United Republic of Tanzania
AGRICULTURAL SECTOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
TASK FORCE 1
INVESTMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION AT DISTRICT
AND FIELD LEVEL
WORK IN PROGRESS
29 April 2003
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 1
In November 2002, the first Phase formulation of the Agricultural Sector Development
Programme (ASDP) was concluded with the approval of the Framework and Process Document
(FPD). The final draft FPD was produced in March 2003 and awaits final clearance by
stakeholders. The second Phase focuses on the detailed formulation of new interventions by
ASDP stakeholders, for funding by the Government and Development Partners. The formulation
process will be undertaken through the establishment of broad Task Forces, thematic Working
Groups and investment-specific Formulation Teams.
This document presents: (i) the approach and underlying principles of the ASDP Phase-two
detailed formulation process; (ii) the proposed terms of reference (TOR) for Task Force No. 1
(TF-1) on Investment And Implementation At District And Field Level 1; and (iii) the studies
proposed to be undertaken to support the activities of TF-1 and its Working Groups.
While this document is intended to “set the scene”, adjustments may be required as needs arise.
Once the TF-1 and its Working Groups are established, their respective TOR will be finalised, and
work plans and budgets will be prepared, in consultation with the ASDP Secretariat, for eventual
approval by the ASDP Inter-ministerial Coordinating Committee (ICC), on behalf of the National
Steering Committee (NSC).2
A similar document is being prepared for the two other Task Forces (see Chapter 2, page 4).
While the final decision rests with ICC/NSC, prior advice is sought from ASAC and FASWOG, as per
established ASDP management procedures (see Framework and Process Document).
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 2
II. TASK FORCES, WORKING GROUPS AND FORMULATION
TEAMS : A THREE-TIERED APPROACH
The second phase of ASDP formulation is guided by a set of Task Forces (TF), supported by
Working Groups and specific Formulation Teams. In December 2002, three priority Task Forces
have been identified, namely:
Task Force 1 (TF-1): Investment and Implementation at District and Field Level;
Task Force 2 (TF-2): Policy, Regulatory and Institutional Framework; and
Task Force 3 (TF-3): Agricultural Research, Extension, Training and Technical
Other Task Forces can be established, as needs arise and capacity allows.
Task Forces are at the core of ASDP formulation. They should mobilise highly qualified
stakeholders, who are committed to contribute to the implementation of ASDS. They should also
ensure that future interventions capture, and build on, the most relevant and promising
experiences which have been recorded in Tanzania, in the Region and elsewhere. However, it is
recognised that the availability and commitment of such expertise constitute a major constraint.
Therefore, Task Forces can welcome experts on part-time and/or full-time basis, depending on
Various scenarios have been discussed with stakeholders, which led to a proposed three-tiered
system, namely broad Task Forces, specialist Working Groups, and investment specific
Formulation Teams (Figure 1). In addition, two Support Groups are being established to help
address and/or internalise cross-cutting and cross-sectoral issues within the work of the respective
Task Forces, Working Groups and Formulation Teams. The overall mandate of the respective
bodies is described below, and the guiding principles and work modalities are presented in the
Task Forces oversee the formulation of broad domains of interventions, at sub-programme or
component level, following recommendations of the Agricultural Sector Advisory Committee
(ASAC) and the joint Government-Donor Food and Agriculture Sector Working Group
(FASWOG) and as endorsed by ICC/NSC. A Task Force is chaired by a senior officer from one
of the four Agricultural Sector Lead Ministries1 (ASLM). A Task Force establishes Working
Groups and oversees their work as appropriate. In addition, in order to facilitate the efforts of a
particular Working Group, a Task Force may define and provide TOR for „special studies‟ which
expand or elaborate in more detail issues of major concern to the working group and the Task
Force. A Task Force comprises up to 10 eminent representatives from the various groups of
stakeholders, and it is established for a long-term period. A Task Force is planned to meet
monthly for regular meetings and holds retreats for special activities, as needs arise. A Task Force
has a budget to meet its operating and backstopping costs (e.g. through national and international
Namely from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MAFS), the Ministry of Water and Livestock
Development (MWLD), the Ministry of Cooperatives and Marketing (MCM), and the President‟s Office –
Regional Administration and Local Government (PO-RALG).
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 3
Working Groups provide the detailed technical expertise to each Task Force. Each Working
Group consists of a core team of no more than five experts drawn from concerned stakeholders; it
has well defined TOR approved by the Task Force. For specific domains of intervention, generally
at component or sub-component level, Working Groups: (i) review opportunities and obstacles;
(ii) propose development and operational strategies; and (iii) develop and prioritise interventions,
including preliminary cost estimates. The formation of a Working Group is proposed by one or
more Task Forces, and is endorsed by ICC/NSC. A group of stakeholders may propose to
establish a Working Group to ASDP management through ASAC or FASWOG. A Working
Group may be established jointly under more than one Task Force, if closely inter-related issues
have to be dealt with. A Working Group is generally expected to operate on a part-time basis for a
given period of time, and to submit a final report (with the possibility to organise a retreat for the
write up). However, circumstances may dictate the need to accelerate the process, hence to have a
full time Working Group Coordinator, possibly with a few full time members, assisted by one or
more national consultants. Under the guidance of, and eventual clearance by, the concerned Task
Force(s), a Working Group finalises its detailed TOR, and identifies suitable external
backstopping. Each Working Group also prepares its budget for operating and backstopping costs
(e.g. through national and international expertise) for approval by the related Task Force and ICC
on behalf of NSC.
Formulation Teams prepare sets of fully costed interventions, to be consolidated into projects or
programmes for specified financing source(s) and/or through government budget. Based on
agreement between ASDP management and interested financiers on the scope of assistance, a
team is established for a limited period of time, with a number of team participants working on a
full-time basis. The reporting and budgeting format adheres to the donors‟ requirements. Once
prepared and endorsed by ASDP management, new sets of interventions (i.e. so-called projects
and programmes) are processed following established Government procedures.
A Task Force, Working Group or Formulation Team may require in-depth work which cannot be
undertaken by the established teams (whether due to lack of expertise or availability), and which
would be better done by specialist firms or teams of consultants. Once approved by a Task Force,
such Studies can be contracted as per agreed procedure between the ASDP Secretariat and the
identified financier. Examples include information gathering on an intervention/project area,
institutional capacity assessment, review of private sector stakeholders‟ capacity and willingness
to participate, sector database and sensitisation, and social or environmental impact assessments.
Cross-cutting and Cross-sectoral Support Groups.
The streamlining of these issues is an important thrust of ASDS and ASDP. During the detailed
formulation process, two Support Groups oversee cross-cutting and cross-sectoral issues would be
formed to ensure adequate integration and internalisation of, compliance to, and lobbying for
these issues. Members are drawn from concerned public and private institutions on a long-term
but part-time basis. Members of the support groups can attend meetings of concerned Task
Forces, Working Groups or Formulation Teams. Should needs arise, they can also recommend to
appoint as full member an expert of a given cross-cutting or cross-sectoral issue. The Support
Groups can also recommend and prepare TOR for Studies (see Chapter 5 of ASDP/FPD).
