Partnership For Growth (PFG) Mid-Term Evaluation: Tanzania Final Report

METHODOLOGYThe evaluation team conducted a desk review of all the available program information andconducted over 60 semi-structured interviews with key PFG stakeholders including high-levelleadership, program designers, goal leads, implementers and independent experts in the US andTanzania. The evaluation team also conducted an anonymous on-line, closed-ended surveyas a complement to the detailed semi-structured interviews.FINDINGSThe advantages and/or disadvantages of the PFG whole-of-governmentapproach to development assistanceThe integration of the WGA approach into the PFG process resulted in positivechanges in the delivery of development assistance to Tanzania. The WGA approachincreased the consistency and coherence in the programming and policy objectives ofboth USG and GOT interventions. The PFG process contributed to improved and deeperdialogue between the USG and GOT as partners in a shared commitment to promoting increasedgrowth and private investment. Both GOT and USG senior leaders and technical officialsreported that the process of preparing the CA and the JCAP brought them together and led to adeeper mutual understanding of the development challenges in the energy sector. However, thispositive response was not observed among technical officials working on the road sector4. Aleader within the GOT described the process as “one of the best experiences of donorcooperation in his career” going on to state that he believed the CA and JCAP processcontributed to a shift in policies and practices through development dialogue and analysis ratherthan through the terms and conditions attached to a loan or a grant. He also noted that otherbilateral donors have also recognized the benefits and changed their modus operandi.5 A seniorUSG official stressed that the PFG constraints analysis and the joint approach resulted inlearning on both sides. During interviews two of the USG officials involved in the preparation ofthe CA commented that it increased their understanding of the context-specific developmentchallenges and increased inter-agency cooperation between the GOT and USG.Assessing the effects of PFG on the workload of national governmentand US government staff relative to traditional forms of developmentassistance deliveryAll the senior officials interviewed considered the time spent on PFG productive and4Both the GOT and USG respondents ascribed the limited response in the roads sector to the PFG not being linkedto a financial envelope, also although USG remains the largest single donor for rural roads many other donors areactively engaged.5This personal and subjective statement was said in a quasi-structured interview. This may reflect positive bias ifthe interviewee believes expressing such support would contribute to mobilizing additional funding. However, asenior DFID official reported that their decision to implement a new rural roads program had been influenced by theCA and JCAP. Further, numerous senior GOT officials confirmed the influence of the CA and JCAP on theTanzania Development Plan and reported that they were still distributing copies of the CA.Page 3

necessary for effective implementation when addressing energy constraints to growth.6However, several USAID and GOT officials working at the technical level on rural roadssaw the PFG as an additional donor administrative and reporting requirement with limitedadded value. The PFG initiative required a significant investment of time by senior officialsfrom both the USG and GOT during the preparation of the CA and the JCAP. Senior officialsconsidered the PFG process to be more efficient than traditional development assistance as the“upfront lively constructive discussion” clarified thinking on complex policy issues and pavedthe way for tackling difficult and important policy issues. Following the launch of the JCAP,both USG and GOT technical personnel working on power issues integrated implementation andmonitoring of the LOA into their job. The CA report was distributed widely in Tanzania, and keyanalysis and findings were incorporated into the new Tanzania Five Year Development Plan.Identifying the contributions of “non-assistance” to the PFG process andhow it can be utilized moving forwardThe concept of non-assistance was clearly understood, and valued, by both the USGand GOT leaders, but was less clear to many stakeholders, particularly mid and lowerlevel technical staff. The GOT leadership appreciated the value of non-assistance through thePFG and cited the importance of the high-level visit from Washington, DC to discuss policyreforms. They also identified the use of USG convening power to engage high level stakeholders,including leading US private companies to discuss investment in Tanzania as an importantexample of non-assistance that took place under PFG. Effectively utilizing non-assistance iscontingent on the active engagement of the US Embassy and the USAID Mission. In Tanzania,both the US Ambassador and the USAID Mission Director were pivotal in leveraging the PFGinitiative to deepen the development dialogue and place Tanzania firmly on the map for USinvestors in the petroleum and natural gas sectors. While virtually all USG intervieweesunderstood the concept of non-assistance and gave similar examples of how high levelengagement had enabled them to advance understanding of complex policy issues, this was notthe case with many GOT technical mid-level and junior personnel, who continued to understandPFG as an aid project and focused on leveraging additional donor technical and financialassistance. The senior technical representatives from GOT who actively participated in themeetings and work leading to the JCAP also understood the concept of “non-assistance” butmade it clear they expected the process to lead to additional finance from USAID.For each of the constraints, identifying whether the goal-levelcommitments set forth in the JCAP are capable of achieving the constraintlevel objectives and outcomesThe evaluation team found the selected goals were generally consistent with addressingtheir respective constraints based on the development literature and conditions inTanzania. However, the challenges involved in ensuring the goal-level commitments aretranslated into constraint removal are highlighted below.The goal-level commitments or more specifically the proposed activities (reforms, measures6See footnote 4.Page 4

