Tanzania - National Agricultural and Livestock Research Project

 ICRR 10326 Report Number : ICRR10326 ICR Review Operations Evaluation Department 1. Project Data : OEDID : OEDID: C1970 Project ID : P002749 Project Name : National Agricultural and Livestock Research Project Country : Tanzania Sector : Research L/C Number : C1970 Partners involved : African Development Fund, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Federal Republic of Germany Prepared by : Christopher D. Gerrard, OEDST Reviewed by : Alain Barbu Group Manager : Gregory Ingram Date Posted : 05/26/1999 2. Project Objectives, Financing, Costs and Components : Project Costs ($US million) Appraisal Actual IDA Credit 8.3 8.56 Agricultural Development Fund 8.2 8.2 Netherlands 2.7 3.14 United Kingdom 2.9 2.1 Federal Republic of Germany 1.6 1.6 Government of Tanzania 1.6 2.8 Total 25.3 26.4 The principal objective was to implement the first stage of a long -term program of support to agricultural research in Tanzania in order to lay the foundation for an effective research system that could contribute to the sustainable generation of new technologies, food security, improved nutrition, and the restoration of agricultural exports to previous levels. The six components were the following : (1) Establishing a new, consolidated, and downsized organizational structure for agricultural and livestock research; (2) Preparing a Master Plan for agricultural and livestock research; (3) Training of research staff, primarily in research management and methodology; (4) Providing vehicles, equipment, and civil works; (5) Financing of priority cotton, root /tuber, and farming systems research programs; and (6) Establishing an Agricultural Research Fund (ARF) for financing agricultural and livestock research programs . The first phase of the project was to focus on institutional restructuring and rehabilitation of research infrastructure (the first four components), and the second phase on establishing the ARF and the funding of the research programs (the last two components). 3. Achievement of Relevant Objectives : In spite of implementation delays and limited progress during the first four years, the project largely achieved the primary objectives of phase one of the project, namely, the consolidation and restructuring the National Agricultural Research System, but did not really get started on phase two . The project laid a good foundation for more effective client-oriented research in the future, but did not realize (in this project cycle) significant improvements in demand-driven technologies that would contribute to food security, improved nutrition, and the restoration of agricultural exports to previous levels . A follow-up project (TARP II), which is already effective, is building on this foundation and attempting to address the shortcomings of the first project . 4. Significant Achievements : (1) Following the recommendations of the Master Plan (finalized in December 1991), the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives established a consolidated research structure with a national headquarters (the Department of Research and Training) in Dar es Salaam and with seven, decentralized research zones . Three of the four agricultural research parastatals were dissolved and integrated within the DRT . However, the planned downsizing of the system is incomplete and still ongoing . (2) The NARS has significantly enhanced its financial sustainability and reduced its dependence on government funding by developing off-budget sources of revenue . These include (a) revenue generation at the research station level, mainly from production sales, laboratory services, and rental of surplus land and buildings; (b) the establishment of annual cesses, in agreement with the major agro-industries, to contribute to research funding for eight major cash crops; and (c) contract and collaborative research with the International Agricultural Research Centers and their regional networks . Now the government needs to establish a statutory framework for cess -funded research and to extend this framework to food crop and livestock research . (3) The training component was well planned, covered the priority training needs identified at appraisal, and was well executed. Some 21 staff attended long-term training, and about 660 staff attended short courses which were mainly conducted locally and in the region . (4) The DRT completed construction of its new HQs in 1997 as well as infrastructure improvements at nine research stations. However, this was only 50% of the planned construction program due to serious cost escalation arising from delays in tender and contract approvals, inadequate consultancy services, and delayed fund allocations . 5. Significant Shortcomings : (1) The problems of low staff morale and poor conditions of service remain unresolved, both for agricultural scientists in general, and key NARS manager in particular . Salary scales remain low, promotional opportunities limited, and allowances modest. (2) The priority research programs in cotton and roots and tubers did not get off the ground due to funding shortfalls (both co-financing and counterpart funds ). (3) The Agricultural Research Fund was established in 1992 and the first projects started in 1994, but its performance has been unsatisfactory . Implementation was delayed, review procedures proved time -consuming, and research output has so far been limited . The Fund did not pilot competitive contract research, as anticipated, nor develop into a "consolidated funding mechanism " as planned. 6. Ratings : ICR OED Review Reason for Disagreement /Comments Outcome : Satisfactory Marginally Satisfactory While the project achieved many of its major relevant objectives, there were a number of shortcomings. Planned downsizing of the NARS is incomplete . Low staff morale and poor conditions of service remain unresolved. Priority research programs did not get started . Only 50% of the construction program was completed. The project's objectives were too ambitious for complex institutional development projects of this kind, and their achievement was compromised by the initial implementation delays. Institutional Dev .: Substantial Substantial Sustainability : Likely Likely Bank Performance : Satisfactory Satisfactory Borrower Perf .: Satisfactory Satisfactory Quality of ICR : Exemplary 7. Lessons of Broad Applicability : (1) Agricultural research systems cannot survive financially on government funding alone . For financial sustainability, they need to develop non -government sources of funding, in this case annual cesses on the eight major cash crops. They also need to involve private sector stakeholders in establishing research priorities at both the national and sub-national levels. (2) Innovative solutions need to be found to the problems of low staff morale and poor conditions of service, since the NARS needs to recruit and retain competent and motivated management and professional staff . Government-wide civil service reform seems generally unable to address these issues . (3) Expenditures on TA should be very selective and their quality and utility carefully monitored . In this project, TA (funded mainly by bilateral donors ) amounted to 20% of project costs, an amount not commensurate with the benefits. Relatively few studies' recommendations have been adopted and internalized, and their utility has quickly waned when overtaken by new events . (4) Institutional reform and human resource capacity building are long -term processes. For example, while senior management has apparently accepted a client -oriented approach to agricultural research, it is not clear to what extent professional staff in the zonal research stations have also internalized this new paradigm in their day -to-day work. Also, client oriented research requires a different skill mix, one less dominated by crop -related scientists (the current situation) and with more representation from disciplines such as natural resource management, socio-economics, marketing, and livestock . (5) Establishing effective research -extension-farmer linkages does not come naturally . It requires institutional reforms that create positive incentives for researchers and extension workers to collaborate together in building and sustaining an integrated agricultural information system in which information flows both ways, not only from researchers to farmers but also from farmers to researchers . 8. Audit Recommended? Yes No 9. Comments on Quality of ICR : The ICR is exemplary. It is complete, well-written, and easy to read. It contains a frank and open discussion, substantiated by reasoned arguments and factual information, of both the successes and the shortcomings of the project. However, one thing is not adequately explained . The Department of Research and Training (DRT) was renamed the Directorate of Research and Development in 1998, when its training function was separated out, and a "development" function added. What was the rationale for this change and how did it happen? On the face of it, this seems like a potentially significant change .