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 4
B. Guiding principles
Overall, Task Forces, Working Groups and Formulation Teams work within the ASDP
framework. They also adhere to the following principles:
Leadership and Vision: Task Forces, Working Groups and Formulation Teams are
directly contributing to a new form of partnership among ASDP stakeholders. All
members are expected to demonstrate vision and leadership as an essential part of their
contribution to the ASDP detailed formulation efforts.
Flexibility: Task Forces, Working Groups and Formulation Teams can be established as
needs arise and capacity permits; their composition can be adjusted when and as needed.
Membership selection: members of the Task Forces, Working Groups and Formulation
Teams are selected on the basis of their expertise, commitment and availability. For Task
Forces and Working Groups, there should be adequate balance amongst stakeholders, with
respect to: (i) gender; (ii) public and private sector; (iii) among the ASLMs (agricultural
sector line ministries), between ASLMs and other ministries, as well as between national
level, LGA and field level; (iv) donors and development agencies; and (v) the producers
themselves and their organisations. Furthermore, as ASDP promotes new ideas and
intends to scale up successful pilots, stakeholders who have been involved in such
initiatives should be invited to participate. Task Force members and the chairperson are
appointed by the ICC/.NSC. Working Group members and its coordinator is appointed by
ICC/NSC, on proposal of the related Task Force(s).
Transition period: A few projects are about to be approved and others will be formulated
within the coming year. Some Formulation Teams may already exist even though the
related Task Force and Working Groups have not yet been established. In this case, the
concerned Formulation Team is streamlined within the ASDP Framework, and should be
invited to join the concerned Task Force‟s Working Groups. During this transition period,
this learning by doing process requires flexibility, and may entail some delays.
Crosscutting and cross-sectoral issues: Task Forces, Working Groups, Formulation
Teams and Study contractors should ensure that they internalise cross-cutting issues, and
liaise with concerned Support Groups to address cross-sectoral issues.
Budgeting: budgeting parameters are agreed upon across Task Forces, Working Groups
and Formulation Teams. A standard budget can initially be allocated to the Task Forces,
and those of Working Groups and Formulation Teams are based on their respective TOR.
Funding: development partners interested in a given domain of intervention contribute to
the funding of the related Task Force(s), Working Groups and studies. They also finance
the Formulation Team that prepares specific project/programme documentation.
Transparency, information sharing and coordination: the Task Force chairperson
ensures that collated information, findings and progress are shared and discussed among
the concerned Task Forces and Working Groups.
Reporting: In addition to the agreed final reporting requirement, the Task Forces and
Working Groups submit a brief, action-focused and standardised monthly progress report
to the ASDP Secretariat for further consolidation and broad circulation.
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 5
C. Task Force : Proposed Work Modality
A Task Force meets for the first time for a half day of briefing, organised by the ASDP
Secretariat, on the Rural Development Strategy (RDS), Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS),
ASDS and ASDP, as well as their TOR. The Secretariat provides, in advance of the
meeting, suitable briefing material on these topics to all Task Force members. This is
preferably combined with the start-up retreat mentioned below.
The first Task Force meeting consists of a two-day retreat to deliberate on its TOR and to
form its priority Working Groups. Task Force meetings may include such agenda items
as: (i) identifying and preparing TOR for the Working Groups and studies; (ii) developing
budgets and work plans, including for field visits1; and (iii) oversee the progress of the
Working groups and review their reports.
The Task Force work is facilitated by a local consultant2 who works under the direct
supervision of the chairperson. She/he becomes de facto a member of the Task Force, and
can act as its rapporteur. She/he prepares materials, liaise with Task Force and its
Working Group members, other Task Forces, the ASDP Secretariat; and contributes to
report writing. The Consultant is paid a fee for the services.
A Task Force can co-opt experts, policy makers or any other resource person (including
support services) as deemed necessary.
A Task Force works closely with the ASDP Secretariat and reports to the ICC/NSC after
consultation with ASAC and FASWOG.
Funds for the Task Force operations are held in a Special Account managed by the ASDP
D. Working Group : Proposed Work Modality
A Working Group is a temporary body appointed by a Task Force to undertake a given
task set out in their TOR, within a given specified period.
A Working Group meets for the first time for a half day of briefing by a Task Force
representative together with the ASDP Secretariat about RDS, PRS, ASDS, ASDP and
their TOR. In advance of the meeting, the Secretariat provides suitable briefing material
to Working Group members. This meeting is combined with the retreat outlined below.
The first meeting consists of a two day retreat to: (i) review the TOR, clarify and agree on
possible issues, and finalise the TOR; (ii) agree on a work plan and time frame to fulfil the
TOR; (iii) decide on the division of labour within the Working Group, and as appropriate,
contract out part of the TOR to consultant teams and or as studies; and (iv) agree on a time
frame. Where consultants are recruited, they report to the Working Group and participate
in their meetings. Each Working Group is responsible for developing a budget and work
plan, to be approved by the related Task Force.
Individuals or groups undertaking special studies become ad hoc members of the Working
the Task Force (or some of its members) may travel to the field as appropriate.
See TOR in section III B.
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 6
A wider range of stakeholders may, as deemed necessary, contribute to the efforts of the
Working Group through ad hoc meetings.
Support by external consultants can be provided as deemed necessary by one or several
Working Group(s), after consultation with, and endorsement by, its Task Force(s).
Each Working Group is expected to liaise routinely and regularly with all other Working
Groups and cross-cutting/cross-sectoral Support Groups under the Task Force.
An e-group1 is expected to be established for each Working Group. Each Working Group
will appoint a rapporteur who will be collate the relevant documents and written
comments, and prepare minutes of meetings/monthly brief for posting on the e-group of
the Working Group. The ASDP Secretariat ensures that a paper copy is sent to members
of Working Groups without access to Internet.
The following people have access to a Working Group specific e-group: (i) the Working
Group members and local consultant(s); (ii) ad hoc members of the Working Group
(consultants contributing to that Working Group); (iii) participants of meetings organised
by the Working Group; (iv) Task Force members; (v) ASDP Secretariat; (vi) external
consultants providing backstopping services to the Working Group; and (vii) cross-cutting
and cross-sectoral Support Groups.
E. Cross-cutting and Cross-sectoral Support Groups
Agricultural development is strongly influenced by a number of issues that fall outside the
mandate of the ASLMs. These include crosscutting issues, that all sectors need to consider and
mainstream in their work (e.g. gender, HIV/AIDS, etc.) and cross-sectoral issues, that impact
significantly on agricultural profitability, but are the responsibility of other sectors and ministries
(e.g. infrastructures, land, tax, etc.). The streamlining of these issues is an important thrust of
ASDS and ASDP: these issues are outlined in Chapter 5 of the ASDS document and Chapter 8 of
the ASDP Framework and Process Document.
The ASDP Secretariat facilitates the mainstreaming of cross-cutting and cross-sectoral issues on
behalf of ICC. Support groups will assist the Task Forces and Working Groups in addressing
cross-cutting and cross-sectoral issues for the agricultural sector development, in order to
strengthen and mainstream these issues into the ASDP process.
Cross cutting issues are those, which the agricultural sector development needs to consider and
mainstream – or internalise- within their work at both planning and implementation stages. The
most important issues are related to: gender and youth; HIV/AIDS, Malaria and water born
diseases; environment/natural resource management; and governance.
The Support Group mandate is to develop, on continuous but part-time basis, a specialised support
to Task Forces, Working groups, Study teams and Formulation Teams in order to:
Provide overall support to their members on mainstreaming of cross-cutting issues within
the ADSP development process.
an e-group is a free of charge internet-based service that enables a group of people to easily exchange
documents, provide comments and manage a joint meeting calendar.
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 7
Sensitize their members on appropriate methodologies by which cross-cutting issues can
be addressed within ADSP interventions.
Provide up-to-date information on methodologies/approaches, latest developments and
experiences gained in the respective cross-cutting fields in Tanzania (including for
regional and district-specific plans and on-going activities) and in other relevant parts of
Ensure due attention for increased involvement of stakeholders for increased
accountability and transparency.
Develop a checklist to monitor the internalisation of cross-cutting issues within the work
of Task Forces, Working groups, Study teams and Formulation Teams.
Review TOR, reports and proposed interventions, and ensure that the respective cross-
cutting issues have been adequately addressed, and draw recommendations as appropriate.
The ASDS stresses the need to link agricultural development with the other rural development
sectors. While the main focus of ASDP is on the vertical linkages, from the producer to the
consumer, it is equally important to ensure complementarities and synergies between the needs for
agricultural development and other rural development investments. Cross-sectoral issues relate,
among others, to rural roads, energy, telecommunications, education, land tenure and natural
resource management (e.g. water, forestry and wildlife). The way Tanzania addresses those
challenges are spelled out in the RDS (2001)
This Support Group mandate is to develop, on continued but part-time basis, specialised support
to Task Forces, Working groups, Study teams and Formulation Teams in order to:
Provide overall support to their members on mainstreaming of cross-sectoral issues within
the ADSP development process.
Sensitize their members on appropriate methodologies by which cross-sectoral issues can
be addressed within ADSP.
Provide up-to-date information about methodologies/approaches, latest developments and
experiences gained in the respective cross-sectoral fields in Tanzania (including for
regional and district-specific plans and on-going activities) and in other relevant parts of
Promote and lobby for cross-sectoral linkages and complementarities.
Develop a checklist to monitor the internalisation of cross-sectoral issues within the Task
Forces and Working Groups development process.
Review TOR, reports and proposed interventions, and ensure that the concerned issues
have been adequately addressed, and draw recommendations as appropriate.
Working Modalities for Cross-cutting and Cross-sectoral Support Groups:
The cross-cutting and cross-sectoral Support Group will be composed of representatives from the
various concerned themes (i.e. gender, HIV/AIDS, rural roads etc.). They are not expected to
operate in the same mode as the Task Forces and Working Groups (e.g. meeting all together on a
regular basis); rather they will operate like “help desks”, with the representatives of the respective
themes being pro-active where appropriate, responding to specific demands, and reviewing the
work to ensure adequate streamlining and compliance in their respective fields. For each theme,
two experts will be appointed by the ICC/NSC from concerned public and private institutions, on
a long-term but part-time basis (as needs arise). Members of the Support Groups can attend
meetings of concerned Task Forces, Working Groups and Formulation Teams. Should needs
arise, they can also recommend to appoint, as full-time member, an expert of a given cross-cutting
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 8
or cross-sectoral issue, or recommend complementary studies. Where anticipated, costs of Support
Group interventions should be included in the budget of a given Task Force, Working Group or
Formulation Team; otherwise, costs of ad hoc interventions will be met by the ASDP Secretariat.
F. Budget Guidelines
Budgeting for Working Group operating costs is based on the following:
Per diem: for those attending a meeting outside their town of residence
Meeting expense: lunch/chai; meeting rooms are not to be rented, except for retreat;
Transport: reimbursement of expense following Government regulations by road and air;
Meetings‟ secretarial assistance: provided by ASDP Secretariat, ASLMs or ad hoc budget;
Report printing and dissemination: part of ASDP Secretariat Cost
National Consultants‟ rates: negotiable depending on experience and possibly financier
criteria, otherwise based on UNDP scale;
Retreats: per diem provided (to cover full board and misc. expense) and transport;
Output fee: a Working Group or Task Force Member may be required to prepare a report
on an agreed subject: a lump sum (to be discussed/determined) may be paid upon
finalisation and approval of the report (including external review process);
G. Quality Control
The Secretariat, assisted by the Directorates for Policy and Planning (DPPs) of the ASLMs and
external backstopping, support the work of the Task Forces by screening all investment proposals
coming through the Task Force pipeline (identification / formulation / appraisal) in a quest for
greater „quality at entry‟. The Secretariat team, guided by the Secretariat M&E specialist, provide
a set of minimum standards for good project design to the Task Forces. These standards, to be
elaborated in the ASDP M&E Guidelines, give attention to the following:
Coherence within and contribution towards ASDS objectives: each investment should
demonstrate how it will contribute towards one or more of the ASDS objectives.
Realistic, measurable and specific objective(s): the investment „purpose‟ should be
attainable within the timeframe of the project. The design should explain the intervention
logic and show how the activities and outputs lead to the purpose, which in turn then
contributes to the longer-term goal.
Inclusion of a practical and appropriate M&E design, with baseline arrangements,
affordable and relevant outcome and process indicators, use of participatory tools where
appropriate, a reporting flow and detailed costings.
In principle, all projects should involve beneficiaries in the design work. Where this is not
evident, the Secretariat would require the Formulation Team to use participatory methods
in their work.
Where a project under preparation falls below these design standards, the ASDP Secretariat would
request further refinement of the project design by the relevant Formulation Team working in
close cooperation with one or several Task Forces.
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 9
III. TASK FORCE NO. 1: INVESTMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
AT DISTRICT AND FIELD LEVEL
A. Terms of Reference for Task Force No. 1
This Task Force will oversee the establishment of a favourable sector development environment
to increase investment for agricultural production and processing. This entails the preparation and
implementation of client-oriented District Agricultural Development Plans (DADPs), to be
facilitated and processed by Local Government Administrations (LGAs). The Task Force will
therefore focus on Sub-Programme (A), in particular A1, A2, A4 (see Table 1).
