Tanzania - Social Action Fund Project

Document of The World Bank Report No: 33856-TA IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT (IDA-34090 PPFI-Q1570) ON A CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 60.0 MILLION TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA FOR A SOCIAL ACTION FUND PROJECT March 30, 2006 Human Development 1 Country Department 4 Africa Regional Office  CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective October 27, 2005) Currency Unit = TSh Tsh1140 = US$ 1 US$ 1 = 1.44 SDR FISCAL YEAR July 1 - June 30 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS CAS Country Assistance Strategy M&E Monitoring and Evaluation CBOs Community Based Organizations MIS Management Information System CDD Community Demand-Driven MTR Mid-Term Review CDI Community Development Initiatives NBS National Bureau of Statistics CNA Community Needs Assessment NGO Non-Governmental Organization CPC Community Project Committee PAD Project Appraisal Document CSDS Community Service Delivery Survey PDO Project Development Objective CSO Civil Society Organization PPF Project Preparation Facility CWIQ Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal DCA Development Credit Agreement PRS Poverty Reduction Strategy DMT District Management Team PSR Project Status Report EOP End of Project PWP Public Works Program GOT Government of Tanzania SSP Social Support Program HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired TASAF Tanzania Social Action Fund Immune Deficiency Syndrome ICR Implementation Completion Report TASAF II Tanzania Second Social Action Fund IDA International Development Association TMU TASAF Management Unit IEC Information, Education and Communication IGAs Income Generating Activities KPI Key Performance Indicators LGA Local Government Authority Vice President: Gobind Nankani Country Director Judy O'Connor Sector Manager Dzingai Mutumbuka Task Team Leader/Task Manager: Hope Phillips Volker  TANZANIA Social Action Fund Project CONTENTS Page No. 1. Project Data 1 2. Principal Performance Ratings 1 3. Assessment of Development Objective and Design, and of Quality at Entry 2 4. Achievement of Objective and Outputs 4 5. Major Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcome 9 6. Sustainability 10 7. Bank and Borrower Performance 11 8. Lessons Learned 14 9. Partner Comments 15 10. Additional Information 25 Annex 1. Key Performance Indicators/Log Frame Matrix 26 Annex 2. Project Costs and Financing 28 Annex 3. Economic Costs and Benefits 30 Annex 4. Bank Inputs 31 Annex 5. Ratings for Achievement of Objectives/Outputs of Components 34 Annex 6. Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance 35 Annex 7. List of Supporting Documents 36 Annex 8. Borrower Implementation Completion Report 37 Annex 9. Regional Poverty and Service Accessibility Ranking 81 Annex 10. Data on indicators not reported on in Annex 1 83 Annex 11. DCA-PAD editorial inconsistencies and DCA amendments 88  Project ID: P065372 Project Name: Social Action Fund Project Team Leader: Hope C. Phillips TL Unit: EASHD ICR Type: Core ICR Report Date: March 30, 2006 1. Project Data Name: Social Action Fund Project L/C/TF Number: IDA-34090; PPFI-Q1570 Country/Department: TANZANIA Region: Africa Regional Office Sector/subsector: Other social services (40%); Primary education (30%); Sub-national government administration (10%); General water, sanitation and flood protection sector (10%); Health (10%) Theme: Participation and civic engagement (P); Other social protection and risk management (P); Social safety nets (P); Rural services and infrastructure (S) KEY DATES Original Revised/Actual PCD: 03/23/1999 Effective: 12/01/2000 11/09/2000 Appraisal: 06/13/2000 MTR: 05/19/2003 06/09/2003 Approval: 08/22/2000 Closing: 06/30/2005 06/30/2005 Borrower/Implementing Agency: GOT/GOT (PRESIDENT'S OFFICE) Other Partners: STAFF Current At Appraisal Vice President: Gobind Nankani Callisto E. Madavo Country Director: Judy M. O'Connor James W. Adams Sector Manager: Dzingai B. Mutumbuka Dzingai B. Mutumbuka Team Leader at ICR: Hope Phillips Volker Norbert O. Mugwagwa ICR Primary Author: Ida Manjolo 2. Principal Performance Ratings (HS=Highly Satisfactory, S=Satisfactory, U=Unsatisfactory, HL=Highly Likely, L=Likely, UN=Unlikely, HUN=Highly Unlikely, HU=Highly Unsatisfactory, H=High, SU=Substantial, M=Modest, N=Negligible) Outcome: S Sustainability: L Institutional Development Impact: SU Bank Performance: S Borrower Performance: S QAG (if available) ICR Quality at Entry: S Project at Risk at Any Time: No  3. Assessment of Development Objective and Design, and of Quality at Entry 3.1 Original Objective: The Project Development Objective (PDO) was to enhance and sustain the provision and use of resource endowments by beneficiaries, which was to contribute to poverty reduction through (i) the improvement of socioeconomic infrastructure, and basic social and economic services; (ii) the increase in capacity and skills among rural and peri-urban communities; and (iii) the creation of temporary safety-net programs for the poorest and