Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: 71756-TZ PROJECT PAPER ON A PROPOSED THIRD ADDITIONAL CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 19.8 MILLION (US$30 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA FOR THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT October 2, 2012 Agriculture Rural Development and Irrigation Sustainable Development Department Country Department 1 Africa Region This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective September 18, 2012) Currency Unit = Tanzanian Shilling (Tsh) TZS 1,570 = US$1 US$ 1.52 = SDR1 TANZANIA GOVERNMENT FISCAL YEAR July 1 – June 30 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AF-I Additional Financing I AF-II Additional Financing II AfDB African Development Bank ASDP Agricultural Sector Development Project ASDPII Second Phase of Agricultural Sector Development Project ASDS Agricultural Sector Development Strategy ASLMs Agricultural Sector Lead Ministries CAADP Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Program CAS Country Assistance Strategy Cr Credit DADPs District Agricultural Development Plans DEMOs District Environment Management Officers DPs Development Partners EMPs Environmental Management Plans ESIAs Environmental and Social Impact Assessments ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework ESMPs Environmental and Social Management Plans FY Financial year GoT Government of Tanzania IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development IDA International Development Association IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IFC International Finance Corporation IFR Interim Financial Report IPMP Integrated Pest Management Plan JIR Joint Implementation Review LGA Local Government Authority LGDG Local Government Development Grant M&E Monitoring and evaluation MAFC Ministry of Agriculture Food Security and Cooperatives MIT Ministry of Industries and Trade i MKUKUTA Mkakati wa Kukuza Uchumi na Kupunguza Umaskini Tanzania MLFD Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development MoW Ministry of Water MTR Mid-Term Review NA Not Applicable NBS National Bureau of Statistics NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations NPS National Panel Survey NYD Not Yet Due ORAF Operational Risk Assessment Framework PAD Project Appraisal Document PDO Project Development Objective PHRD Policy and Human Resources Development PMO-RALG Prime Minister’s Office, Regional Administration and Local Government RAP Resettlement Action Plans RF Results Framework RPF Resettlement Policy Framework SAGCOT Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor for Tanzania SESA Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment SWAp Sector Wide Approach WRS Warehouse Receipt System ZARDEF Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Fund ZITSUs Zonal Irrigation Technical Service Units URT United Republic of Tanzania Vice President: Makhtar Diop Country Director: Philippe Dongier Sector Director Jamal Saghir Sector Manager: Tijan Sallah Task Team Leader: Zainab Semgalawe ii UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA ADDITIONAL FINANCING AGRICULTURAL SECTOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 II. Background and Rationale for Additional Financing in the amount of US$ 30 Million ........... 1 III. Proposed Changes ..................................................................................................................... 5 IV. Appraisal Summary .................................................................................................................. 5 Annex 1: Results Framework and Monitoring............................................................................. 11 Annex 2: Operational Risk Assessment Framework (ORAF) ..................................................... 17 Annex 3: Financing Requirements for ASDP: 2012/13-2013/14 ................................................ 20 Annex 4: Country at a Glance ...................................................................................................... 21 Annex 5: Map .............................................................................................................................. 24 Table Table 1: Project Financing Summary ............................................................................................ 1 iii UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AGRICULTURAL SECTOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ADDITIONAL FINANCING DATA SHEET Basic Information - Additional Financing (AF) Country Director: Philippe Dongier Sectors: Agriculture and Rural Development Sector Manager: Tijan Sallah Themes: Irrigation and Drainage (40%), Team Leader: Zainab Semgalawe Agricultural Extension and Research (30%), Project ID: P132838 Agriculture Fishing and Forestry (30%) Expected Effectiveness Date: December 25, Environmental Category: B–Partial 2012 Assessment Lending Instrument: SIL Expected Closing Date: March 31, 2014 Additional Funding Type: Financing Gap Joint IFC: N/A Joint Level: N/A Basic Information - Original Project Project ID: P085752 Environmental Category: B–Partial Assessment Project Name: Agricultural Sector Expected Closing Date: March 31, 2014 Development Project Joint IFC: N/A Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan Joint Level: N/A AF Project Financing Data [] Loan [X] Credit [] Grant [] Guarantee [] Other: Proposed terms: IDA standard terms of 40 years maturity, including a grace period of 10 years AF Financing Plan (US$ m) Source Total Amount (US$ m) Total Project (ASDP) Cost: Of which: 468.87 IDA AF-III 30.00 IDA (Original, AF-I and AF-II Credits): 155.00 Japan PHRD Grant 14.25 Co-financing (Other Basket DPs): IFAD 86.00 AfDB 60.00 Government of Japan 28.42 Irish Aid 34.80 European Union 8.50 Recipient: Government 28.70 Communities 23.20 Client Information Recipient: The United Republic of Tanzania Responsible Agency: Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security, and Cooperatives Contact Person: Permanent Secretary for Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security, and Cooperatives PO Box 9192, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Telephone: (255) 22 2862064 Fax: (255) 22 2862067 Email:psk@kilimo.go.tz AF Estimated Disbursements (Bank-PHRD FY/US$m) iv FY FY13 FY14 Annual 3.00 27.00 Cumulative 3.00 30.00 Project Development Objective and Description Original Project Development Objective (PDO): The development objective of the project is to enable farmers to have better access to and use of agricultural knowledge, technologies, marketing systems, and infrastructure and to promote agricultural private investment based on an improved regulatory and policy environment. Project description: The original project has two components: Component 1: Local Level Support (IDA financing US$117.1 Million). This component supports achievement of the first part of project objectives by improving the capacity of Local Government Authorities (LGAs) to plan, support, and coordinate agricultural services and investments in a more efficient, participatory, and sustainable manner. Component 2: National Level Support (IDA Financing US$37.9 Million). This component contributes to both parts of the project objectives through reforms to agricultural services, primarily research and extension, improvements in the overall sector policy framework, preparatory work and investment in national irrigation through public- private partnerships, investments to simulate market development, and improvements in food security and sector coordination. The proposed third additional credit from IDA of US$30 million would provide a one year “bridge� financing for ASDP activities. The credit will finance activities funded by original credit (4192-TA) and previous Additional Financing credits (4639-TA and 4740- TA) until Government and Basket fund donors’ financing for the second phase of ASDP comes on-stream. Safeguard and Exception to Policies Safeguard policies triggered: Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) [X]Yes [ ] No Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) [ ]Yes [X] No Forests (OP/BP 4.36) [ ]Yes [X] No Pest Management (OP 4.09) [X]Yes [ ] No Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11) [ ]Yes [X] No Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) [ ]Yes [X] No Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) [X]Yes [ ] No Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) [X]Yes [ ] No Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50) [X]Yes [ ] No Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60) [ ]Yes [X] No Does the project require any waivers of Bank policies? []Yes [X] No Have these been endorsed or approved by Bank management? []Yes [] No Conditions and Legal Covenants: N/A Financing Agreement Reference Description of Date Due Condition/Covenant v I. Introduction 1. This Project Paper seeks the approval of the Executive Directors to provide a third additional credit in an amount of SDR 19.8 million (US$30 million equivalent) to the United Republic of Tanzania (URT) for the Agricultural Sector Development Project (ASDP) (Cr. 4192- TA, Cr. 4639-TA, Cr. 4740-TA and TF011170) as shown in Table 1. The proposed third additional credit would provide a one year financing “bridge� for ASDP activities in the larger Government program. The Additional Financing (AF) would sustain ongoing activities, strengthen initial successes and address some of the key challenges and risks to realization of overall objectives of the ASDP. 2. The ASDP supports a 15 year Government program implemented through a Sector Wide Approach (SWAp), financed by five Development Partners (DP) 1 through a Basket Fund. The Project Development Objective of ASDP (PDO) is to (i) enable farmers to have better access to and use of agricultural knowledge, technologies, marketing systems, and infrastructure; and (ii) promote agricultural private investment based on an improved regulatory and policy environment. Approximately, 97 percent of cumulative International Development Association (IDA) commitments to the ASDP from the original IDA Credit (Cr. 4192-TA) and two AF Credits (4639-TA and 4740-TA) are disbursed. All legal covenants have been complied with, as of June 30, 2012, including fiduciary issues. The proposed AF will not involve any changes to the profile of beneficiaries, environmental and social safeguards requirements and implementation and fiduciary requirements. Table 1: Project Financing Summary ASDP Original IDA Additional Additional Additional Proposed Total (IDA Components (Cr. 4192-TA) IDA IDA Funding IDA and PHRD) Financing–I Financing-II PHRD Additional (Cr.4639-A) (Cr.4740-TA) Grant Financing- III Local Level 55.90 28.70 32.50 11.42 22.50 151.02 support National Level 34.10 1.30 2.50 2.83 7.50 48.23 support Total 90.00 30.00 35.00 14.25 30.00 199.25 II. Background and Rationale for Additional Financing in the amount of US$30 Million 3. Background. The original IDA Credit in the amount of SDR 61.6 million (US$90 million equivalent) was approved by the Board on May 19, 2006, to support Government’s 15 year Sector Wide Program−with a first phase of seven years (2006/7-2012/13). The Board of Executive Directors approved two IDA AF Credits in the total amount of US$65 million (US$30 million – Cr. 4639-TA approved on May 27, 2009 and US$35 million - Cr. 4740-TA approved on May 10, 2010) and a PHRD Grant of US$14.25 million approved on December 19, 1 World Bank/IDA, Government of Japan, International Fund for Agricultural Development, African Development Bank, and Irish Aid. 1 2011. These additional resources were targeted to support expansion of small-scale irrigation development. 