Mandate: The Task Force will establish Working Groups and Formulation Teams, and
commission studies, and oversee their work in order to:
ensure compliance with ASDS principles and the ASDP process and framework;
review the status of government and donor support for all districts, for strengthening
LGAs, funding agricultural services and agricultural investments; and prioritise districts
taking into consideration the need to balance support, hence to target those which have not
received adequate support;
review the experience and approaches of district-based interventions, particularly those
related to productive investments, using community-driven development (CDD)
approaches, such as under: PADEP, SPFS, ASPS, UMADEP, PIDP and Mara-FIP; in
particular review the delivery mechanisms and assess the modalities and support
requirements for scaling up the successful ones (looking at, among others, farmer and
community empowerment, participatory planning, flow of funds, public/private service
providers for community-based investments, implementation, and M&E);
review the experience of the first year of planning for agricultural development, using the
DADP guidelines, which has been launched in connection with the special allocation
proposed for Government Budget for FY03/04; when and where appropriate, review also
FY03/04 implementation experience and refine the DADP guidelines, which should
include a project eligibility list;
develop mechanisms to coordinate Government budget allocation to fund DADPs with
donor-funded projects which support Sub-Programme A (and accounted for in the
Medium Term Expenditure Framework-MTEF), as well as those who currently operate
directly at field level and are not included in the MTEF (e.g. by some donors, NGOs or
explore opportunities and recommend mechanisms to reduce overhead costs for
implementing sub-programme A, at National level (e.g. the issue of project management
or coordination units – PCUs/PMUs) and at LGA level;
develop a strategy and actions to adequately address cross-cutting and cross-sectoral
issues during formulation and implementation of interventions;
together with Task Force 3, clarify the mandate of agricultural services needed for DADPs
(and CDD-type of interventions), and for regular extension services;
based on the above, guide and formulate interventions to increase agricultural productive
investments, to gradually reach all districts (e.g. through specific donor support and
related Formulation Teams).
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 10
Task Force Composition: The membership of TF-1 will be composed of experts drawn from
some of the following institutions: PO-RALG (proposed to be the chair), MAFS, MCM, MWLD,
Projects Coordinators (e.g. from PADEP, SPFS, LAMP, MARA-FIP, etc.), NGOs, Private Sector,
Initial Working Groups (see Figure 2)
Although a number of Working Groups have been proposed in early 2003 following discussions
among stakeholders, no thorough discussions have taken place (as in the case of TF-3), hence the
Working Groups proposed for TF-1 below can only be seen as tentative at this stage:
Implementation of DADPs to Prepare FY 03/04 Budget (on-going)
Improvement of LGA Planning for Agricultural Investment.
Scaling-up of Successful Community-Driven Agricultural Development Operations.
Irrigation Development (as well as other sub-sector).
Linkage between Agriculture and Natural Resource Management (NRM).
Geographic distribution and balancing of investment.
B. Support and Backstopping of Task Force No. 1
TF-1 and its Working Groups will operate according to the standard mode of operation outlined
previously in this document. In addition, it is proposed that TF-1 and its Working Groups be
assisted by (i) a local consultant to support TF-1; and (ii) external backstopping, when needs arise.
Draft Terms of Reference for TF-1 Local Consultant
The purpose of this position is to assist the Task Force Chairperson in actively coordinating the
work of the Task Force and its Working Groups. The Consultant will guide the committee through
its agenda. She/he will prepare materials, liaise with TF-1 members, other Task Forces and the
ASDP Secretariat. In particular, the incumbent will work under the direct supervision of the TF-1
Chairperson; she/he will (on full- or part-time basis, following TF-1 decision):
Liaise frequently with all Working Groups to inform them on the progress and key foci of
other groups and facilitate compatibility and coordination between them.
Foster cooperation and interaction between Working Groups and with other Task Forces,
including for the implementation of common interest studies.
Liaise with Support Groups to ensure that cross-cutting and cross-sectoral issues are
Notify Working Groups of potential conflicts, overlaps, and inconsistencies and advise
them accordingly with respect to necessary action to be taken.
Advise the TF-1 chairperson on problems and other issues as they arise, and recommend
specific actions to be taken, such as additional external support, calling of joint Working
Group meetings, or any other pertinent interventions.
Report back to the TF-1 chairperson on major issues and advise the chairperson of
problems and issues that need resolution at the Task Force level.
Seek advice from appropriate specialists as necessary and distil the consequent
information for the chairperson and the Task Force members.
Perform any other duty as assigned by TF-1 Chairperson.
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 11
Qualifications of the Local Consultant
The applicant (M/F) will have an established record of managing institutional change within and
between rural development agencies. The person will have a deep understanding of the existing
institutional arrangements in rural Tanzania and will be fully informed on ASDS/ASDP and on
recent developments in participatory methodologies for the promotion of change amongst rural
communities, including resource poor groups. The applicant will have a strong track record as a
team player and will show the ability to foster collaboration and positive interaction in a group
setting. The candidate must be willing to travel throughout Tanzania, have excellent report writing
and communication skills.
Funding and External Backstopping
Once the TF-1 and its priority Working Groups have been effectively established, their budgets
will be consolidated and submitted to the ASDP Secretariat. Activities of TF-1 are expected to be
funded by various sources coordinated by the ASDP Secretariat, including from Government
budget and ASDP Basket funds, and possibly candidate donors/financiers such as the European
Union (EU) and the African Development Bank (ADB).
In addition to the budget for local expenditure, external backstopping will be made available as
needs arise, following request from, and agreement with, the TF-1 Chairperson. External
Backstopping may be funded through the ASDP Secretariat Basket Fund, or directly by interested
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 12
IV. WORKING GROUPS FOR TASK FORCE NO. 1
A. Working Group on Implementation of DADPs to Prepare FY03/04 Budget
An ad hoc Government Working has been established in early 2003 (work is on-going).
B. Draft TOR for Working Group on:
Improvement of LGA Planning for Agricultural Investment
The Government has been implementing the decentralization programme for a number of years
with the assistance of a wide range of development partners. There is need to assess the progress
made so far, and review constraints and opportunities with a view to build on the successful
experiences to improve LGA planning, hence the planning and implementation of agricultural
programmes as part of poverty reduction strategies. The captioned Working Group will also build
on the finding of Working Group A on Implementation of DADPs to Prepare FY03/04 Budget.
Draft Terms of Reference
A. Institutional Aspects. Four levels will be considered separately in order to ensure
adequate attention is given to each.
Review institutions at village level through which farmers and communities identify and
prioritise their agricultural/rural development needs, examine how they are linked to the
wards (e.g. farmer fora, CBOs) and, establish their strengths and weaknesses and
recommend how they will be strengthened in order to enable them to address agricultural
development needs more effectively, including for the preparation and implementation of
Examine the institutions at ward level including their strengths and weaknesses and
recommend how they can be strengthened so that they can effectively support Village
Development Committees and the preparation and implementation of DADPs. In addition,
recommendations should include how linkages between the villages and districts will be
Examine the institutional set-up at district level, identify their roles in agricultural
development considering the current agricultural policies and strategies, their strengths
and weaknesses and recommend how the links with ward, the villages, the regional offices
and research stations will be strengthened with a view to increase agricultural investment
through the preparation and implementation of DADPs.
Examine the role of the Regional Agricultural Office in the decentralized government set-
up, and make appropriate recommendations as to its role with reference to agricultural
development as per the objectives of the ASDP.
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 13
B. LGA Capacity for Programme Development and Implementation
Review capacity of various institutions at village, ward and district levels in terms of
technical and support staff (LGA and ASLMS), their competence, identify their
weaknesses and propose ways by which their capacities and capabilities will be
strengthened and/or contracted out to Agricultural Service Providers (ASPs).
