Page 1 of 25

1. BASIC INFORMATION

a. Basic project data

Project title: Governance and Economic Competitiveness Support Programme (GECSP)

Project code: P-TZ-KOO-011-05 and

P-TZ-K00-013

Instrument number(s): Instrument number(s): ADF Loan Nos. 2100150025643 (UA 100 million)

Instrument number(s): ADF Loan Nos. 2100150030393 (UA 38,385,104)

Instrument number(s): ADF Grant Nos. 2100155026367 (UA 15,325)

Project type: Programme Based

Operation (PBO) General Budget Support Sector: Multi-Sector

Country: Tanzania Environmental categorization (1-3) :3

Processing Milestones Key Events Disbursement and Closing date

Date approved: 17 December, 2013 Cancelled amount: 0 Original disbursement deadline:

Date signed: 30 December, 2013 Supplementary financing: Yes Original closing date: 31 Dec, 2014

Date of entry into force : 12 February,

2014

Restructuring: NA Revised disbursement deadline:

NA

Date effective for 1st disbursement:

20 February, 2014

Extensions (specify dates): Revised closing date:

Date of actual 1st :

24 February, 2014

b. Financing sources

Financing source/ instrument (MUA) Approved

amount

(MUA) :

Disbursed amount

(MUA) :

Percentage disbursed

(%):

Loan: UA 100 million

UA 38,385,104 UA 100 million

UA 38,385,104 100%

Grant: UA 15,325 UA 15,325 100%

Government:

Other (ex. Co-financiers):

TOTAL :

Co-financiers and other external partners:

Execution and implementation agencies:

c. Responsible Bank staff

Position At approval At completion

Regional Director Gabriel Negatu, EARC Gabriel Negatu

Sector Director Tonia Kandiero, TZFO Tonia Kandiero, TZFO

Sector Manager Isaac Lobe Ndoumbe, OSGE Isaac Lobe Ndoumbe, OSGE

Task Manager Jacob Mukete, OSGE.2 Jacob Mukete, OSGE.2

Alternate Task Manager Tonaina Ngororano, OSGE.1 Francois Nkulikiyimfura, OSGE.2

PCR Team Leader Baboucarr Koma, OSGE.2

PCR Team Members Francois Nkulikiyimfura, OSGE.2

Alieu Jeng, Consultant, OSGE.2

d. Report data

PCR EVALUATION NOTE FOR PUBLIC SECTOR OPERATIONS

Page 2 of 25

PCR Date : 28/01/2015

PCR Mission Date: From: 01/12/2014 To: 05/12/2014

PCR-EN Date: 20 November 2016

Evaluator 1 : Ringo Star/Judith OFORI Evaluator 2: Ly:

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Summary from Appraisal Report including addendum/corrigendum or loan agreement, and taking into account any modification that occurred during

the implementation phase.

a. Rationale and expected impacts: Provide a brief and precise description on the project/programme rationale (concerns/questions raised), expected impacts and the intended

beneficiaries (directly or indirectly impacted by the project/programme). Highlight any change that occurred during the execution phase.

Tanzania’s long-term strategic development agenda is guided by the “Tanzania Development Vision 2025”,

adopted in 1999. The medium-term objectives for Tanzania are guided by the new NDS (2010/11-2014/15),

launched in December 2010.

The new NDS is Tanzania’s third Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) centers on three strategic pillars, namely:

(i) growth and reduction of income poverty; (ii) improved quality of life and social well-being, and (iii)

governance and accountability. The new NDS, compared to the country’s predecessor PRS, is more oriented

towards growth and enhancement of productivity, with a greater alignment of interventions to wealth creation.

Recognizing PSD as a key to achieving sustainable poverty alleviation results, the new NDS places strong

emphasis on growth and enhancement of productivity, Appraisal Report August 2011.

The country enjoys political stability with the best score on the dimension “political stability” and its lowest

score on the dimension “control of corruption”. Its GDP grew on average of 7% in 2010/2011 among the non-

oil producing countries. Its main growth drivers have been, gold exports, manufacturing and construction.

Mounting fiscal pressure has been imminent with critical challenges in widening fiscal imbalances and

accelerating PSD, which is currently hindered by the country’s investment climate. In FY 2010/11 revenue to

GDP ratio reached 16.5%, however this was still lower than the budget target of 16.9% of GDP. Against this

backdrop, total expenditure to GDP ratio has gone from 26.1%, to 27.5% and 27.2% between 2008/09, 2009/10

and 2010/11 respectively. As a result the areas of improvement in public financial management have been

budget credibility, budget execution, budget transparency and public procurement. As a result the GECSP

focused on strengthening the accountability, transparency and oversight of public resources, improving

domestic resource mobilization and improving private sector development.

b. Objectives/Expected Outcomes: Provide a clear and concise description of the project objectives, expected outcomes, and intended beneficiaries. In so doing, highlight any

revision/amendment.

The overarching development goal of the GECSP is to contribute to maintaining an accelerated economic

growth by strengthening economic and financial governance and improving the business enabling environment.

It thus addresses the following:(a) strengthening the accountability, transparency and oversight of public

resource, (b) improving domestic resource mobilization, and (c) improving private sector development

(Component 3). Uniquely, the Bank widened the scope of the Bank’s intervention to target certain hard and soft

enablers for private sector development, in line with the country’s new National Development Strategy (NDS).

Page 3 of 25

c. Outputs and intended beneficiaries: Provide a clear and concise description the expected outputs and intended beneficiaries. In so doing, highlight any revision/amendment.

The expected program outcomes are:

(i) Enhanced budget accountability and transparency;

(ii) Improved budget oversight;

(iii)Increased tax revenue generation;

(iv) Increased mineral resources management; and

(v) Improved business enabling environment and investment climate. d. Principal activities/Components: Provide a clear and concise description of the principal activities/components. In so doing, highlight any revision/amendment.