4. The ASDP is the government’s primary tool for implementing the Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS), whose objective is to achieve a sustained agricultural growth rate of 5 percent per annum, primarily through private sector-led transformation from subsistence to commercial agriculture. The ultimate goal of ASDP is to enhance agricultural productivity, farm incomes and food security, contributing to achievement of the Second Poverty Reduction Strategy (MKUKUTA II) and Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) goals to promote agricultural growth and achieve food and nutrition security. The key areas of intervention under the ASDP are irrigation development, agricultural services (research and extension), marketing and private sector development, food security and local investments and institutional capacity building. The support for irrigation development is provided through District Agricultural Development Grants and the District Irrigation Development Fund for small-scale irrigation development. The National Irrigation Development Fund supports preparatory work to promote public-private partnership in irrigation development. The Agricultural services subcomponent supports access to and use of improved technologies through client-oriented research. The private sector development subcomponent helps to scale up new approaches to private sector-led development of agricultural markets by supporting smallholder marketing associations, strengthening linkages with external markets, promoting investments along the value chain, and empowerment of producer groups. 5. Rationale for Additional Financing. The requested additional resources from IDA would finance about a one year “interim/bridge� financing in the Government’s 15 year program, financed jointly with other DPs. IDA has been the largest contributor to the ASDP Basket Fund for the first phase of the program, constituting an average of 44 percent of total annual financing. The financing from the World Bank and other development partners for the second phase of the ASDP (ASDPII) will not be available before April 2014. The preparation of the second phase needs additional time than envisaged−about 15 months to allow extensive sector-wide consultations and assessments of strategic investment options for enhancing technology adoption and impacts on agricultural productivity and farm incomes. The total financing requirement for the “bridge� period is approximately US$113.6 million. The available financing from DPs and Government is US$60.9 million, resulting in a funding gap of about US$52.7 million (Annex 3)2. The AF would finance activities funded by on-going original and previous AFs Credits until Government and donor financing for the second phase comes on-stream. The additional Credit would minimize implementation disruptions of on-going activities, permit a smooth interphase with the ASDPII and strengthen realization of critical PDO outcomes, namely, increased farmers’ use of improved technologies, improved physical infrastructure and strengthened agricultural marketing systems and develop innovative planning processes and systems for tracking results. 6. The AF would finance project activities which are critical for achievement of the overall PDO, strengthen results achieved so far and address institutional and technical challenges and risks to achievement of the PDO. The focus will be on strengthening local level capacity on value chain-based planning and prioritization of local investments and monitoring and evaluation 2 The remaining balance of US$22.7 million will be contributed by other Basket Fund Development Partners 2 system; enhancing access to technologies and service delivery; enhancing pay-offs and sustainability of irrigation investments and other local infrastructure; and improving access to value addition/processing facilities and markets through warehouse receipt systems. 7. Project Design. The ASDP has two components which are aligned with the government’s national and local budget, planning, and prioritization process. A Local Level Support Component supports achievement of the first part of the project objective by improving the capacity of LGAs to plan, support, and coordinate agricultural services and investments in a more efficient, participatory, and sustainable manner. Support is provided to develop and implement community-driven District Agricultural Development Plans (DADPs) and to finance advisory services, training, and infrastructure development, including small-scale irrigation development. A National Level Support Component contributes to both parts of the project objectives through reforms to agricultural services, primarily research and extension. It also supports improvements in the overall sector policy framework, preparatory work and investment in national irrigation development through public-private partnerships, investments to simulate market development, and improvements in food security and sector coordination. 8. Progress Towards Achievement of PDO. Significant progress has been made towards achieving ASDP objectives. The project’s outcomes include an increase in farmers’ use of improved technologies, enhanced private sector investment, improved physical infrastructure, and stronger agricultural marketing systems. The PDO outcome indicators are presented in Annex 1. 