listed under the LOA) are potentially capable of achieving the constraint-level objectives,but at this point cannot be definitively addressed for three reasons. First, the original JCAPis a five-year program and the mid-term evaluation is taking place after only two years, it istherefore not possible to definitively conclude that based on the progress to date the constraintswill be removed. The relatively short time period is particularly challenging when thecommitments require substantial regulatory and policy reforms. Second, the achievement of thegoals will always remain subject to factors exogenous to the PFG process such as the internalpolitical dynamics. Third, the JCAP was not based on a formal theory of change. While theJCAP sets down the measures and activities aimed at reducing the constraints, however, there isno systematic outline of the implicit assumptions required.7The absence of a formal theory of change results in many of the key assumptions thatare used to justify the goals and the activities remaining implicit and unsaid. Both thepower and the rural roads activities used an implicit theory of change. There was nodocumentation explaining why specific activities were prioritized over alternatives making itchallenging to identify how goal-level commitments are intended to achieve the desiredconstraint mitigation outcomes. A project design tool such as a logical framework (logframe)forces more rigorous thinking on the causal linkages between inputs, outputs, and desiredoutcome/s (or purpose). It also provides a structure for identifying the assumptions andpreconditions necessary for achieving goals and the assessment of risks. Without having theseitems thought through and in writing, there may be an unrealistic confidence that the LOAs willlead to the intended results.8The JCAP was a key document guiding subsequent interventions and specific activities inthe power sector but has played a much more limited role in addressing the rural roadsconstraints. The JCAP was developed taking into account existing initiatives (and projects),many of which were already closely aligned with the two constraints. Consequently, the initialselection of activities in the JCAP was based on the reality of what already existed (and bydefinition was part of the GOT commitment), rather than developing the activities based on adetailed theory of change which identified the explicit and implicit assumptions. Further work inthe power sector, particularly by the MCC but also by USAID and others, has resulted in changesin the program design. By contrast, this did not occur with the rural roads component.Using quantitative and objectively verifiable information to manage JCAPimplementation to achieve and measure resultsEvidence-based decision making and fact-based monitoring were built into the PFGprocess and have been grandfathered into the Tanzania successor Power Africa and Feedthe Future Initiatives (FTF), although the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system wasweak. For example, the M&E framework for the PFG was never finalized and complete baselinedata were not incorporated into scorecard reporting making it difficult to transparently and7For example, while the JCAP identifies all the pieces necessary for solving the puzzle (i.e. constraint) each activityis presented separately and not articulated in a formal theory of change.8Given the ‘negotiated’ nature of the JCAP and the shared responsibilities for the Lines of Action the absence of abackground document outlining the causal pathways, scheduling, and implicit assumptions may limit understandingof the risks and thus contribute towards an unrealistic confidence.Page 5

objectively measure results across all the indicators. The PFG Technical Working Group met anddiscussed indicators and began drafting the M&E plan. Prior to it being finalized the GOTannounced the Big Results Now9 initiative (BRN), which used the CA and JCAP as buildingblocks for the new initiative. Furthermore, USAID was preparing a new Country Developmentand Cooperation Strategy while also implementing the newly announced USAID Power Africaand the existing FTF. At the request of the GOT, USAID proposed the incorporation of the PFGprocess into Power Africa and FTF initiatives in November 2014.Box 1: Big Results Now (BRN)BRN is a GOT initiative aimed at fast-tracking the implementation of national priority projects. The BRNis managed by the President’s Delivery Bureau (PDB) which supports the GOT to identify National KeyResult Activities (NKRA) and develop detailed implementation programs. Each NKRA consists of aSteering Committee comprising key stakeholders and is chaired by the relevant Minister. The SteeringCommittees aim to resolve bottlenecks and constraints to investment in their NKRA. Ministerial DeliveryUnits are established in each NKRA to oversee implementation and prepare weekly progress reports.The BRN was initiated in 2012 and launched in early 2013. During the first year of implementation(2013-2014) focused on six sectors: agriculture, energy, transport, education, resource mobilization andwater. During the course of the first year an additional six sectors were added with the objective ofimproving the business enabling environment.The rebranding of Tanzania PFG into complementary initiatives while retaining theoverall development approach may be interpreted positively as the new Power Africa andFTF initiatives integrated a commitment to WGA and open and transparent reporting. Italso reflects the concern of both the GOT and USAID to utilize scarce technical resourcesefficient

GOT Government of Tanzania (includes the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar (RGZ) IPTL Independent Power Tanzania Limited IPP Independent Power Purchasers IRAT Improving Rural Access in Tanzania IRRIP Irrigation and Rural Roads Infrastructure Project JCAP Joint Country Action Plan JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency