD 1.0 million (UA 0.668 million), International Fund for Agricultural Development USD 36.0

million (UA 24.050 million), Government – USD 28.7 million (UA 19.200 million) and Beneficiaries – USD 23.2 million (UA

15.469). The African Development Bank has earmarked UA 40.0 million (approximately USD 59.87 million) to support the

Programme. There is presently a funding shortfall of USD 65.29 million (UA 43.62 million). The Bank’s funding mechanism

for the Programme will be the Sector Development Budget Support Lending (SDBSL).

Programme Implementation

The programme is being implemented over a 6-year period (2006/07-2011/12). Implementation of the programme

commenced 1n 2006/07 financial year. The Bank’s participation starting 2007/08 will be for the remaining 5 years.

Implementation is within the existing institutional framework of the ASDP. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and

Cooperatives (MAFC), as the lead ministry of the ASLMs, is designated as the Executing Agency of the programme. The

institutions responsible for implementation of the national level component of the program are the MAFC, the Ministry of

Livestock Development (MLD), the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Environment (Zanzibar) and the Ministry of

Industry, Trade, and Marketing (MITM) while implementation of the local level component is the primary responsibility of the

Prime Minister Office-Regional Administration and Local Government (PMO-RALG) and Local Government Authorities

(LGAs). The programme implementation arrangements seek to strengthen those of Government and not create parallel

structures. Day-to-day management and coordination will be carried out by the Director of Policy and Planning (DPP) office

in MAFC.

30

Joint Implementation Review (JIR)

The overall objective of the review is to assess performance of ASDP towards generating relevant outcomes which will lead

towards achieving programme objectives. Specifically, the review employs the programme M&E indicators to measure

outputs and outcomes. Each TWG will;

i.Evaluate implementation of agreed actions during the last review, ii. Assess and document performance and achievement of objectives using relevant outcome/output indicators to

monitor progress on their respective thematic areas. iii. Address crosscutting issues; Food Security and nutrition, Communication, Land Use Planning and Management,

Monitoring and Evaluation, Environmental and Social Safeguards, Financial Management, Procurement, Gender and HIV/AIDS and identify constraints and challenges. iv. Assess the extent at which beneficiaries have been able to access, to use and be satisfied with agricultural

knowledge, technologies, marketing systems and outcomes obtained thereafter. v. Address level of the participation of the private sector in the Program vi. Provide recommendations and actions for improving implementation and performance of the programme.

A management/core team of GoT and DP representatives is responsible for planning and co-ordination of the review,

assignment of tasks to sub-teams and logistics, including, timetable, field visit, and arrangement of plenary meetings.

Review teams are made of ASLMs staff, technical experts where necessary and development partners with specific

expertise. Each of these groups spends a total of two weeks at both local (field) and national level. Taking into account the

nationwide scope of the program, a variety of locations are visited to obtain a representative sample. Selection of regions

and districts takes into consideration achieving wide coverage of the country, giving priority to regions which have not been

visited during previous reviews regardless of their remoteness. Once field work is complete reports are compiled and

submitted as one report. Each donor then uses the review findings as an input into their own standard performance

measurement ratings.

Preparation of the Project Completion Report

The PCR mission was carried out between 8th and 28th March 2011. This mission was done alongside with the ASDP

Evaluation exercise which was undertaken jointly with other Development Partners (DPs) contributing to the ASDP basket.

The PCR mission comprised of Mr. Jonathan Nyamukapa - Financial Management Specialist (OSAN.1) and Mr. Dennis

Rweyemamu – Agriculture Expert (AfDB-TZFO). A Team of one local and four external consultants undertook the ASDP

Evaluation exercise. As part of the ASDP Evaluation, field trips were undertaken in four regions (Arusha, Dodoma,

Morogoro and Pwani). Findings from the ASDP Evaluation were used as input to PCR.

Key Lessons from ASDP

First, the performance of the ASDP, though not perfect, has shown that a sector wide approach in agriculture can be

possible where sufficient political and donor commitment is in place, and where a well-resourced decentralisation policy is

pursued onto which local level agricultural development planning and implementation can be attached. While ownership at

national level has been not always consistently strong, the lead ministries have provided sufficient technical support and the

political leadership has given its backing to the programme.

Equally while not all the initial DPs have stayed in the basket, a small group of both large and small partners have provided

sustained support that has ensured the necessary investment funding. The emergence of parallel structures around project-

based approaches has so far not caused attention to divert from the SWAp. If the initial planning process for ASDP could

have developed mechanisms for greater creativity and flexibility around the operation of a basket mechanism, it might have

prevented some donors from leaving and attract in others who were put off by the strictness of the basket mechanisms.

31

Thus ASDP shows that it is possible to establish a sector wide programme. This is a major improvement on the situation

that existed prior to ASDP where many projects had their own parallel planning and reporting systems, most of which

disappeared with the ending of the projects. A return to this scenario would be a major backward step.

Within the LGDG system, the integration of the agricultural grants within the DADP system has been very successful and in

fact the planning processes and assessment criteria used have begun to provide of a model for other sectors. The

Successful coordination between PMO-RALG and the sector line ministries, and the efforts to conduct impartial annual

assessment exercises has provided an effective demonstration of how funding can be provided on a performance basis

using national planning and financing mechanisms.

ASDP was launched as a national programme covering all districts in Tanzania. In initial proposals a phasing of ASDP was

proposed. In hindsight because of the scale and complexity of implementing a new programme nationally, phasing may

have been a better option. This would have allowed for better focus on all aspects of ASDP whereas with the national

spread certain components have progressed, while others, especially private sector development and the development of

farmer networks have lagged behind. This may also have slowed the impact of ASDP as funds were spread too thinly

across too many areas.

The design of the ASDP M&E framework was based around costly national statistical surveys that in the event have not

been timely in producing needed estimates of programme achievements. Equally the planned annual services delivery

surveys that would have given regular estimates of intermediate outcomes such as adoption of improved technologies were

not implemented until 2008/9. In their absence, M&E reports have been founded to a large extent on direct surveys of LGA

authorities, and these have been incomplete and contained inaccuracies. Finally the set of short-list M&E indicators has

been modified over time, and while they reflect an active interest in regular results, the list now also fails to capture critical

areas such as pace of empowerment, service reform, research and there are several lessons to draw from the experience

including (i) the need to ensure that any national survey has sufficient resources to provide necessary analysis and results

on time, (ii) the importance of financing necessary planned annual surveys that provide critical annual performance

assessments, and (iii) above all the need to not forego the use of M&E as a tool to track reform processes as well as

measuring conventional benefits such as production and technology adoption.

ASDP was intended to drive forward a process of reform in how public services are delivered to farmers, as well as deliver

investments to benefit the farming population. While physical spend has grown on infrastructure and equipment, the pace of

reform has been lower than was intended in some areas. While the DADP assessments have encouraged a more bottom-

up approach to investment, the move towards pluralistic services and public-private partnerships has been slow. Insufficient

resources and support were put in place to encourage rapid reform of extension, research, empowerment and private

sector involvement, and this gap will need addressing in a future programme phase.

LGAs respond to incentives. The use of base and top up grants is a good model. The number of LGAs achieving the top up

grants has increased consistently since the programme began in 2006. This mechanism can be further developed as new

targets are set to encourage further development in the future.

32

ANNEX 6 - PROJECT MAP