9. The progress towards achievement of PDO is rated Moderately Satisfactory 3. Though there are improvements in technology generation and dissemination (improved seeds/livestock breeds, fertilizers and mechanization), household level data on technology adoption is based on 2009/10 National Panel Survey (NPS) owing to limitations in obtaining data regularly through the government’s Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system. The available data shows that the proportion of farmers using improved seeds had increased marginally, from 18 percent to 19.5 percent, against a target of 25 percent by 2014. At the same time, the proportion of farmers using improved livestock breeds had doubled and appeared likely to meet the project target of 5 percent by 2014. The use of mechanization (tractors/power tillers) had increased from 3 percent to 14 percent and surpassed the project target of 5 percent, while the use of animal traction has grown from 20 percent to 24 percent. The project has supported establishment of a total of 48 oxen centers to enhance the use of animal traction. Irrigated area expanded substantially. The ASDP has supported the rehabilitation and establishment of 120,822 ha in irrigation, contributing to a 48 percent gain in total irrigated area, which has contributed to a doubling in irrigated rice productivity. The share of processed agricultural products and flow of funds into the sector had increased at a reasonable rate, all indicating solid progress towards project targets. In addition, this project has been successful in introducing sector wide approach in agriculture, provided fundamental support to decentralize agricultural development efforts by strengthening the planning and implementation systems of local government authorities and facilitated significant development in human and physical capacity. This has contributed to improved access and management of agricultural interventions. 3 The previous AFs (Cr. 4639-TA, 4740-TA) from Global Food Crisis Response Program and the PHRD Grant (TF011170), all targeted to irrigation development are supervised with the parent project and therefore have a unified performance rating. 3 10. The Overall Implementation Performance. The project has recorded good performance in implementation of project components and sub-components and is rated Moderately Satisfactory. The implementation performance issues and agreed remedial actions are summarized below and discussed in details in Section IV. 11. Financial and Procurement Management: The project has maintained good performance on financial management, associated with adequate budgeting systems, sound internal auditing, high disbursement rates and strong financial oversight. The procurement management continues to improve, despite the challenges related to limited procurement capacity at local level and management of procurement plan at national level. The project has been providing support for capacity building to national and LGA staff and subproject committees at community level through the Local Capacity Building Grants. Counterpart fund contribution to overall project budget has been sporadic due to national budget constraints while community contributions (20 percent of sub-project investment costs) for local sub-projects have been satisfactorily complied with. 12. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E): The Government has successfully developed a comprehensive project M&E system which became operational in 2008. The associated M&E management structures are also in place and functional. However, the project has experienced operational gaps in outcome data collection and reporting (see details in section IV). The Government is undertaking various activities to strengthen monitoring of project results. They include improving routine data collection and reporting system; strengthening sub-project level data collection and reporting and assessment of pay-offs from ASDP investments through three impact studies. 13. Environmental and Social Management: Most of the sub-projects prepared to date have involved rehabilitation works for irrigation with minimal, localized environmental and social impacts. The safeguards assessment conducted by the Bank in May 2012 confirmed that most of the subprojects in 2012/13 DADPs included Environmental and Social Management Plans (ESMPs). While there has been good progress in integration of safeguards issues in the planning of sub-projects, implementation of associated mitigation measures has been slow. To address safeguards implementation gaps the project has supported various capacity building activities and provided technical support to enhance client’s understanding and application of safeguards principles and procedures. In addition, coordination and monitoring of implementation of safeguards issues at national and local levels have been strengthened. An environmental and social safeguards audit of selected ASDP investments will be carried out in FY13 to confirm the extent to which safeguards mitigation measures based on the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) and Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) have been implemented and identify gaps that need to be addressed through mitigation measures. 