The three components are stated as follows:

Component 1 Strengthening the accountability, transparency and oversight of public resources

Component 2 Improving domestic resource mobilization

Component 3 Accelerating private sector development

3. PROJECT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

RELEVANCE

a. Relevance of the project development objective: Evaluation of the relevance ex-ante and ex-post (including during the implementation phase). The relevance of the project objective (during the

evaluation ex-ante and the post-evaluation) in terms of alignment with country’s development priorities and strategies, the beneficiary needs

(including any changes that may have occurred during the implementation), applicable Bank sector strategies, the Bank country/ regional strategy,

and general strategic priorities of the Bank. This criterion equally assesses the extent to which the project’s development objective was clearly stated

and focused on outcomes and the realism of the intended outcomes in the project setting.

The review confirms that the project development objective is highly satisfactory (4).

The GECSP is aligned to and consistent with the following:

The new National Development Strategy1 (NDS) 2010/11-2014/15.

The “2011-16 Partnership Framework Memorandum governing GBS”

The Bank’s Governance Strategic Directions and Action Plan (GAP) 2008-12,

The Bank’s Private Sector Development Strategy; and

The Country Strategy Paper (CSP) 2011-2015 and is consistent with the TYS

The GoT’s ongoing Policy Support Instrument (PSI) Agreement with the International Monetary Fund

(IMF).

The Letter of Development Policy (Annex 1), supports the GoT’s current reform program, whilst

consolidating gains and deepening reforms, which the Bank has supported in its predecessor GBS

programs, notably the Poverty Reduction Support Loan III2.

Page 4 of 25

The review notes the strong linkages of the GCESP with the Bank Group Strategies including the three

components of the GECSP that are aligned with the GAP 2008-12 and the third component

(accelerating PSD) is also aligned with the Bank’s PSD Strategy. The three components are all

enshrined in the Bank’s Medium Term Strategy 2008-2012 and consistent with the Bank’s TYS.

b. Relevance of project design (from approval to completion): The evaluator should provide an assessment of the relevance of the project design regardless of the one provided in the PCR. The evaluator will also

comment on the PCR conclusion for this section, and will provide an evaluation of the relevance of the project design. The latter assesses the

soundness and the timing of eventual adjustments, or technical solutions to ensure the achievement of the intended results (outcomes and outputs),

the adequacy of the risk assessment, environmental and social protection measures, as well as the implementation arrangements. For Programme

Based Operations (PBO), an assessment will be made on the relevance of the prior actions, the policy dialogue and the extent to which the operation

could have been more pro-poor in its design.

The review refutes that the relevance of the design is highly satisfactory (4) but instead satisfactory (3).

The GECSP was designed at a time where the economy faced a critical energy crisis. This exerted pressure on

public services’ delivery, notably in the infrastructure sector. Its goal to contribute to maintaining an accelerated

growth by strengthening economic and financial governance, and improving the business enabling environment

became more relevant.

According to the country readiness assessment, Tanzania met the Bank’s general and technical prerequisites for

Development Budget Support Loan (DBSL), as per the 2004 Guidelines which showed that the country has

enjoyed political stability as confirmed by its notable performance with respect to international indicators. The

assessment relating to the technical prerequisites confirmed that the country remains eligible for a DBSL.

The design factored the previous experiences and lessons of the Bank Group. These included the three

predecessor budget support operations namely the PRSL I, PRSL II and PRSL III, which provided useful input

in the design.

The design of the Bank’s budget support operation was informed by a number of studies and reports (Technical

Annex 6) Conclusions from these upstream studies suggest that: (i) the GoT’s commitment to economic and

financial reforms has increased compared to 2008; (ii) growth has been strong in spite of the GFC; (iii) public

spending needs to be managed and adequately prioritized in order to protect key social and investment outlays;

(iv) implementation of the investment climate Roadmap has become critical; and (vi) an assessment of anti-

corruption efforts indicates that more progress is needed to combat corruption.

The program enhanced macro-economic and sectoral reform program and consolidating the gains from previous

Bank GBS interventions, such as the PRSL III as well as cushioning the economy from exhilarating fiscal

pressure (dealing with the rising fiscal deficit), creating fiscal space to deal with an energy crisis and, thereby,

contributing to improving the delivery of public services particularly in the infrastructure and social sectors.

The design had clear baselines, targets and timeframes. However, the design is silent about inclusiveness and

deficiencies were noted in the lack of realistic disbursement conditions as per PCR.

EFFECTIVENESS

Page 5 of 25

c. Effectiveness in delivering outputs: Evaluation of the extent to which the project achieved its stated results (obtained from the logical framework) based on the last Implementation

Progress and Results Report (IPR) and by considering accurate reporting of direct or indirect evidence on intended and unanticipated outputs. In the

absence of sufficient data (as direct evidence), indirect evidence (such as project outcomes and other pertinent processes/elements of the causal chain)

should be used particularly in the evaluation of the extent to which the project is expected to achieve its stated results/ objectives. The absence of

sufficient data to assess the effectiveness should be indicated (and clearly detailed in the PCR quality evaluation section). The PCR score should

equally be indicated in this section.

The PCR did not rate the effectiveness, there were mixed results with varying degrees of success. Out of

the 12 outputs; 4 had 100%; 2, 80%; 5, 50% and 1, 0% achievement rates respectively. Some of the key

outputs were not achieved. On balance, the Review is downgrading the PCR’s satisfactory (3) rating to

unsatisfactory (2).

Even though the majority of intended project outputs are on track and are likely to reach final targets, at PCR,

not all was achieved. The review tracked the outputs as summarised below:

Output 1.1: Budget accountability and transparency: The two tracking indicators were the PFMRP IV

endorsement and the Drafting of the Whistle Blowers Bill. Both are tracked by the review and confirmed by

multiple lines of evidence. The findings of the PCR are endorsed in the Mid-Year Progress Report 2015, p 13

and 14, http://www.mof.go.tz/mofdocs/PFMRP/PROGRESSIVE/PFMRP%20IV%20ANNUAL%20PROGRESS%20REPORT%20FY%202013-14.pdf

www.mof.go.tz/.../PFMRP/.../PFMRP%20IV%20ANNUAL%20PROGRESS%20REPO...

http://www.tzdpg.or.tz/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/GBS_AR_Report_2011_Final__01.pdf

The Whistle Blower’s Bill was delivered with delays as pointed out in the PCR. It was eventually assented

though, http://allafrica.com/stories/201507060972.html, http://parliament.go.tz/polis/uploads/bills/1447073069-A%20BILL%20-

WHISTLEBLOWERS%20ACT,%20%202015-%20Kabunga.pdf

Output 1.2. Budget oversight: 69 beneficiaries received training, more than double the target (25). Training

was conducted to enhance effective oversight, http://www.mof.go.tz/mofdocs/PFMRP/PEFA/29_01_2014/Annual%20Report%20PFMRF%20IV%202012-13.pdf.