Design a system which ensures full participation of the communities in the planning,
implementing, monitoring and evaluation of agricultural development initiatives at local
In conjunction with TF-3, undertake an in-depth analysis of agricultural services
operations from the regional to the village level and compare with health services (fully
decentralised) delivery as the reference and recommend how agricultural services will be
decentralised to ensure efficiency (need to cross-check with TF-3 to avoid duplication).
C. Funding Investments in Agriculture
Develop comprehensive mechanisms (criteria and M&E) that ensure resources
apportionment by the central government to the districts is based on the needs of the
population; and examine and recommend mechanisms to mobilise resources at community
level to be used for development initiatives as need arise.
D. Flow of Funds
Examine current mechanism of flow of funds from the central government to the districts
and from the district to the village level, identify the bottlenecks and recommend ways of
Expected Output: A document that draws recommendations on how to improve LGA planning
and implementation of agricultural investments at district, ward and village levels, including:
Improved mechanisms by which the central government can apportion resources to the
districts and flow of funds to the villages.
Improved community planning and implementation at village and ward level.
Institutional set up to improve the planning delivery of services at village, ward and
district level, including a clarification of the role of Regional Agricultural Office.
Modalities for mobilising resources locally to fund some of agricultural activities.
The membership of WG-EX will be composed of experts drawn from some of the following
institutions: MAFS (e.g. DALDO; ZRELO), MWLD (e.g. DVO, DAPRO), MCM (e.g.
DCO), PO-RALG (e.g. DED, RAS), MVIWATA, UDS, SUA, NGOs, CBOs and Private
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 14
C. Draft TOR for Working Group on:
Scaling up of Successful Community-Driven Agricultural Development
Community Driven development (CDD) is an approach that aims to empower communities and
local governments with resources and authority. Empowerment means the expansion of assets and
capabilities of all people to participate in, negotiate with and hold accountable institutions that
affect their lives. CDD aims to harness social capital through empowerment, and increase social
capital through scaling up. Scaling up of CDD, means initiating a multi-sectoral expansion of the
empowerment approach. However, sectoral scaling up is part of CDD when it incorporates
genuine beneficiary participation regardless of the type/nature of the communities; i.e.
geographical entities, or groups with common interests (water users associations, herders,
members of micro-credit groups). The recently introduced guidelines for increasing agricultural
investment participatory planning, through preparing and implementing DADPs, can be seen as an
application of CCD approach, though focused on agriculture, hence Community Driven
Agricultural Development Operation (CDADO).
The main objectives of this Working Group are: (i) to Lessons learned from successful
Community-Driven Agricultural Development Operations in Tanzania; (ii) to draw
recommendations to scale up successful approaches to support ASDP and DADP implementation,
in districts which do not benefit from intensive or adequate support; and (iii) establish
mechanisms for the direct transfer of resources from the programme to the local level in support
of selected target groups.
Draft Terms of Reference
A. Lessons learned from successful Community-Driven Agricultural Development
Operations in Tanzania.
The Working Group will review and draw lessons from experience of Community-Driven
Agricultural Development Operations (CDADOs) such as: UMADEP, SPFS, PADEP; Mara–FIP,
KAEMP etc.), taking also advantage of relevant studies proposed under TF-3. The Group will
assess participatory methodologies and approaches used, determine the contribution of different
stakeholders to the successful experiences of these interventions1 and recommend areas where,
and modalities through which, these experiences could be up-scaled or replicated, taking into
consideration the cost implications and institutional requirements;
B. Scaling up of successful approaches to support ASDP and DADP implementation,
The objective is to expand successful approaches to support ASDP and DADP implementation, in
districts which do not benefit from intensive or adequate support. Therefore, the Working Group
will review the information to be provided by the soon-to-be-established Sector Support Database
(at district and regional level) that will compile the ongoing support to districts/LGAs by the
Government and development partners such as ASPS, PADEP, Mara-FIP, KAEMP, SPFS and
UMADEP (see proposed study).
Such as farmers, communities, community workers, local government officials, NGOs, CBOs, the private
sector, technical specialists, administrators, programme managers, elected LGA members, aid agencies, etc.
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 15
On this basis, the Working Group will prepare a prioritization and phasing strategy to assess
which districts should be supported in the future. Thereafter, the Working Group will draw
recommendations to scale up appropriate interventions, within districts or into new districts,
taking into consideration the broad specificity of districts (e.g. past support, current LGA
capacity, presence of services private or community-based agricultural service providers etc).
C. Establishing Local Initiative Investment Funds/Community Development Funds for
The Working Group will establish mechanisms for the direct transfer of resources from the
programme to the local level in support of selected target groups (while maintaining gender
equity) to finance activities that respond to their identified, agricultural-related needs. Releases
from the funds may constitute investment grants designed to enable the targeted groups to invest
in areas of interest and take advantage of opportunities that will generate improvements in their
livelihoods and quality of life; examples include so-called Local Initiative Investment Fund (LIIF)
of IFAD (see text box), Community Investment Sub-projects (CIS) of PADEP, and various other
community development funds (CDF). The Working Group will:
a) Review the past and current programmes with a LIIF/CDF component funded by other
donors and provide a critical assessment of the programmes and make specific
recommendations on how to adopt the positive aspects of the programmes, in line with the
DADP planning and implementation approach.
b) Identify areas for funding under the LIIF/CDF including type of activities to be funded,
eligibility criteria and funding ceiling for the activities. In all cases, the capacity of
farmers to undertake the activities should be taken into consideration.
c) Develop mechanisms for LIIF/CDF management including clear indication of flow of
funds from the programme to the farmers with specific indication on how the funds will
be controlled to ensure funds are used for the purpose for which they were planned.
Propose mechanisms by which payment for services will be effected (preferably
modalities of transferring funds to farmers so that they can pay directly for the services
d) Explore and make recommendations on how LIIF/CDF could be used to strengthen
Farmer Associations and Organizations.
e) Develop specific interventions that seek to strengthen gender as well as mainstream
HIV/AIDS awareness within the activities to be funded under LIIF/CDF. An important
aspect to be explored is development of labour-saving technologies for women and target
groups affected by the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
D. Expected Output:
The Working Group will provide: (i) a phased strategy for scaling up successful Community-
Driven Agricultural Development Operations (CDADOs); (ii) costed interventions (as investment
packages/possible projects), to be considered for funding by candidate donors or the Government,
and therefore to become the starting point of forthcoming Formulation Teams.
The same “fund”, whether LIIF, CIS or CDF can have a dual purpose of agricultural investment and for
buying services (whether for a related investment, or for regular extension services). Therefore, this aspect
needs to be dealt with in close consultation with TF-3.
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 16
E. Team composition
The membership of WG-EX will be composed of experts drawn from some of the following
institutions: MAFS (e.g. DALDO; ZRELO), MWLD (e.g. DVO, DAPRO), MCM (e.g.
DCO), PO-RALG (e.g. DED, RAS), MVIWATA, UDS, SUA, NGOs, CBOs and Private
F. Priority Study
Geographic distribution and balancing of investment. This work will be part of the proposed
ASDP sector support database to be funded under a proposed Technical Assistance project by the
EU. When the database is ready, the Task Force, assisted by Working Group C, will analyze the
information and identify the districts to be targeted under the ASDP with a view to ensure
equitable distribution of investments. A draft proposal is presented as Attachment 1.