most vulnerable sections of the communities. The PDO was clear and realistic and consistent with the Country Assistance Strategy (CAS), Report No. 16554-TA, June 15, 1997, whose objective included poverty reduction, growth, protecting vulnerable groups, and also focused on increasing and enhancing the capacities of the communities and stakeholders to undertake sustainable development initiatives and improve socio-economic services. The PDO was also in line with the Government of Tanzania's Social Sector Strategy, October 1994, which viewed households as active participants in choosing and supporting services that offer them concrete benefits. The Project took into consideration the Borrower's decentralization agenda, and was responsive to Government's development priorities in that it was one of the major instruments of Government's poverty reduction initiatives under the Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS). The Project was not national, and only covered the 2 islands and 40 districts on the mainland; however, it should be viewed as complex because of the number of institutions involved at the national, district and sub-district levels. There were no co-financiers to the Project. .It is noted that there are instances where the data provided in this Implementation Completion Report (ICR) is not consistent with Government's ICR; this ICR is using the results of data made available more recently from the Project. 3.2 Revised Objective: The objective was not revised. 3.3 Original Components: The Tanzania Social Action Fund (TASAF) had three components which are described below. Community Development Initiatives (CDI) would finance community demand-driven (CDD) initiatives to improve accessibility to, and delivery of, social and economic services, and to enhance capacities of the communities and local development partners. The community initiatives were to be generated through participatory rural appraisal (PRA) processes from a sub-project menu which included construction/rehabilitation of basic health care facilities, schools, boreholes, dams, latrines, shallow wells, and economic infrastructure. It was expected that special consideration would be given to vulnerable groups. Implementation would be by democratically elected community project committees (CPCs). The average cost of sub-projects was initially estimated at US$20,000; later it was changed to US$25,000, with a minimum community contribution in kind or cash of 20%. In order to respond to specific requests for support for activities to address human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) during implementation, a window (Social Support Projects-SSP) was made available under the CDI component to pilot support for vulnerable individuals working with non-governmental organizations/civil society organizations (NGOs/CSOs). An amount of US$1 - 2 -  million was ear-marked for SSPs, with the expectation that each sub-project would cost approximately US$10,000. Public Works Program (PWP) would finance labor-intensive public works as a safety net scheme in poor rural and urban areas. The objective was to provide cash income for the poor, especially women and the youth, during periods of seasonal food insecurity, by creating job opportunities while supporting community infrastructure construction or rehabilitation. This was a supply-driven component, with Districts selecting communities in which to work using criteria such as food insecurity, poverty and access to services. Sub-projects were selected from the District plans, and confirmed by the community during extended-PRAs, followed by the drawing up of implementation plans by District PWP teams. Beneficiaries were self-targeting through the adoption of a PWP wage rate set at 20% below the market. The average cost of a sub-project under this component was initially estimated at US$40,000; later it was changed to US$50,000, with no community contribution. Institutional Development had four subcomponents as follows: TASAF Management Unit (TMU) would provide day-to-day operational support to Districts responding to the community demands emanating from the participatory processes. Financing included incremental staff salaries, systems development, TMU operational costs, and later included costs of running the District level TASAF Offices. Capacity Building-Information Education and Communication (IEC)/Training was to create a symmetrical information environment that was to enhance the potential democratic decentralization, transparency and accountability. The IEC would sensitize TASAF stakeholders on TASAF's philosophy, methodology, the sub-project cycle, roles and responsibilities of the various actors; build a knowledge base of the lessons learnt from experiences; and build partnerships and strategic alliances amongst stakeholders. Training would (a) expose all stakeholders to the dynamics of community development and the TASAF approach; and (b) build the capacity of communities, CPCs, and District level staff to manage participatory development, including fiduciary aspects of sub-project implementation. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) (including Management Information System (MIS) was to make data available to assess the impact of sub-projects on vulnerable groups; institute a participatory M&E through a Community Service Delivery Survey (CSDS); and monitor improvements in the levels of beneficiaries' use and satisfaction with TASAF services. The MIS was to be linked with the M&E and be a source of information for the overall M&E system: to collect, store, and generate information for use in measuring benefits accruing to recipient communities, in order to monitor the sustainability of the TASAF approach and community assets created with support from the Project. National Poverty Monitoring and Analysis was expected to provide support for strengthening capacity at national, Local Government Authorities (LGAs or Districts) and community levels to monitor the effects of poverty alleviation policies by developing: (a) tools for rapid community and household surveys; (b) capacity in the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) to plan and - 3 -  implement such surveys and use of Optical Mark Reader technology (scanners) to speed-up data entry; (c) capacity in TASAF Districts to integrate execution of CSDS into CDI and PWPs; (d) an integrated annual indicators' survey, using methodologies and approaches tested during the Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire (CWIQ) pilot; and (e) progressively refined tools for the ranking process and creation of poverty maps using various data sources. The components, as designed, were reasonably related to achieving the objective, and took into consideration the capacity of the implementing agency, including its administrative and financial management capacity. Lessons from a Community Needs Assessment (CNA) during the pilot of TASAF systems, emerging understanding of best practice in the design of social funds, and extensive stakeholder consultation during design stage informed the design of the components. 3.4 Revised Components: The project components were not revised. 3.5 Quality at Entry: The Project was not subjected to a performance rating by the Quality Assurance Group review. The Project objective was relevant and within the Government's overall PRS and the CAS. The environmental and social safeguards were considered, and communities were to be sensitized through the IEC strategy on how to screen sub-projects for positive and negative environmental effects of sub-project activities, and to determine and implement mitigation measures. The design identified the critical risks and mapped out minimization measures which were internalized into the Project activities and processes: for example, the emphasis on capacity building which strengthened partner institutions. There were editorial inconsistencies within the Project Appraisal Document (PAD) and with the Development Credit Agreement (DCA) following agreements reached during negotiations, but these did not affect implementation as they were remedied through a revision of the Operational Manual and amendments, and did not affect the outputs or Project development outcome (see Annex 11). On the whole, a rating of moderately satisfactory seems appropriate. 4. Achievement of Objective and Outputs 4.1 Outcome/achievement of objective: On the basis of relevance, efficacy, and efficiency, the overall rating for the achievement of objectives is satisfactory. The PDO continues to be consistent with current Government's National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty, and is still relevant in terms of the most recent CAS covering 2001-2003 (Report No. 20728-TA). The Project supported (a) sustainable rural development to improve the livelihood of the majority of the poor who live in rural areas; and (b) improved social infrastructure, to improve social indicators and enhance access for the poor to essential public services. By working through Local Governments, TASAF remains aligned with the revised Local Government Act, No. 6, 1999. Secondly, the rating is based on efficacy as the Project financed sub-projects which led to (a) improved socioeconomic infrastructure and basic services; (b) increased capacity and skills among rural and peri-urban communities; and (c) employment opportunities in a safety-nets program for - 4 -  poor households. On average between CDI and PWP, 93% of sub-project requests were approved for funding, of which 81.9% were completed. All communities implementing sub-projects received efficient back-up services through support from LGAs during the sub-project cycle, and at the end of the Project, 90% of completed sub-projects had permanent maintenance mechanisms. The Project financed investments that created potential improved access to services for close to 2 million people. The percentage of population receiving services from constructed facilities is estimated at 89%; surpassing the target of 60% (the failure to attain 100% is because community investments in the health sector were not fully operational due to inadequate staffing and equipment