However, the PCR did not provide evidence on this output nor indicate functionality.

Output 2.1. Tax revenue generation: Concerns were noted on this output consistent with the country’s

challenges on revenue mobilization as stated by IMF report, https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2016/cr16254.pdf. The

PCR records that the Tax Administration Bill was not passed.

Output 2.2. Mineral resources management: Tanzania is confirmed an active part of the EITI global family

and complies with the Board requirements, http://www.teiti.or.tz. The TEITI Bill was submitted with delays by GoT

to Parliament by July 2013 though suspended in 2015, https://mem.go.tz/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/17.06.15BIILL-

EXTRACTIVE-INDUSTRIES-FINAL-15.6.2015.pdf.

Output 3.1. Enabling environment and investment climate: Changes were noted in the business environment

to a reasonable extent and was slightly above the Sub-Sahara average rates on a number of parameters,

http://www.thecitizen.co.tz/oped/Improve-ease-of-doing-business-in-Tanzania/1840568-2898028-13maay9z/index.html,

http://www.gepc.or.tz/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/International-Business-Tanzania-2014-Full-Report.pdf.

d. Effectiveness in delivering outcomes:

Page 6 of 25

Evaluation of the extent to which the project achieved its intended set of outcomes (including for Program Based Operations (PBOs) where

complementary measures are necessary for their implementation, namely public awareness, policy dialogue and institutional arrangements for

instance). The evaluator should make an assessment based on the results of the last project Implementation Progress and Results (IPR). The evaluator

shall indicate the degree to which project outcomes (intended and unanticipated) as well as reasons for any eventual gap were discussed in the PCR.

The review does not confirm that effectiveness in the delivery of project outcomes is satisfactory (3) but

rather unsatisfactory (2).

The review establishes that the project induced significant changes in PFM practices in Tanzania

http://www.mof.go.tz/mofdocs/PFMRP/PEFA/29_01_2014/2013%20Tanzania%20Central%20Government%20PEFA%20Report.pdf. This is

congruent with the findings of the PCR.

The PCR summarised the indicators as follows:

Outcome 1: Strengthened accountability, transparency and oversight of public resources

Outcome1.1: Enhanced budget accountability and transparency, 75% towards 80% end outcome

PEFA reports indicate that the rating for Public access to fiscal information (PEFA9.1) deteriorated from

“B” in 2013 to “D” in 2017. Budget reliability also declined from “B” to “C” over the same period. The

IDA CPIA ratings for “Quality of Budgetary and Financial Management” also indicate deterioration

from 3.5 to 3.

Rather surprising that none of such indicators were included in the M&E framework for this operation.

Outcome 1.2: Improved budget oversight.

100%: Timeliness of examination of audit reports by legislature (CSI)

95%: Implementation of audit recommendations made by CAG

Legislative scrutiny of the annual budget (PEFA 28) did improve from “D+” in 2013 to “B” in 2017.

Outcome 2: Improved domestic resource mobilization

Outcome 2.1: Increased tax revenue generation 17.9%

Outcome 2.2: Enhanced mineral resources management <10% variation in 2013 compared to 42% in

2011

Outcome is discussed in findings from the World Bank Group Macroeconomics and Fiscal Management Global

Practice Africa Region which highlights the weaker tax collection performance have led to a sharp decrease in

the expansion of real public expenditure,

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/374861468116334584/pdf/97720-ESW-Tanzania-Economic-

Update-Report-PUBLIC-as-of-7-2-15-6PM.pdf

Outcome 3: Accelerated private sector development

Outcome 3: Improved business enabling environment and investment climate

According to the PCR, there were:

Improved time it takes in paying taxes (CSI) from 172 hours per year in 2010 to 160 hours in 2014.

Total electricity installed, capacity in MW : Installed capacity stood at 1,438 MW as at end 2013 against

1,077 MW in 2011

It should also be noted that CPIA rating for “Business Regulatory Environment” remained stagnant at 3.5

between 2013 and 2016.

Page 7 of 25

Evidence to the contrary was found from the report, Tanzania Business Leaders’ Perceptions

of the investment climate in Tanzania, http://www.best-dialogue.org/wp-content/uploads/BLP-2013-English.pdf?x82837

This evidence is in agreement with the World Bank Doing Business reports 2008-2012 which shows a

progressive rise in the taxing requirements from 108 in 2008 to 133 in 2012 while improvements were recorded

in the requirements to start a business and property registration.

e. Project development outcome:

The ratings derived for outcomes and output are combined to assess the progress the project has made towards realizing its development objectives,

based on the rating methodology recommended in the Staff Guidance Note on project completion reporting and rating (see IPR Guidance Note for

further instruction on development objective rating).

The PCREN rates Project Development Outcome unsatisfactory (2)

The intended project outputs was downgraded to unsatisfactory (2) and outcome unsatisfactory (2) Based on

the computation of the DO in line with the Guidelines, the DO is unsatisfactory (2) on account both outputs and

outcomes as argued by the review. This is consistent with Staff Guidance Note on Project Completion Reporting

and Rating 2012.

f. Beneficiaries: Using evidence, the evaluator should provide an assessment of the relevance of the total number of beneficiaries by categories and disaggregated by

sex.

Beneficiaries and mainly Tanzanian entrepreneurs who will with project outputs/outcomes be better able to

contribute to the country’s inclusive growth and development trajectory, by operating within a more conducive

business enabling environment, with more effective economic infrastructure and with less bureaucratic

procedures, in particular pertaining to how they pay their taxes.

Both foreign and local investors are also beneficiaries as they will be incentivized to pursue investment

opportunities in a better and more business friendly, transparent and efficient environment..