14. Consistency with CAS. ASDP is fully consistent with IDA’s current Country Assistance Strategy (CAS, FY12–14) and Bank’s Africa Agriculture Strategy. It contributes to the CAS objective of promoting inclusive, sustainable, and private sector-led growth through increasing productivity and income and four pillars of the Bank’s Africa Agriculture Strategy of increasing access and use of improved agricultural technologies (including irrigation and water 4 management); agricultural markets and infrastructure and promoting national food security. It also supports country’s priorities of the Second Poverty Reduction Strategy (MKUKUTA II), which underscores agriculture’s importance to Tanzania’s economy, employment, food security, and poverty reduction. The MKUKUTAII focuses on outcomes in three broad clusters: (i) growth and reduction of income poverty, (ii) improvement of quality of life and social well- being, and (iii) governance and accountability. The original project and the AF are aligned to the first cluster and implement activities for enhancing economic growth and reducing poverty through empowering the poor and creating opportunities for increasing production and household income. III. Proposed Changes 15. Project Objectives and Activities. The PDO, components and activities will not change as a result of the proposed AF. The project will continue to track the PDO and intermediate results specified in the revised Results Framework (Annex 1). The procurement management, financial and disbursement arrangements and procedures will remain the same. There are no new safeguards policies that will be triggered under this Additional Financing. 16. Implementation Arrangement. Implementation arrangement under the AF will remain the same as that of the original project. The primary responsibility for implementation of the Local Level Support component is the Prime Minister’s Office, Regional Administration (PMO- RALG) and LGAs, while implementation of national level component is the responsibility of Agriculture Sector Lead Ministries 4 (ASLMs). The MAFC will continue to provide overall project implementation, coordination and management, including performance monitoring. 17. Credit Closing Date. The Closing Date for the original credit (Cr. 4192-TA), the first AF credit (Cr. 4639-TA), the second AF Credit (Cr. 4740-TA), and the third AF (Cr. 5172-TZ) is March 31, 2014. The PHRD Grant is scheduled to close on December 31, 2014. IV. Appraisal Summary 18. A. Economic and Financial Analysis. The ex-ante economic and financial analysis was done at appraisal of the ASDP. Farm level returns to technology adoption and community investments generally exceeded the minimum required 12 percent economic rate of return. An ex-post economic analysis was done in May 2011 for the irrigation investments which account for nearly 80 percent of the total project costs from the original credit and two previous additional financings at local level. The economic analysis was based on farm models for three levels of irrigation investment per hectare: US$1,000, US$3,000, and US$7,500. At the lowest level of investment, an economic rate of return of 118 percent for newly developed irrigation schemes and 53 percent for rehabilitated irrigation schemes was recorded. At the highest level of investment (US$7,500 per hectare), only new irrigation schemes showed positive returns for rice, with an economic rate of return of 14 percent. All of these returns are higher than the required minimum of 12 percent. Based on this assessment the project (i.e. original credit and two previous AFs) remains economically justified for additional resources. Recent project reviews 4 Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives (MAFC), Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development (MLFD) and Ministry of Industry and Trade (MIT). 5 show that non-irrigation investments have also produced significant increases in productivity and household incomes. 19. B. Technical Analysis. The project impact and sustainability are accorded high priority by the Government through various initiatives and approaches. Various activities have been initiated to enhance quality and sustainability of irrigation investments, such as improving irrigator’s access to technologies, processing facilities and markets. Value chain approach has been introduced in the planning process to foster prioritization of investments for greater impacts of project investments. ASDP supported a wide range of reforms for agricultural research and extension emphasizing farmer-driven services as a means for achieving sustainable results. Participative approaches to service delivery are becoming important empowerment tool for small-scale farmers, and have offered cost-effective service delivery alternatives. Farmer control of research priorities through client-oriented research is increasing despite the challenges of slow institutional reforms. Extension services through Farmer Field School in key skills such as soil and water management, crop/livestock production techniques, value addition, etc. has lead to greater farmer contacts and significant increases in crop and livestock productivity and profitability. Community empowerment was seen as a key pillar under ASDP, supported by creating farmer groups at local level, building on experience from Bank’s projects such as the Participatory Agricultural Development and Empowerment Project. Farmer groups/organisations and commodity associations have been formed and are participating in implementing various project interventions. Support to marketing and private sector development was envisaged to be through training and incentives, public-private partnerships, service provision contracts and improved markets linkages. Innovative approaches to market development such as a WRS have played a key role in enhancing farm gate prices for rice and other food crops. While some activities to strengthen private sector are taking place, several of ASDP reviews observed lack of private sector engagement in the formulation of the DADPs and limited investment in agriculture due to inadequate policy and regulatory incentives. 