D. Draft TOR for Working Group: Irrigation Development
Foreword: It is anticipated that a number of sub-sectoral Working Groups may need to be
established to support Task Force 1 activities; these may related to crop or livestock
development whether aimed at vertical integration (e.g. commodity-based) or horizontal
integration (systems approach). The description below provides one possible/likely example of
such a sub-sectoral Working Group. The Task Force will need to carefully review TOR of sub-
sectoral Working Groups to avoid overlap with other Task Forces, in particular TF-3 (Working
Groups on Technical Services).
The potential for irrigation in Tanzania is estimated at 1 million hectares of which, 15% (150,000
hectares) are under irrigation. Most of the area under irrigation is farmed by smallholder (about
80,000-100,000 hectares) from small diversions using farrows in highland areas and paddy
production in the lowland areas. In many areas, smallholder farmers practice traditional systems
of flood recession or water harvesting for paddy production. Due to endemic food insecurity in
Tanzania, there is need to develop farming under irrigation in order to exploit the existing
irrigation potential so as to complement rainfed farming. The Working Group will base its work
on recent developments in irrigation and water management, in particular the recently completed
Irrigation Master Plan, salient projects such as the River Basin Management – Small Scale
Irrigation and the Participatory Irrigation Development Project, SPFS and NGO initiatives.
Draft Terms of Reference (Work in Progress)
Examine current irrigation initiatives, evaluate their performance and recommend ways by
which these could be expanded. Special attention should be given to small-scale irrigation
schemes with a view to introduce a variety of low-cost technologies such as: small
motorized pumps, treadle pumps, shallow tube-wells, manual low-lift devices and small
earth dams etc.
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 17
Examine a representative sample of irrigation schemes, determine how they are operated
and maintained, assess economic/sustainability aspects, identify the most efficient
systems, and recommend future development accordingly, taking into consideration
prevailing Government policies and strategies such as decentralization, ASDS and
B. Institutional Support (check with TF-3)
Examine the public institutions at national and LGA levels mandated to initiate and
manage irrigation development, assess their strengths and weaknesses and recommend
whether and how these will be strengthened.
Examine how farmers are organised within the sample schemes, assess the strengths and
weaknesses of the organizations and recommend methods to improve them.
Examine training institutions available for farmers for irrigation development technology
and recommend how they should be strengthened for better services to the farmers.
C. Capacity Building (check with TF-3)
Assess the capacity of public institutions at national, district and local levels, as well as
private service providers, to undertake the responsibilities as identified in earlier
assessments, identify their weaknesses and recommend ways of strengthening their role.
Examine the capacity of farmers to manage and operate irrigation schemes, identify skills
gaps and propose how these will be addressed.
D. Irrigation Agronomy
Review studies undertaken in the past with reference to crop production under irrigated
conditions including yields, crop types then recommend sustainable and viable agronomic
practices that should be promoted.
assess the extent and appropriateness of research in crops produced under irrigation and
propose measures for strengthening in order to meet farmers research needs. (refer to the
TF-3 and the agricultural research MTP).
Review the organisation and efficiency of the extension services as they service irrigation
needs, and propose ways of their improvement (need to liaise/cross-check with TF-3 to
ensure coordination of recommendations and avoid any duplication).
E. Health Needs
Assess existing health facilities in areas with irrigation potential and propose how these
will be strengthened to cope with possible upsurge of waterborne diseases especially
bilharzia, typhoid etc following the developments (cross-sectoral issue).
F. Irrigation scheme-Market Linkages
Examine the existing marketing arrangements for irrigated crops with a view to determine
constraints and recommend modalities for their improvement. It will be important to
address issues related to storage and distribution systems with a view to recommend the
most efficient and cost-effective distribution network at scheme level. (This should be
regarded as a cross-cutting issue hence will be undertaken by a specialist in the field).
Examine the current costing and pricing system for crops produced under irrigation, and
recommend irrigated production systems that enable the smallholder output to compete
favourably, including where appropriate with imported produce. (This may also have to
be linked with the work to be done by Task Force 2 Working Group Agricultural
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 18
G. Scheme Viability
Develop as criteria to assess the economic viability of irrigation schemes, and recommend
a number of development options to be used to develop new irrigation schemes.
G. Expected Output
A document with specific recommendations on how to expand smallholder irrigation
schemes with appropriate participatory/demand-driven approaches, in line with
decentralization, ASDS and DADPs.
Institutional set up to manage the development of irrigation in Tanzania.
Modalities for developing the necessary irrigation development capacity (both public and
Recommendations on how to manage water-borne diseases such as bilharzia, typhoid etc
following irrigation developments.
H. Team composition
PO-RALG, MAFS, Private sector especially sugar industry, MoH, MoF, NGOs, MENRT.
Studies (check with recent work, especially Irrigation Master Plan):
1. Review studies carried out in the past on assessment of surface water for the identification of
irrigation schemes development in Tanzania. The review should include a detailed appraisal
of the surface water resources and analysis of low flows and then recommend areas for future
irrigation development to suit different water resource bases.
2. Review studies undertaken in the past to identify potential dam sites for irrigation, then
undertake detailed studies of selected good potential areas to determine the expected volume
of water to be stored, potential irrigable areas, number of households to benefit from the
proposed dams. It will be important to set the criteria for developing irrigation schemes based
on rain water harvesting.
E. Draft TOR for Working Group: Linkage Between Agriculture and Natural
Resource Management (NRM)
TOR to be prepared; to be shared with TF-3.
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 19
TABLE 1: ASDP SUB-PROGRAMMES AND COMPONENTS
Sub-programmes Main Components Proposed Sub-Components
A. Agricultural Sector A.1 Investment and Implementation May include amongst others:
Support and Irrigation and water management
Implementation at (The production and processing of agricultural Range management
District and Field Level outputs) Livestock development and animal health
Better land husbandry
(indicative funding allocation: 70-80% of Sub- Crop production and protection
programme A) Mechanisation
Storage and post-harvest
(through DADP/DDP) A.2 Policy, Regulatory and Institutional Policy Framework
Framework Regulatory Framework
(Supporting enabling environment at LGAs for Community Empowerment
all farmers) Agricultural Information & Advocacy
A.3 Research, Extension Services and Client-oriented research
(indicative funding Training Animal and plant multiplication
allocation: 75%) Extension services
(establishing the support services needed for Training of producers
agricultural growth) Service provider training
A.4 Private Sector Development, Marketing Private sector development
and Rural Finance Market development and infrastructure
(Supporting the commercialisation of Producer organisations
agricultural growth) Financial institutions and services
A.5 Cross Cutting and Cross-Sectoral Issues To include amongst others:
Rural Infrastructure and Energy
(Managing links between Agriculture and other Civil Service and LGA Reform
sectors) Village Land Act Implementation
Health (HIV/AIDS, Malaria etc.)
