OESC/UNDESA

1 February 2010

1. NATIONAL AID POLICY:

a.Is there a national aid policy document that definesgovernment’s priorities on aid?YES:  NO: 

If yes,please provide the name of the document, and attach an electronic copy to this survey response.

NAME OF DOCUMENT:Joint Assistance Strategy for Tanzania as an aid effectiveness strategy. MKUKUTA and sector strategies in terms of development results (aid aligned to contribute to the development results)

b. To what extent doesthis document(or another) containclear annual aid effectiveness targets:

i) for individual providersof aid1:  2:  3: 4:  5: 

ii) for the recipient government 1:  2:  3: 4:  5: 

c. … is itconsistent withthenational development strategy priorities? 1:  2:  3:  4: 5: 

d. …does it discussgender issues and contain gender-specific targets? 1:  2: 3:  4:  5: 

e. …does it defineclear institutional responsibilities within government

for aid management/negotiation?1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

f. …does it define clear responsibilitiesfor other key stakeholders

(including parliaments and civil society) 1:  2:  3: 4:  5: 

Comments:The current JAST runs from 2006-2011, linked to the MKUKUTA (ending in June 2010). The review of the MKUKUTA (PRSP) and the development of a MKUKUTA II is currently undertaken. It is foreseen that a new JAST would be developed after the finalization of the MKUKUTA II. The JAST as a mid-term strategy for aid effectiveness sets overall DP targets through the JAST Monitoring Framework, which broadly incorporates the Paris Declaration indicators. However, there is no specific target is set for individual providers of aid. Role of key stakeholders are defined in the JAST in terms of implementation of development priorities, but not clearly defined for implementation of aid effectiveness agenda.

2. MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY COORDINATION FORUMS:

a. What is the most important forum for discussing overall progress in meeting aid and development policy commitments and results targetsby providers and national stakeholders in your country? (If there is a high-level political forum supported by a working-level technical forum please answer the questions below in relation to the political forum.)

There is no CG meeting, nor Roundtable in Tanzania. However, a number of consultative/dialogue fora exists. These include: Annual National Policy Dialogue (which merges the MKUKUTA monitoring, PER, and GBS process) – meeting annually. This dialogue includes PER/Poverty Policy Week segment and the GBS Annual Review segment, which is considered the most important and the most structures forum by many Development Partners (mostly GBS partners), given that it is based on the assessment of the annual Performance Assessment Framework (PAF).

PER/Poverty Policy Week segment focuses on overall MKUKUTA implementation and PER with particular emphasis on MKUKUTA Annual Implementation Report (or Poverty and Human Development Report), budget analysis, Cluster MTEF, and PEFAR. As such, it focuses much more on development results but does not specifically provide a forum for overall aid commitments and effectiveness.

At sectoral level, joint annual sector reviews provide important fora for discussing sector progress in meeting sector policy commitments and results targets.

b.Is this forumcountry-led, i.e.:

…chaired by the country government: YES:  NO: 

…with the secretariat in the country government: YES: NO: 

…drawing on recipient government analysis of progress?1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

c.To what extent are key national stakeholders involved in this forum:

Parliamentarians1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

Representatives of decentralised governments1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

Civil society organizations1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

Women’s organizations 1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

Trade Unions1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

Private sector1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

Comments:

The mutual accountability dialogue in Tanzania rests on two mechanisms, which both have room for enhancing two-way dialogue. The first mechanism DPs and Government are measured on is their ability to meet aid effectiveness targets in the Paris/Accra agreements. While the Paris Declaration Survey 2008 has provided the joint review of progress towards Paris/Accra, the joint review on an annual base has been lacking. This review only looks at the aid effectiveness aspect, with at a moment little linkages to the development results.

The second mechanism is the GBS dialogue, where lack of development results translates into lower payouts. The GBS dialogue monitor and assess annually the progress in meeting development policy commitments and results targets agreed in the Performance Assessment Framework (PAF). Progress towards agreed actions have been less than anticipated during the last three years, and has in turn resulted in lower general budget support from DPs. GBS dialogue and PAF only monitor and assess DP predictability of GBS disbursement.