Also women entrepreneurs who according to the PAR, are 20%, and the youth especially in small and medium-

size enterprises, benefited from access to business opportunities.

g. Unanticipated additional outcomes (positive or negative, not taken into consideration in the project logical

framework): This includes gender, climate change, as well as social and socio-economic- related issues. Provide an assessment of the extent to which intended or

unanticipated additional and important outcomes have been taken into consideration by the PCR. The assessment should also look at the manner the

PCR accounted for these outcomes.

EFFICIENCY

h. Timeliness: The timeliness of project implementation is based on a comparison between the planned and actual period of implementation from the date of

effectiveness for first disbursement. For Programme Based Operations (PBOs), the timely release of the tranche(s) are assessed through this same

criterion.

The review agrees that the project timeliness is highly satisfactory (4).

Page 8 of 25

The ratio of planned implementation time (24months) and actual implementation time (24months) from date of

effectiveness for first disbursement is 1 (24/24). Accordingly, based on the rating methodology recommended

in the Staff Guidance Note on project completion reporting and rating (August 2012), the review confirm that

the timeliness in project implementation is highly satisfactory (4) as rated by PCR.

The GECSP and the supplementary support were approved on 16th December, 2011 and 17th December, 2013,

respectively. The GECSP was effective in December, 2011, as envisaged in the Appraisal Report

implementation milestones. The first disbursement was done on 22nd December, 2011 after approval of the

loan. The performance was superior.

i. Resource use efficiency: Provide and assessment of physical implementation (based on outputs delivered) against resources used (based on cumulative commitments) at

completion for all contributors to the project (the Bank, Government, and others). This criterion would normally not apply to PBOs, as there is often

no direct link between the outputs and the amount of contribution (in which case the rater would indicate N/A).

This not applicable as it is a PBO.

j. Cost-benefit analysis: Provide an assessment of the timeliness of the development outputs, and the extent to which costs of the costs have been effective and have been

provided in the most efficient manner. The PCR rating should be discussed. The evaluator should verify whether the benefits of the project (achieved

or expected) exceed its actual costs. To achieve this, evidences will mainly be based on a comparison between Economic Rates of Return (ERR)

calculated at appraisal, the mid-term review and completion. When commenting PCR ratings, the degree of utilization of valid sources for evidence

justifying the rating assigned should be taken into consideration. The evaluator should ensure of the validity of assumptions and that the same model

was used for the calculation of others ERRs. For PBOs for which this calculation model does not apply, an assessment could be done with regards

to the contribution of policy reforms to economic growth. In the absence of sufficient evidence, an appropriate rating should be assigned.

This is not applicable.

k. Implementation progress: The assessment of the Implementation Progress (IP) on the PCR is derived from the updated IPR and takes into account the all applicable IP criteria

assessed under the three categories : i) Compliance with covenants (project covenants, environmental and social safeguards and audit compliance),

ii) project systems and procedures (procurement, financial management and monitoring and evaluation), and iii) project execution and financing

(disbursement, budget commitments, counterpart funding and co-financing).

The review does not confirm that the IP is highly satisfactory (4) but rather satisfactory (3).

Overall, the project complied with covenants, systems and procedures and execution and financing in a

satisfactory manner. The PCR notes that the project has complied with all covenants and first disbursement did

not delay project implementation. This is not necessarily so given the limitations indicated above. The mission

raised deficiency in that quarterly progress reports outlining the status of project implementation were not

submitted routinely and that they were not of good quality. Sound financial management practices were

observed.

SUSTAINABILITY

l. Financial sustainability: Provide an assessment of the extent to which funding mechanisms and modalities (eg. Tariffs, user fees, maintenance fees, budgetary allocations,

other stakeholder contributions, aid flows, etc.) have been put in place to ensure the continued flow of benefits after completion, with particular

Page 9 of 25

emphasis on financial sustainability. For PBOs, the assessment should focus on financial sustainability of reforms, as well as the Bank’s policy

dialogue to promote financial sustainability of the reforms.

The Review agrees with the PCR’s satisfactory (3) rating.

As per PCR, a sound and stable macroeconomic environment in place is likely to sustain benefits of the GBS.

The Bank and with other DPs constantly engaged in in policy dialogue with the government to ensure

implementing of reforms that would ensure continued flow of resources from partners, and lead to expected

results. It is also noted that the IMF programme provided reassurances to DPs that the government was pursuing

sound fiscal and financial management reforms. The GECSP supported reforms aimed at strengthening

domestic revenue mobilisation.

However, this is viewed as sufficient mechanisms though not critical. The imminent challenge is sustained

political and legislative commitment to reforms. GOT needs to persevere with the reforms in order to strengthen

the financial base of the country.

m. Institutional sustainability and strengthening of capacities: Provide an assessment of the extent to which the project has contributed to the strengthening of institutional capacities – including for instance

through the use of country systems – that will continue to facilitate the continued flow of benefits associated with the project. An appreciation should

be made with regards to whether or not improved governance practices or improved skills, procedures, incentives, structures, or institutional

mechanisms came into effect as a result of the operation. For PBOs, this should include an assessment on the contributions made to building the

capacity to lead and manage the policy reform process; the extent to which the political economy of decision making was conducive to reform; the

Government’s commitment to reform; and how the design reinforced national ownership.

The review consents that institutional sustainability and strengthening of capacities is satisfactory (3).

The GESCP made use of country systems and was implemented by the GoT through the Ministry of Finance

MoF. As per PCR, through supporting Government’s efforts to improve PFM practices, including procurement,

revenue mobilisation and private sector development and enabling environment, the GECSP contributed to

building the public sector’s capacity to initiate and implement reforms. Over and above policy dialogue

processes, within the GoT-DP frameworks with full participation of sector Ministries, Departments and

Agencies (MDAs), particularly in designing the PAF and assessing its implementation, it was also aligned to

the National Development Strategy. However continued political and legislative commitment is critical to

institutional sustainability.

n. Ownership and sustainability of partnerships: Provide an assessment of whether the project has effectively involved relevant stakeholders, promoted a sense of ownership amongst the beneficiaries

(both men and women) and put in place effective partnerships with relevant stakeholders (eg. local authorities, civil society organizations, private

sector, donors) as required for the continued maintenance of the project outputs. For PBOs, the assessment should measure the extent to which the

Government’s capacity to conduct consultations during policy dialogue and the extent to which the Bank supported the Government in deepening

the consultation processes.

