Tanzania - Forest Resources Management Project

 ICRR 10534 Report Number : ICRR10534 ICR Review Operations Evaluation Department 1. Project Data : OEDID: OEDID : C2335 Project ID : P002785 Project Name : Forest Resources Management Project Country : Tanzania Sector : Forestry L/C Number : C2335 Partners involved : Prepared by : Nalini B. Kumar, OEDST Reviewed by : Andres Liebenthal Group Manager : Gregory Ingram Date Posted : 02/17/2000 2. Project Objectives, Financing, Costs and Components : Cr. 2335, the third forestry project in Tanzania, was formulated as the first step in the implementation of the Tanzania Forestry Action Plan (TFAP) to strengthen the policy, information and institutional base for managing Tanzania’s forests and land resources. The earlier two Bank supported forestry projects in the country had focused on development of industrial plantations. Project Objectives: The project had three specific objectives: a) strengthening institutions in charge of development of forest policies and natural resource information; b) supporting the development of rural land policies, strengthening crucial organizations in charge of the implementation of these policies and supporting the implementation and monitoring of government’s policy of village demarcation and titling; c) strengthening regional and district forestry institutions in Mwanza and Tabora Regions. Financing Costs: The credit for SDR 13.2 million (US $18.3 million) was signed in April 1992. Against a total estimated project cost of US $ 20.93 million dollars, actual cost at completion amounted to US $ 19.4 million. Undisbursed balances totaling SDR 52,000 (approximately US $ 0.07 million equivalent) were cancelled in November 1999. 3. Achievement of Relevant Objectives : Overall the project was successful in achieving most of its objectives. The ERR though calculated at 12 percent has a very narrow base and excludes most project components. 4. Significant Achievements : (i) Establishment of the Natural Resources Information Center which has significantly increased Tanzania’s capability for monitoring changes in woodland and forest cover. (ii) Significant contribution to the formulation of both Forest and Land policies and improvement in land adminstration capacities. (iii) The project stimulated thinking in terms of participatory management of forests. (iv) Local forestry institutions have been strengthened in Mwanza and Tabora regions. (v) Introduction of measures for wood fuel management. (vi) Introduction of a new system of revenue collection which demonstrates the potential for increasing royalty collection from forest reserves. 5. Significant Shortcomings : (i) Project Implementation was impaired in the early years by shortage of counterpart funds, staff office facilities and delays. (ii) Proposed improvement in infrastructure facilities could not be brought about.  (iii) The project failed to develop innovative approaches to forestry extension. It used traditional extension approaches that simply promoted tree planting and gave little attention to social and economic factors which influence household decision making. (iv) Appraisal expectations for preparing detailed forest management plans for priority forest reserves were never met. 6. Ratings : ICR OED Review Reason for Disagreement /Comments Outcome : Satisfactory Satisfactory Institutional Dev .: Substantial Substantial Sustainability : Likely Likely Bank Performance : Satisfactory Satisfactory Borrower Perf .: Satisfactory Satisfactory Quality of ICR : Satisfactory 7. Lessons of Broad Applicability : The lessons brought out in the ICR, particularly those related to development of Joint Forest Management and support for traditional systems of woodland management are interesting and have important implications for the future management of Tanzania's natural resources in the context of poverty alleviation . 8. Audit Recommended? Yes No Why? (i) To verify outcomes and impacts . (ii) To provide an independent perspective on how to incorporate lessons from an earlier project in a follow on project . (iii) To verify sustainability of institutional development efforts (eg. strengthening of regional and district forest services through techncial assistance, training equipment and material) in a sector in a Bank project in the absence of wider reforms in the civil service . 9. Comments on Quality of ICR : The ICR is largely satisfactory except for three shortcomings . (i) It does not explain why NORAD co-financing did not materialize. This is important since the SAR claims that donor coordination improved substantially through the introduction of the TFAP and notes that other donors were relying on this project for the success of their own future assistance to activities in the sector . (The Region in its comments has noted that they found little reference to NORAD co-financing in the project files. They further clarify that the co -financing issue is far less relevant than the fact that substantial additional financing for the forestry sector did develop after the TFAP was finalized and there was greater donor coordination .) (ii) Inadequate documentation of counterpart cost contributions which were an important issue throughout project implementation . (The Region has noted that while disbursements were dependent on there being counterpart contributions, at closing since nearly all of the project funds were disbursed, the matter was ultimately addressed with some effectiveness .) (iii) no reporting of indicators of outcome and impact of the project. (The region has noted that this was not a requirement when the ICR was prepared . The new guidelines became effective July 1, 1999 after the project was closed .)