Forestry and Fisheries
B. Agricultural Sector B. 1 Policy, Legal, Regulatory and Policy & Regulatory Framework
Support at National Level Institutional Framework Commercial Sub-sector Development
(Creating a national enabling environment for ASDP Management and Secretariat
all farmers and other actors in the sector) Advocacy
(indicative funding allocation: B.2. Research, Extension Services, Research
20%) and Training Animal and Plant Multiplication
(Establishing the basis for agricultural growth) Training and Education
B.3 Private Sector Development, Marketing Marketing
and Rural Finance Rural Finance
Private Sector Development
C. Cross-Cutting and May include amongst others: Gender
Cross-Sectoral Issues Rural Infrastructure and Energy Education
(Managing links between Civil Service and LGA Reform Environmental Management
agriculture and other sectors) Land Acts‟ Implementation Forestry and Fisheries
(ind. funding allocation: 5%) Health (HIV/AIDS, Malaria) Water
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 20
Figure 1: Task Forces, Working Groups and Formulation Teams: Conceptual
to oversee the formulation of broad domains of interventions, at
Sub-programme or Component level, initially:
1. Investment and Implementation at District and Field Level;
2. Policy, Regulatory and Institutional Framework;
3. Agricultural Research, Extension, Training and Technical Services; and
4. others as needs arise.
To review and propose
operational strategies and
prioritise interventions on
specific domain of
intervention, at component or
(part-time, temporary) STUDIES
To prepare specific sets of
into projects, for specified
(full-time, temporary) CROSS-CUTTING AND
To support the respective teams to
ensure adequate integration and
internalisation of, compliance to,
and lobbying for, these issues
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 21
Figure 2: Task Force 1 - Investment and Implementation at District and Field Level
TASK FORCE 1 Other
Investment and Implementation TASK
at District and Field Level 1/
Working Group Working Group issues,
Implementation of Improvement of requiring
DADPs to prepare LGA Planning for specialist,
FY 2003/04 budget Agricultural full-time,
(on-going) Investment services
Working Group Working Group Working Group
Scaling-up of Successful Linkage between natural resource Irrigation
Community-Driven management and agriculture Development 2/
Agricultural (water, land husbandry, forestry,
Development Operations agroforestry, range/pasture and (small- , medium-
(CDADO) catchment management) scale, large scale)
On-going Formulation Team:
Participatory Development and
Empowerment Project (PADEP)
Anticipated Formulation Team: CROSS-CUTTING AND
Scaling up of Special Programme
for Food Security Mainstreaming to be ensured
throughout the process; such as:
Anticipated Formulation Team: for cross-cutting: gender,
River Basin Management and HIV/AIDS, environment and
Small-scale Irrigation II
for cross-sectoral: land tenure,
water, forestry and wildlife.
Other Formulation Teams, following
Task Force recommendations,
approval by ASDP management and
development partners interest
Working Groups presented are subject to confirmation.
And other sub-sectoral issues, as needs arise and capacity allows.
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 22
Agricultural Sector Development Programme
Project Proposal for the Finalisation of a Sector Support Database at
District and Regional-level
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 23
Project Proposal for Finalisation of a Sector Support Database
In 2001, the Government approved the Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS). The overall
objective of the ASDS is to create an enabling environment for improving agricultural productivity
and profitability, improving farm incomes, reducing rural poverty and ensuring household food
security. By late-2002, the Government launched the Agricultural Sector Development Programme
(ASDP) to implement the strategy, and in early 2003, established a Secretariat to coordinate the
programme. The Secretariat‟s functions include establishing Task Forces to identify specific
interventions, monitoring progress towards achieving ASDS objectives, and acting as an interface
between implementing ministries and districts, and funding partners in the sector.
Under the ASDP, discrete projects will continue to be formulated as needs arise. However, the
purpose of ASDP is not merely to aggregate projects. Its aim is to build strategic coherence between
different existing and future interventions, in order to be consistent with the ASDS, and with the
ASDP implementation and framework.
Stakeholders concerned with planning investment in the agriculture sector acknowledge that an up-to-
date and complete database on sector support activities is a much needed tool required for ASDP
formulation work. Without this information, resource allocation between districts, sub-sectors and the
ASDP sub-programmes will be very difficult to manage.
During 2002, work to establish such a database has been undertaken by various actors.
a. The ASDP formulation team assembled the largest database (for 80 Districts),
although a considerable amount of editing and verification is still needed9.
b. The External Assistance Coordination Unit (EACU) of MAFS with support from the
Danida-assisted Agricultural Sector Programme Support, Phase I, developed a
database of some 48 projects.
c. The FAO Office in Tanzania has a database with 85 projects records obtained directly
from agencies providing external assistance in the sector. An earlier FAO mission, in
mid-2002, tested forms for collecting the required data from Districts.
The current EACU and FAO databases (both in MS-Access) only contain externally funded projects
and for MAFS only. The ASDP team‟s database is rather more complete, but needs extensive
FAO missions to a number of district and regional offices suggest that without an extensive follow-up
programme of visits to the Regions and especially to the Districts, it is unlikely that the current
databases will be completed accurately and on time. The regional and district staff so far have not
used, or been shown how to use, the information for their own needs. A concerted effort will be
needed to complete the collection and analysis of agricultural sector support information, to make it
available to all parties, and to institute a system for at least annual updating and replication.
With the recent establishment of the ASDP Secretariat and three main Task Forces, ASDP formulation
will soon begin in earnest. It is therefore a matter of some urgency that the soon-to-be-established
ASDP Task Forces have available an accurate and complete set of information on current sector
The database with minor editing changes is attached as a spreadsheet
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 24
To establish a sector database planning and monitoring tool for use by Districts, Regions and National
agencies, including the planned ASDP Task Forces.
The exercise would help Regions and Districts by: (i) instilling greater awareness of the range of
actors and funding sources that are active on the agricultural sector, particularly in the non-
government area (ii) provide a simple database of sector support information for district and regional
planners to use as part of the DADP formulation process for 2003/4 financial year, and (iii) help to
provide an assessment of the IT capacity and training needs of the Regional Agricultural Specialists
and the DALDO‟s staff, with a view to their future strengthening.
The improved database would be made available to all ASDP stakeholders, including the three sector
lead ministries (Ministries of Agriculture and Food Security, Water and Livestock Development and
Cooperatives and Marketing), local government offices, non-government agencies and the wider
public. Apart from making the data accessible through the training, improved dissemination would be
achieved through annual printed updates as well as in due course downloadable versions from the
Given the scale and urgency of the task, the project will use specialists recruited through a local
service provider to undertake the bulk of the work. These specialists would be assisted by staff from
the EACU in MAFS, as well as Regional Agricultural Advisors.
The preparation work will involve reviewing and editing the existing databases held by MAFS and by
FAO. These would be to merged into a single information set, and updated with already available
documentation. A two day training workshop for the field teams would be conducted on how to collect
the project information and install and use the database.
Prior to the fieldwork, a cover letter signed by the ASDP Secretariat Coordinator should be sent with
the database guidelines and forms to all Regional Administrative Secretaries and District Executive
Directors (DEDs). A proposed timetable will be included.
The field exercise will : (i) update the current sector support data; and (ii) where computer equipment
is available, install the database in Regions and Districts as well as provide training to appropriate staff
in its use.