The review does not confirm that ownership and sustainability of partnerships is highly satisfactory

rating (4) and rates it satisfactory (3).

The implementation of the GECSP project involved the intervention of various players.

Page 10 of 25

Designed in a participatory context and anchored on the Bank’s CSP for Tanzania, the NDS, and the

DPs/GOT/IMF Partnership Framework enhanced significant ownership. It involved the majority of stakeholders

including among them, civil society organisations, the private sector and DPs during appraisal of the operation

and maintained dialogue with Government and other partners through the existing GoT/DPs sectoral working

groups.

It is also noted that the IMF programme provided reassurances to DPs that the government was pursuing sound

fiscal and financial management reforms.

o. Environmental and social sustainability: Provide an assessment of the objectivity of the PCR rating on the project’s implementation of environmental and social mitigation/enhancement

measures with regard to the Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP), the capacity of country institutions and systems, as well as the

availability of funding to ensure the environmental and social sustainability of the operation. This criterion would normally only apply to

Environmental Category I and II projects.

This is not applicable as it is Category 3 classification.

4. PERFORMANCE OF STAKEHOLDERS

a. Bank performance: (Preparation/approval, ensure of Quality at Entry (QAE) : quality of the supervision, completion) : Provide observations on the objectivity of the

PCR ratings and feedback provided by the Borrower, and if necessary, re-assess the Bank’s performance throughout the project cycle (design,

implementation, completion) by focusing on evidence from the PCR in relation to 7 criteria defined in the PCR Guidance Note.

The review recommends a satisfactory (3) rating rather than the PCR’s highly satisfactory (4) rating.

The Bank was proactive, committed, flexible, pragmatic, swift and upfront in that it:

Provided relevant budget support grant and loan to promote transparency and accountability in PFM

systems, restore fiscal stability and improve the business enabling environment under Tanzania’s

Poverty Reduction Strategy (MKUKUTA I and II),

Fully aligned to the national budget, disbursed and managed through government systems,

Acted flexibly and responsive as attested by the GoT and demonstrated commitment to assisting

Tanzania’s development efforts by responding favourably, and quickly, to Government’s request for the

Supplementary support under GECSP.

Predictability: These resources were disbursed in line with estimates that were provided to Government

in terms of both timing and volume

Adequacy and quality of bank supervision missions was good.

In the view that the Bank could have done a better job at ensuring inclusion of all key stakeholders. The

M&E framework also could have been better, especially as regards choice of indicators.

In addition, as argued by the PCR, the project could have benefited from an effort by the Bank to engage CSOs

and the private sector, major intended beneficiaries, in programme design and implementation which would

have strengthened stakeholder engagement and ownership

The Evaluation is recommending a satisfactory (3) rather than the PCR’s Highly Satisfactory (4) rating..

b. Borrower performance:

Page 11 of 25

Provide observations on the objectivity of the PCR ratings, and if necessary, re-assess the Borrower’s performance throughout the project cycle

(design, implementation, completion) by focusing on evidence from the PCR in relation to questions defined in the PCR Guidance Note.

The review disagrees with the PCR’s satisfactory (3) rating as assessed and recommends unsatisfactory

(2) rating.

Even though the Evaluation finds that the borrower was active and that:

GoT liaised with the Bank during appraisal and supervision missions to ensure quality preparation and

implementation

Compliance with covenants, agreement

GoT met all the legal requirements (prior actions, conditions precedent to entry into force of the

Loan/Grant Agreements, and conditions precedent to the disbursement of the Loan/Grant) within time

(3 weeks)

Responsiveness to supervision recommendations:

All relevant MDAs were involved and consulted during the design of the operation.

During project implementation, the MDAs (such as the PPRA, CAG, MoF, MEM, TANESCO) provided

necessary support and information, responding to Issues raised at the level of DPs co-ordination, as well

the Bank’s specific requests for information. GOT agencies were able to identify and articulate

challenges being faced, taking the lead in owning the process of programme design and implementation.

The MoF was at the helm in coordinating and mobilising the MDAs. During project implementation,

the MDAs (such as the PPRA, CAG, MoF, MEM, TANESCO) provided necessary support and

information, responding to Issues raised at the level of DPs co-ordination, as well the Bank’s specific

requests for information.

GoT agencies were able to identify and articulate challenges being faced, taking the lead in owning the

process of programme design and implementation. The MoF was at the helm in coordinating and

mobilising the MDAs.

Measures for sustainability in place

Policy dialogue and coordination:

GOT provided all information requested in a timely manner

Both the output and outcomes were downgraded by the evaluation from the PCRs satisfactory (3) to

unsatisfactory (2) rating, resulting in unsatisfactory rating for the Development Outcome (D/O).

However, the deterioration in the public access to fiscal information also suggests uneven commitment to

the project objectives.

c. Performance of other stakeholders: Provide observations on the objectivity of the PCR ratings, and if necessary, re-assess the other shareholders’ performance throughout the project

cycle (design, implementation, completion) by focusing on evidence from the PCR in relation to relevant questions specific to each stakeholder (co-

financiers, NGO, contractors and service providers).

The review does not confirm a highly satisfactory rating (4) and downgrades the rating to satisfactory

rating (3).

Page 12 of 25

The performance of most other stakeholders involved in the project was good. In particular, great flexibility

was demonstrated in project implementation. The following were ensured throughout the project:

Timeliness of disbursements:

Functioning of collaborative arrangements:

Policy dialogue and participation:

However, as argued by the PCR, the project could have benefited from an effort by the Bank to engage CSOs

and the private sector, major intended beneficiaries, in programme design and implementation which would

have strengthened stakeholder engagement and ownership

5. SUMMARY OF OVERALL PROJECT PERFORMANCE

a. Overall assessment: Provide a summary of the project/programme’s overall performance based on the PCR 4 key components (Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency

and Sustainability). Any difference with the PCR and the reasons that have resulted in them should be mentioned. For cases with insufficient

evidence (from the PCR and other documents) available, the evaluator should assign a partly satisfactory rating (to be revised) until a PPAR is

complete.

The review finds that the overall performance was satisfactory (3). The program induced changes as

argued by the PCR.