The Annual National Policy Dialogue (Poverty Policy Week and PER segment) provides a national dialogue forum for the MKUKUTA implementation (assessment of progress towards overall MKUKUTA targets and goals), but has not served as a mutual accountability framework. Poverty Policy Week has been considered more of the national policy forum, where key national stakeholders had been involved however, their engagement is considered less than anticipated, due to the modality for the dialogue limits effective participation of national key stakeholders.

GBS dialogue over the years has been increasingly engaging parliaments, representatives of decentralised governments and civil society organizations, although in the recent GBS Annual Review, some of the key national stakeholders raised that such accountability dialogue should increasingly be held with national stakeholders. However, in general limited participation of domestic stakeholder has been noted.

d.To what degree does this forum review comprehensively all providers:

OECD-DAC donors? 1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

Non-DAC donors?1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

Non-governmental / Civil Society Organizations?1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

Global Funds? 1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

Private Foundations and Philanthropic Providers? 1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

Please list any key providers which do not participate in these forums:

China, Global Health Funds, Aga Khan Foundation, MCA, India, private sector foundations, Russia, Iran, Kuwait Fund, etc.

e.Is there an agreed process for setting annual targets and tracking progressagainst them:

….for the recipient government?YES:  NO: 

….for individual providers? YES:  NO: 

Please name and if necessary briefly describe this process: Through the GBS process, annual targets and tracking progress in terms of development priorities and actions are set. The Performance Assessment Framework (PAF) is discussed and agreed upon jointly between the GBS donors and the Government on development outcomes, results, and process actions (linked to the overall comprehensive MKUKUTA Monitoring Indicator Framework). The PAF is monitored and assessed through the dialogue structure that is set for development policy dialogue. The GBS Annual Review meeting is the culmination of the monitoring and assessment process. PAF however only monitor and assess the predictability of GBS disbursement on Development Partners’ side. Assessment, however, focuses much more on the Government performance.

While the JAST provides a framework for aid effectiveness and sets targets for effectiveness based on the Paris Declaration Indicators, annual targets for overall DPs as well as for individual providers of aid are not set. Only agreed targets for the JAST is the targets set in the context of the Paris Declaration monitoring. These are not tracked annually at country level at a moment, despite the intention of the JAST to do so through the JAST Annual Implementation Report.

f.To what extent are the discussions based on independent analytical inputs:

…from independent monitoring groups1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

…from parliaments1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

…from civil society organisations1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

Please specify the independent analytical input documents discussed at the most recent forum meeting, and if possible attach electronic copies of the documents to this survey response:

Independent Monitoring Group (IMG) provides an in-depth analysis on aid effectiveness, which was instituted in early 2000. However, this does not go into comprehensive review of expenditures of development cooperation on results (development inputs). IMG also does not provide input to the GBS Annual Review, given that IMG since the launch of the JAST has not undertaken its assessment – although currently a similar assessment is undertaken within the context of the MKUKUTA review.

The general participation of civil society in the poverty reduction dialogue is moderate. Independent analysis is mainly carried out by Policy Forum and recently TWAWEZA (CSOs). For the Annual Policy Dialogue last year (2009), Policy Briefs were prepared by these organizations and made available during the policy dialogue.

g. To what degree has the forum produced behavioural change in terms of meeting the targets:

by the government1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

If appropriate, please specify the two major behavioural changes by government:

1) Increased level of ownership and stronger assertiveness of the GoT regarding the PAF, including increased level of negotiation over the details of the indicators

2) Improved awareness of results among senior government officials, however, more focused on accountability to donors.