A subsequent follow-up visit would also take place one year later to modify and update the database
for the 2004/5 FY. This is not budgeted in this proposal, but would be the subject of a separate
The main fieldwork will consist of a two round exercise, visiting first the District and then later the
Region. The first round, at District level, would provide the initial training on the use of the existing
database to all DALDO staff and others (DED, District Planners) and would distribute and train staff
on the sector support data forms. A second, follow- up visit (after one month) would be at Regional
level for selected District staff to return the forms, be trained on the database, and plan for future
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 25
The database to be used for sector support information must be kept as simple and user-friendly as
possible, given that it should be a tool for District, Region as well as National level planning staff. The
Districts must be given enough time to gather the information, particularly as some data (for example
on NGO projects) are not so accessible. The contents of the database, in essence, will be an inventory
of various project investments, with details of funding, timing, location, objectives, implementers,
financiers. A specimen form is attached in Appendix 1. Simple summary reports will be produced to
suit different users.
A commonly available database software, such as MS-Access, would be the preferred tool. It should
have a flexible and simple interface, so that while standard reports are available, the user can also
create simple queries and customised reports. Such a choice would also allow linkages to be made
with the PO-RALG local government monitoring database that is currently being introduced10. This
information system, if successfully introduced, will provide an integrated planning and monitoring
tool for local government at village, ward and District.
Past experience shows that it is important to consider the use and users of the database before
constructing it and collecting data. This means determining the kinds of reports/outputs the ASDP
database should produce. The main reports from the ASDP database will be:
Overview of ASDP projects and activities for locations at various levels (national, regional,
districts). The national and regional reports will have fewer details than the reports at the
Overview of ASDP projects and activities for the various financiers. The reports will show where
the financiers are active and provide information in terms of their activities.
Overview of ASDP projects and activities corresponding to the ASDP sub-programmes and
components. The reports will provide information of the coverage of the sub-components,
both thematically and geographically.
Provisional costs are estimated at 200 million TSH. Detailed costings are presented in Appendix 2.
Timeframe and Action plan
The project would require 8 months in total. If preparation work commenced by April 2003, the first
results would be available by August and final results by November. Table 1 provides a guide to the
actions needed and persons responsible. Terms of Reference will be prepared once funding has been
secured (Appendix 3).
The continued maintenance of the sector support database would be the responsibility of the M&E
specialist in the ASDP Secretariat, assisted with external assistance (long-term TA assisting ASDP
Secretariat). He/she would ensure wide dissemination of the database itself or summary reports to
relevant users such as: ASDP Task Forces, ASLMs, LGAs, NGOs and donors. The cost of annual
updating and regular dissemination would be budgeted for in FY 2004/5, 2005/6 and 2006/7.
Manual for the Pilot Local Government Monitoring System database, Urban Authorities Partnership Project,
Test version 3.00, March 2002.
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 26
Table 1 Provisional work schedule (Round 1: District, Rounds 2: Region)
1. Secure funding Donors / ASDP Sec.
2. Finalise and Issue Terms of Reference ASDP Sec
3. Invite proposals ASDP Sec.
4. Bids submitted Contractors
5. Select and contract the service provider ASDP Sec.
6. Train field teams ASDP Sec / Contractor
7. Modify database and clean current Contractor 1 month
8. Inform LGAs of the programme and ASDP Sec. + PO-
plan field visits RALG
9. Undertake field exercise in Districts Contractor + RALGs 2 months
10. Review results and plan for round 2 ASDP Sec.
11. Plan field schedule for Round 2 Contractor
12. Undertake field exercise in Regions Contractor + RALGs
13. Prepare reports/maps on sector Contractor
14. Train HQ managers and staff on Contractor
15. Workshop for ASDP Task Forces to ASDP Sec. / Task
discuss and use findings Forces
16. Publish results in brochures and on ASDP Sec. / MAFS
Total 8 months
17. Prepare for Round 3 (12 months later)
18. Undertake field exercise in Regions 3 months
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 27
DRAFT FORM –FOR ONGOING PROJECT DATA
(Please fill one form for each project)
Project title .................................................................................................................................
Total budget (US$/Tsh)………………………………….
Implementation Status: under preparation…. under implementation… closed….
Starting date……………… Completion date………………
Specific project objectives: ........................................................................................................
Wards (names) Villages (total number covered)
Project coordinator/contact person:
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 28
Appendix 2. Detailed Cost Estimate11
Sensitization and Database on Sector Support Implementation team:
Project Cost Estimates
information database specialists 6
consultant team 6
Two visits: first to District level and second to Regional level LGA reps 6
ASLM staff 6
total team members 18
1. Preparation unit cost days no. cost Notes
1.1 Prepare training packages lump sum 3,000,000 translation and copying ASDS / ASDP / Database guide
1.2 Local Consultant 200,000 7 1,400,000 Work with EACU to update and test database
1.3 Meeting to brief implementing team 200,000 2 18 7,200,000
1.4 Purchase of laptops 3,000,000 6 18,000,000 Laptops for 6 teams, (handed to the ASDP Secretariat after use)
1.5 Disks, slides, paper lump sum 500,000
Assumed that for urban and rural Districts located in same town,
2. Fieldwork the exercise can be combined, so instead of 114 Districts
the budget is set for 100 District visits.
unit cost days persons cost Mobilisation travel of 10 days
2.1 Local ConsultantsFees 100,000 50 6 30,000,000 First visit to District is for 1 day visit plus 1 day travel between Districts = 200 days work
DSA 40,000 50 6 12,000,000 Second visit to Region is for 1 day plus 1 day travel = 40 days
2.2 LGA representative 40,000 50 6 12,000,000 For 6 teams, the average is 40 days work per team.
2.3 ASLM / EACU staffDSA 40,000 50 6 12,000,000 Each team is accompanied by 1 Regional Secretariat staff representative
2.4 Vehicle+driver Daily rental 70,000 50 6 21,000,000 6 ASLM (inc. EACU) staff
Fuel/day 20,000 50 6 6,000,000
2.5 District meal 5,000 1 1000 5,000,000 Round 1 :meal for District staff and team members (10 persons)
2.4 District staff DSA 15,000 2 200 6,000,000 Round 2: 2 District staff travel to Regions for briefing for 2 days
2.5 Region meal 5,000 2 280 2,800,000 meal for 10 region staff, 2 district staff and 2 team members
3.1 Workshop to share findings lump sum 5,000,000 10 staff in 120 Districts for 2 days
3.2 Publications lump sum 2,000,000
3.3 Training of staff on use of database at HQ lump sum 2,000,000
4. International TA unit cost days trips
International TA 500,000 50 25,000,000 15 days prepare manual, guide finalisation of software
DSA 180,000 50 9,000,000 15 days pilot test field exercise in 3 Districts, help prepare team
travel 4,000,000 2 8,000,000 15 days assist in preparation of reports and maps
5 days prepare and facilitate workshop
TOTAL 1+2+3+4 187,900,000
GRAND TOTAL 206,690,000
Refer to the file: Database on Sector Support Budget.xls
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 29
TF-1, preliminary draft, 29 April 03 30