Relevance: The development objective remained fully aligned throughout the implementation. It dovetailed

with the Bank Strategies, CSP, country development priorities and goals as well as sector strategies. The design

was appropriate and informed by past intervention of the Banks and tied with the needs of the country for macro-

economic reform and creating an attractive investment climate.

Effectiveness: Overall 80% of project outputs are on track to reach final targets, but not achieved at project

completion. Without follow-up review, it would difficult if not impossible to ascertain if all outputs thought to

be on course have been achieved.

Review rated both outputs and outcomes were unsatisfactory. Key outputs such as Cabinet approval of the

TEITI Bill (3) is still pending.

Efficiency: The program was timely and to a large extent implemented smoothly, however not all outputs were

achieved..

Sustainability: At the financial, the program had in place measures deemed sufficient to enhance the continuous

flow of benefits hence satisfactory. The institutional mechanisms were critical enough to strengthen the MoF

and DP capacities to ensure benefits flow continuously. It is also noted the Operation effectively involved all

relevant stakeholders, creating a strong sense of ownership and structured effective partnerships for continued

maintenance and management of outputs.

b. Design, implementation and utilization of the M&E (appreciation of the evaluator):

Page 13 of 25

Provide an assessment of planned and actual cost of the design, implementation and utilization of the M&E system. Design : To which extent the

project M&E system was explicit, adequate and realistic to generate and analyse relevant data ; Implementation : To which extent relevant data was

collected – Elements of M&E implementation and effectiveness in the PCR ; Utilization : degree of utilization of data generated for decision-making

and resource allocation – elements of M&E utilization in the PCR.

The project did not demonstrate a dedicated commitment to monitoring and evaluation. As a result and as per

PCR, quarterly progress reports were not routinely submitted apart from their quality being of concern. There

is no adequate quantitative data generated by the analysis alongside primary indicators. There was no use of

relevant well recognized indicators from PEFA CPIA which could have helped.

6. EVALUATION OF KEY LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS

a. Lessons learned: Provide a brief description of any agreement/disagreement with all or part of the lessons learned from the PCR after analysis of the project

performance with regards to each of the key components of the evaluation (Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Sustainability). List the PCR

main new and/or reformulated pertinent (and generic) lessons learned for each of these components here. It is recommended that no more than five

lessons learned are discussed. Key questions and targeted audience must also be specified for each lesson learned.

The PCR lists five (5) ‘lessons’, based on key issues identified. Not all what was stated as “lessons learned” are

actually lessons. Some are findings (at times with recommendations). This is an issue with a number of PCRs

reviewed. The Bank needs to address this by training task managers on how to distinguish and formulate lessons

learned. ,.

The review reformulated and re-focused on the following pertinent lessons:

1) Ownership, leadership, and commitment of the authorities, at the highest level, in the design and

implementation of the policy reform measures are the most important success factors for the operation.

2) Strong coordination amongst DPs avoids duplication of efforts and strengthens monitoring of results

3) Covenants and agreements, based on existing frameworks agreed between Government and DPs, are

easier to fulfil and facilitate programme implementation and an important element of programme design.

4) Policy dialogue is a strategy driver in PBO implementation.

b. Recommendations: Provide a brief description of any agreement/ disagreement with all or part of the recommendations from the PCR. List the PCR main new and/or

reformulated recommendations (requiring more actions by the Borrower and/or the Bank) here.

The review reinforces the sound recommendations and adds one more recommendation on legislative and

political commitment and sustainability of reforms.

1) The conditionality framework should focus on, and be built around, carefully identified key, urgent

reforms that need to be implemented.

2) Budget support operations should be implemented together with complementary Institutional Support

Projects targeting common priority reforms in both operations

Page 14 of 25

3) The Bank, and other DPs, should be favourable to quickly providing additional Supplementary

Financing for well-designed and actively implemented reform programmes that encounter financing

deficits during implementation

4) Strengthen monitoring mechanisms to enhance availability of up-to date and reliable data to inform

planning and decision-making

5) The GOT should ensure pragmatic political and legislative commitment to enhance national ownership

and sustainability of reforms.

6) The Bank must sharpen its project design and appraisal process, ensuring that the quality at entry is

enhanced.

7. COMMENTS ON PCR QUALITY AND TIMELINESS The overall PCR rating is based on all or part of the criteria presented in the annexe and other: The quality of the PCR is rated as highly satisfactory

(4), satisfactory (3), unsatisfactory (2), and highly unsatisfactory (1). Le timeliness of the PCR is rated as on time (4) or late (1). The participation of

the Borrower, co-financier, and the bank’s external office(s) are rated as follows: Very Good (4), Good (3), Fair (2), Poor (1).

Page 15 of 25

The review finds the quality of the PCR is fair. The PCR was submitted on the 28th of January 2015 the original

and revised closing period being 31 December 2014. Consequently, the PCR is submitted on time. The

timeliness of the submission of the PCR is confirmed with the PCR box.

The PCR covered most of the key aspects adequately, however there are some inconsistencies such as

consultations with CSOs and private sector pages 16 and 18. The PCR states under “Ownership and

sustainability of partnerships” that “All these strategic and policy documents were owned by GoT. They

were designed in a participatory manner. Various stakeholders including civil society organisations, the

private sector and DPs were consulted during appraisal of the operation” pg 16; whereas on page 18, the

PCR states under Promotion of stakeholder participation and ownership: “The GECSP used national

systems and its design was anchored on the NDS and the CSP, which were designed in a consultative and

participatory manner. GoT fully owns these policy and strategy documents. However, it is not evident

from the documentation that, during appraisal and supervision, the CSOs and the private sector were

consulted. There is no evidence to show that such consultations took place”. Most of ratings were based on the actual facts. The PCR needs improve on the formulation of Lessons Learned;

the Evaluation endorses the recommendations seeing them as relevant and useful

8. SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION This is a summary of both the PCR and IDEV ratings with justification for deviations/comments. Appropriate section of the PCR Evaluation should

be indicated in the last column in order to avoid detailed comments. The evaluator must provide a reasonable explanation for each criterion the PCR

rating is not validated by IDEV. Consequently, the overall rating of the project could be “equally satisfactory”.