3) Government performance has been declining according to the PAF from 2006 (app 80% fulfilment to 2009 55% fulfilment.

by providers1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

If appropriate, please specify the two major behavioural changes by providers:

1)More focused on development results and aid effectiveness goals

2)More attention and move towards more aid on budget, while moving towards less budget support due to disappointing results.

h.Please list the twomutual accountability mechanisms at the sectoral level which best track sectoral results targets set for individual donors, as well as for the recipient government:

Sectoral mechanism 1(please give name) Joint Sector Reviews in health, transport, water and education

…Tracks recipient progressYES: NO:  Tracks individual provider progressYES: NO: (some indicated Yes on tracking individual provider progress)

Sectoral mechanism 2(please give name) Public Expenditure Tracking Study (PETS)

…Tracks recipient progressYES:  NO:  Tracks individual provider progressYES:  NO: 

i. Do you make use of any regional or global mutual accountability mechanisms to reinforce the national-level dialogue and learn best practices from other countries? If so, which and how?

Mechanism 1 used (please give name) Paris Declarations/Accra Agenda for Actions

…How used: as a reference for efforts and commitments at national level for aid effectiveness agenda.

Mechanism 2 used (please give name)MDGs

…How used: as background and reference point in the design of the national development and poverty reduction strategy.

Mechanism 3 used (please give name) Corruption Perception Index

…How used ______

Mechanism 4 used (please give name) World Bank Doing Business Report

…How used ______

Mechanism 5 used (please give name) DAC Peer Review

…How used ______

3. QUALITY/TRANSPARENCY OF INFORMATION ON AID AND AID EFFECTIVENESS:

a. Does an information system for tracking aid flows exist in your country? YES:  NO: 

If yes, please provide the name of the system:Aid Management Platform (not officially launched), MTEFs, PER, CAGs

b. Does thesystem also track provider/government progressagainst effectiveness targets?YES:  NO: 

c. To what extent is it fully accessibleand easy to use for the following stakeholders?

AccessibleEasy to Use

…providers1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 1:  2:  3: 4:  5: 

…executive government agencies1:  2:  3: 4:  5: 1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

…local governments1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

…parliamentarians1: 2:  3:  4:  5: 1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

…civil society organizations1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

…the general public 1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 1: 2:  3:  4:  5: 

d. To what extent is it trackingcomprehensiveinformation on:

…… currentaid disbursements by sectors and thematic functions1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

…….projected disbursements based on firm commitments1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

…….indications or pledges of future aid 1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

…….funding gaps for projects or programmes1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

…….off-budget as well as on-budget flows 1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

…….all providers 1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

(please specify any major providers omitted: China, Global Funds, India, private foundations, etc.

…….progress/implementationof projects and programmes 1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

…….results of projects and programmes for the IADGs 1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

…….gender-disaggregated expenditures and results1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

e. How frequent and timelyis its updating?

..FrequencyAnnual for projection informationSemiannualQuarterly  for disbursement information. Other (please specify)______

..TimelinessWithin _____ months of the reference date

f. To what extent is the system usedfor

….monitoring and evaluation of individual programmes / projects1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

… budget preparations1:  2:  3: 4:  5: 

… macro-economic planning? 1:  2: 3:  4:  5: 

g. To what extent is information from the system proactively disseminated by the Government:

…in the budget 1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

…in the national development plan progress reports1:  2:  3: 4:  5: 

…in other documents (please specify)______1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

h. To what degree are documents relating to aid freely available to stakeholders and the public?

loan and grant agreements1:  2:  3:  4: 5: 

conditionalities (policy or procedural)1:  2:  3:  4: 5: 

procurement contract bidding and award documents1:  2:  3: 4:  5: 

Comments:

Many Development Partners indicated the availability of such information on their website. However, Aid Management Platform (AMP) while it is able to post documents related to aid currently does not contain much of the information.

4. SUPPORT FOR CAPACITY-DEVELOPMENT:

To what extent are there programs of support to build capacity to enhance mutual accountability through monitoring, analysing and advocating more effective aid at national level as well as to facilitate networking within and across stakeholder groups, for:

…National executive government agencies 1:  2:  3:  4: 5: 

…Local government agencies 1:  2:  3: 4:  5: 

…Parliament:1: 2:  3:  4:  5: 

…Civil society organizations: 1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

Comments:The extent of capacity development support very much varies by Development Partners. But generally, while the capacity development support to the national executive government agencies continues to be dominant, DPs pay more attention in strengthening domestic accountability mechanism through NGO funding line and increased support towards parliament