Criteria PCR PCREN Reason for disagreement/ Comments

RELEVANCE 4 3

Relevance of project development objective 4 4 Overall the program was relevant and aligned

to strategic framework of the GoT, PSRSP,

sector strategies and the Bank CSP.

Relevance of project design 4 3 The design had incurred a deficiency on

inclusiveness.

EFFECTIVENESS 4 2 Outcomes are not satisfactory.

Development objective (DO) 4 2 Outputs were noted satisfactory and highly

likely to be attained. Outcomes were found

unsatisfactory.

EFFICIENCY 4 3

Timeliness 4 4 The program was timely with a timeline ratio

of 1.

Resource use efficiency NA NA

Cost-benefit analysis NA NA

Implementation progress (IP) 4 3 The project was weak in submitting timely

and good quality quarterly reports.

SUSTAINABILITY 3

Page 16 of 25

Financial sustainability 3 3 The imminent challenge is sustained political

and legislative commitment to reforms.

Institutional sustainability and strengthening of

capacities

3 3 The project used country systems.

Ownership and sustainability of partnerships 4 3 The project involved majority number of

stakeholders mainly other Development

Partners and Private Sector contractors and

suppliers; however the PCR gave conflicting

narrative on the involvement of civil society

organisations, the private sector and DPs

during appraisal of the operation and

maintained dialogue with Government and

other partners. It is not clear on sound

coordination and harmonisation.

Environmental and social sustainability NA NA

OVERALL PROJECT COMPLETION

RATING

4 3 Satisfactory

Bank performance: 4 3

Borrower performance: 3 3 The borrower was actively involved and

committed.

Performance of other shareholders: 3 3 Commitments were honoured.

Overall PCR quality: 2 Unsatisactory

Page 17 of 25

9. PRIORITY FOR FUTURE EVALUATIVE WORK: PROJECT FOR PERFORMANCE

EVALUTION REPORT, IMPACT EVALUTION, COUNTRY/SECTOR REVIEWS OR

THEMATIC EVALUATION STUDIES:

- Project is part of a series and suitable for cluster evaluation

- Project is a success story

- High priority for impact evaluation

- Performance evaluation is required to sector/country review

- High priority for thematic or special evaluation studies (Country)

- PPER is required because of incomplete validation rating

Major areas of focus for future evaluation work:

a) Performance evaluation is required for sector/ country review

b) Cluster evaluation (institutional support)

c) Sector evaluation (budgetary support or public finance management reforms)

Follow up action by IDEV: Identify same cluster or sector operations; organize appropriate work or consultation mission to

facilitate a), b) and/or c).

Division Manager clearance Director signing off

Data source for validation:

Task Manager/ Responsible bank staff interviewed/contacted (in person, by telephone or

email)

Documents/ Database reports

Attachment:

PCR evaluation note validation sheet of performance ratings

List of references

Page 18 of 25

Appendice 1

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT EVALUATION NOTE

Validation of PCR performance ratings PCR rating scale:

Score Description 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

UTS Unable to score/rate NA Non Applicable

Criteria Sub-criteria PCR

work

score

IDEV

review Reasons for deviation/comments

RELEVANCE Relevance of the project

development objective

(DO) during

implementation

4 3 Explanatory notes above

Relevance of project

design (from approval to

completion)

4 3 Explanatory notes above

OVERALL RELEVANCE SCORE

EFFECTIVENESS* Effectiveness in delivering outcomes

Outcome1; Strengthened

accountability,

transparency and

oversight of public

resources

4 3

Sustained commitment to transparency and

governance is a constraint, http://www.mof.go.tz/mofdocs/PFMRP/PEFA/29_01_2014/2013

%20Tanzania%20Central%20Government%20PEFA%20Report.p

df

Outcome2 Improved

domestic resource

mobilization

4 2

The output is rebutted by evidence cross-checked on http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/3748614

68116334584/pdf/97720-ESW-Tanzania-Economic-

Update-Report-PUBLIC-as-of-7-2-15-6PM.pdf Though an imminent challenge, some improvements

were recorded.

Outcome 1: Accelerated

private sector development

3

Evidence to the contrary was found from the report,

Tanzania Business Leaders’ Perceptions

of the investment climate in Tanzania, http://www.best-dialogue.org/wp-content/uploads/BLP-

2013-English.pdf?x82837.

Effectiveness in delivering output:

Output 1.1: Budget

accountability and

transparency

4 2 The outputs were tracked and found overall

satisfactory.

Page 19 of 25

Criteria Sub-criteria PCR

work

score

IDEV

review Reasons for deviation/comments

Output 1.2. Budget

oversight

3 3 This is attested by unconnected evidence accessible on http://www.mof.go.tz/mofdocs/PFMRP/PROGRESSIVE/PFMRP%20IV%2

0ANNUAL%20PROGRESS%20REPORT%20FY%202013-14.pdf

www.mof.go.tz/.../PFMRP/.../PFMRP%20IV%20ANNUAL%20PROGRES

S%20REPO...

http://www.tzdpg.or.tz/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/GBS_AR_Rep

ort_2011_Final__01.pdf

Output 3. Output 2.1. Tax

revenue generation

3 2

Output 4. Enabling

environment and

investment climate

3 There is contradictory evidence. The review opted for the

claim of the PCR.

Development objective (DO)

Development objective

rating

4 3

Beneficiaries

Beneficiary1 na na

Beneficiary2 na na

Unanticipated outcomes (positive or negative not considered in the project logical

framework) and their level of impact on the project (high, moderate, low)

Institutional

development na na

Gender na na

Environment & climate

change na na

Poverty reduction na na

Private sector

development na na

Regional integration na na

Other (specify)

EFFECTIVENESS OVERALL SCORE

EFFICIENCY Timeliness (based on the

initial closing date) 4 4 Explanatory notes above

Resource used efficiency na na

Cost-benefit analysis na na

Implementation progress

(from the IPR) 4 3 Explanatory notes above

Page 20 of 25

Criteria Sub-criteria PCR

work

score

IDEV

review Reasons for deviation/comments

Other (specify)

OVERALL EFFICIENCY SCORE

SUSTAINABILITY Financial sustainability

3 3 Explanatory notes above

Institutional

sustainability and

strengthening of

capacities

4 3 Explanatory notes above

Ownership and

sustainability of

partnerships

4 3 Explanatory notes above

Environmental and

social sustainability na na

*The rating of the effectiveness component is obtained from the development objective (DO) rating in the latest IPR of the

project (see Guidance Note on the IPR).