5.OVERALL EVALUATION

a. How strong is the mutual accountability in your country between providers and recipient government? 1:  2:  3:  4:  5: 

b. How much improvement have you seen in mutual accountabilitysince the Paris Declaration in 2005? 1:  2: 3:  4:  5: 

Please describe briefly the key areas of improvement:

  • Increased Division of Labour including sector focus, improved and better structured sector dialogue, slight improvement using national systems, PFM and procurement system.
  • Recently, availability of documents has been improved (including increased transparency, predictability and reliability of information on allocations, budgets, expenditures, progress and short falls), and some improvements are seen in terms of more focused priorities.
  • PAF is more broadly owned by GoT. However, partnership in generally is considered weaken.

c.What are the main factors/barriers delaying progress in making aid more accountable and achieving change in stakeholder behaviour in your country?

  • Dialogue structure is more complex, and weakening quality of dialogue;
  • Lack of comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework, and slow progress and weak follow-up in demonstrating results
  • Lack of transparency and public debate, including lack of aid information and reluctance of donors to put aid on budget, which limits public debate over development cooperation and results.
  • Lack of involvement of domestic stakeholders, CSOs, private sector and parliament. Changes in stakeholder behaviour is depending on stronger social contract between citizens and the Government.
  • Too much focus on accountability to donors in donor-led dialogue mechanisms.

d. Please describe briefly the most important practice in your country that is producing major behavioural change to make aid more effective in producing development results:

  • Many processes have changed and contributed to behavioural changes, such as improved DoL, sector concentration and improved sector dialogue and coordination.
  • Increasingly Parliament scrutiny of Government business has been strengthened in holding the Government to account. In this context, the GBS has changed the interplay between DPs and GoT, and Parliament is increasingly using some of the documents, reports, and studies produced to play their roles.
  • Similarly, increased information transparency that support the work of media and civil society organizations has also created bottom up pressure for improved accountability.
  • IMG in the past was very influential. Continuation of this mechanism was noted useful, with more rigorous follow-up on key challenges and thinking through possible solutions for enhancing accountability.

e. To provide a comparison with the “Monitoring Survey” of the Paris Declaration,[1] please indicate if “a mutual assessment of progress in implementing agreed commitments was conducted in your country”? YES:  NO: 

f. Please share any other issues you consider relevant in moving forward the mutual accountability agenda at the country level?

  • More engagement and involvement of national stakeholders (parliament, CSO and citizens) on the issue of aid effectiveness to promote DP behavioural changes.
  • More assertive Government to require DPs to change behaviours, facilitated through capacity building, rigorous and regular monitoring of achievements, setting priorities in development cooperation, and clear targets setting for both Government and Development Partners.
  • In the case of Tanzania, there is an excess of Development Partners. So, improved cross-country division of labour and more sector Division of Labour will facilitate enhanced effectiveness. In view of the Lisbon Treaty for the EU, it would also benefit from stronger alignment of aid between the EU member states and the EC, and reduction in the number of EU providers of aid in the country.

g. Please share any other issues raised in your discussions that you deem relevant for a better understanding of status, progress and obstacles in making development cooperation more accountable and transparent?

  • More independent assessment and evaluations of results are needed.
  • For sustainability reasons, the domestic stakeholders should have more focused and be strengthened. The non state actors, including media, parliament and local authorities should be strengthened and included to a much higher extent in the monitoring of aid and the performance assessment processes.
  • Lack of regular check on overall development capacities at appropriate levels.

1

OESC/UNDESA

1 February 2010

ANNEX

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE SURVEY PROCESS

Name / Organisation / Stakeholder Group / Email Address
Recipient Government Coordinator
Joint Assistance Strategy for Tanzania
Working Group / Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs / Government
UNDP Support Person
DPG Secretariat / UNDP / Development Partners /
Other Participants
World Bank / Development Partners
Swiss Development
Cooperation / Development Partners
UK/DFID / Development Partners
European Commission / Development Partners
Sweden / Development Partners
UNDP / Development Partners
Denmark / Development Partners
Germany / Development Partners
Japan / Development Partners
Canada / Development Partners

1

[1]