The ratings for outputs and outcomes are determined based on the project’s progress towards realizing its targets, and the

overall development objective of the project (DO) is obtained by combining the ratings obtained for outputs and outcomes

following the method defined in the IPR Guidance Note. The following method is applied: Highly satisfactory (4), Satisfactory

(3), Unsatisfactory (2) and Highly unsatisfactory (1).

Criteria Sub-criteria PCR

Work

score

IDEV

review Reasons for deviation/comments

BANK

PERFORMANCE Proactive identification and

resolution of problems at different

stage of the project cycle

4 The bank was flexible, proactive and

supportive through the programme. Its

performance was highly satisfactory.

Use of previous lessons learned

from previous operations during

design and implementation

4

Promotion of stakeholder

participation to strengthen

ownership

3

Enforcement of safeguard and

fiduciary requirements

3

Design and implementation of

Monitoring & Evaluation system

2

Quality of Bank supervision (mix

of skills in supervisory teams, etc)

3

Timeliness of responses to

requests

4

OVERALL BANK PERFORMANCE SCORE 3

BORROWER

PERFORMANCE

Quality of preparation and

implementation 3

Compliance with covenants,

agreements and safeguards 3

Page 21 of 25

Provision of timely counterpart

funding 3

Responsiveness to supervision

recommendations 2 The PCR pointed out strongly that the

borrower needed do better quarterly

reporting

Measures taken to establish basis

for project sustainability 3

Timeliness of preparing requests 3

OVERALL BORROWER PERFORMANCE SCORE 3

PERFORMANCE

OF OTHER

STAKEHOLDERS

Timeliness of disbursements by

co-financiers 3

Functioning of collaborative

agreements 3

Quality of policy dialogue with co-

financiers (for PBOs only) 3

Quality of work by service

providers 3

Responsiveness to client demands 3

OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF OTHER

STAKEHOLDERS

3

The overall rating is given: Very Good, Good, Fair and Poor.

(i) Very Good (HS) : 4

(ii) Good (H) : 3

(iii) Fair (US) : 2

(iv) Poor (HUS): 1

DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION AND UTILIZATION OF MONITORING AND

EVALUATION (M&E)

Criteria Sub-criteria IDEV

Score Comments

M&E DESIGN M&E system is in place, clear,

appropriate and realistic 2

An M and E system was in place with clear

baselines and realistic targets and timeframes.

Monitoring indicators and

monitoring plan were duly

approved

UTS

Existence of disaggregated gender

indicator 1

Issues of inclusiveness were not treated well in

the PCR.

Baseline data were available or

collected during the design 3 Satisfactory

Other, specify

OVERALL M&E DESIGN SCORE

M&E

IMPLEMENTA-

TION

The M&E function is adequately

equipped and staffed 2

As per PCR, this could have been

strengthened.

OVERALL M&E IMPLEMENTATION SCORE 2

M&E

UTILIZATION

The borrower used the tracking

information for decision 1

Reports were not of good quality and not

timeously submitted.

OVERALL M&E UTILIZATION SCORE 2

Page 22 of 25

Criteria Sub-criteria IDEV

Score Comments

OVERALL M&E PERFORMANCE SCORE 2

PCR QUALITY EVALUATION

Criteria PCR-EVN

(1-4) Comments

Page 23 of 25

QUALITY OF PCR

1. Extent of quality and completeness of the PCR

evidence and analysis to substantiate the ratings of the

various sections

3 The PCR is generally well completed.

Effectiveness is not rated in the explanatory notes.

2. Extent of objectivity of PCR assessment score 2 The ratings are based on facts. In other instances,

the PCR provided links to confirm basis of rating

and associated functionality.

3. Extent of internal consistency of PCR assessment

ratings; inaccuracies; inconsistencies; (in various

sections; between text and ratings; consistency of

overall rating with individual component ratings)

2 Textual arguments did not mirror ratings in some

instances, design and sustainability components

included. There were no consistencies between the

PCR and SAP disbursement amounts. 10 textual

errors could have been observed.

4. Extent of identification and assessment of key

factors (internal and exogenous) and unintended

effects (positive or negative) affecting design and

implementation

NA

5. Adequacy of treatment of safeguards, fiduciary

issues, and alignment and harmonization

2 Fair

6. Extent of soundness of data generating and analysis

process (including rates of returns) in support of PCR

assessment

2 ERR is not applicable. Quantitative analysis was

limited.

7. Overall adequacy of the accessible evidence (from

PCR including annexure and other data provided)

2 However, the depth of evidence was not sufficient.

The BTORs, Aide memos were however useful

though the reports of different projects could have

been separated rather combined with another

project-ISPG.

8. Extent to which lessons learned (and

recommendations) are clear and based on the PCR

assessment (evidence & analysis)

2 The lessons were not well formulated. Most of the

said Lessons were rather findings/conclusions

drawn. Recommendations were however adequate

and realistic. Aspects of sustainability could have

been developed as part of the recommendations in

view of sustained reform impact.

9. Extent of overall clarity and completeness of the

PCR

2 The PCR did not rate effectiveness despite

explanatory notes being provided. The

management and review section was entirely not

completed although comments were found on

BTORs/Aide memos. At least 13 errors in the PCR

could have been avoided. Outputs are mixed with

outcomes.

Other (specify)

PCR QUALITY SCORE 2 The PCR quality is fair.

PCR compliance with guidelines (PCR/OM ; IDEV)

1. PCR Timeliness (On time = 4; Late= 1) 4 The PCR was submitted one month from the

original closing date.

2. Extent of participation of borrower, Co-financiers

& field offices in PCR preparation

3

3. Other aspect(s) (specify)

Page 24 of 25

PCR COMPLIANCE SCORE 3 The PCR complied with the reporting standards in

the Staff Guidelines for Project Completion

Reporting and Rating. *** rated as Very Good (4), or Good (3), or Fair (2), or Poor (1)

References

GECSP PCR

BTOR

Aide Memos

Appraisal Report

IPR