20. C. Fiduciary Analysis. Assessment of financial management, disbursement and procurement management was done during the seventh Joint Implementation Review (JIR) conducted in May 2012, and is summarized below. 21. Financial Management Assessment. In order to reduce the transaction costs and to strengthen government systems and sustainability, development partners provide resources to ASDP through a pooled funding arrangement that uses common government systems and jointly supports the government program under SWAp. The approach relies on government procedures to plan, disburse, account, report and audit for all project funds. 22. The assessment done during JIR confirmed that the implementing agency has qualified, experienced staff with adequate knowledge and experience of implementing World Bank- financed projects. The budgeting system and number of finance staff at national and district level have continued to improve over time. A good number of finance staff has been trained on World Bank’s financial management and disbursement procedures. Positive development in financial management include: (i) revision of Local Government Finance Act and Local Government Accounting Manual to accommodate changes in public sector accounting and ensure sound financial reporting; (ii) continuous involvement of Internal Auditors in carrying out reviews of 6 project financial activities; (iii) continuous oversight by the Parliamentary committee on significant matters raised in audit reports of LGAs; and (iv) improved follow-up of audit queries by ASLMs and stringent actions to LGAs with qualified audit reports. In addition, unaudited Interim Financial Reports (IFRs) and unqualified audit reports of ASLMs for the year ended June 30, 2012 were received, reviewed by the Bank and found satisfactory. The Government is addressing issues raised by the Controller Auditor General in the audit reports. 23. Overall, the financial management arrangement satisfies the Bank’s minimum requirement under OP/BP 10.02, and the existing system is adequate to provide, with reasonable assurance, accurate and timely information on the status of the project as required. 24. Disbursement Arrangement. The IDA funds for ASDP are disbursed annually to a Basket Fund Holding Account. The ASDP Basket Fund Steering Committee approves quarterly releases of funds from the Basket Fund Account to the ASDP vote Exchequer Account, maintained by the Ministry of Finance. Project funds flow from the Exchequer Account to the LGAs and the ASLMs. As of June 30, 2012, approximately, 97 percent of the cumulative IDA commitments to the original credit and two Additional Financing Credits had been disbursed. 25. Procurement. The performance of procurement management continues to improve. The JIR assessment acknowledged slow implementation of procurement activities at the national level. The integrated Procurement Plan has been revised to include new needs of ASLMs, to rationalize activities in line with existing capacity, and to align with the budget and work plan. Despite delays in commencement of procurement processes, implementation status of the updated annual procurement plan is satisfactory. Procurement structures in LGAs are in place and operational, including establishment of District Tender Boards. Challenges in LGAs include: improper packaging of activities, delays in the preparation of tender documents and inadequate implementation of Procurement Plan, owing to insufficient capacities of procurement staff. The project has been providing support for capacity building in procurement to national and LGA staff and subproject committees at community level. 26. Procurement for the ASDP is carried out in accordance with the World Bank’s “Guidelines: Procurement of Goods, Works, and Non-consulting Services under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants by World Bank Borrowers,� published by the Bank in January 2011; “Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants by World Bank Borrowers,� published by the Bank in January 2011; and “Guidelines on Preventing and Combating Fraud and Corruption in Projects Financed by IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants�, dated October 15, 2006 and updated in January 2011 and provisions stipulated in the Financing Agreement. The Procurement Plan will be updated at least annually or as required to reflect actual project implementation needs and improvements in institutional capacity. 27. Environmental and Social Safeguards. There is no change with regard to safeguards policies triggered at appraisal of the original project. The environmental category remains Category B–Partial Assessment. The ESMF, RPF and Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP) were finalized and disclosed at appraisal of the original project in 2005. These documents were re-disclosed on September 12, 2011. As it was envisaged at design, the negative environmental impacts from the project activities have been of low intensity, site-specific, and are being 7 managed and monitored adequately by farmers and LGAs. The ESMF, RPF and IPMP documents continue to be the basis for the preparation of the specific Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs), Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIAs) and/or Environmental and Social Management Plans (ESMPs), as the need arises. Since the implementation of the ASDP started none of the sub-projects has required the preparation of RAPs while some of the larger irrigation investments have triggered ESIAs and a number of ESMPs have been prepared for smaller sub- projects. 28. The AF, like the original credit and the previous additional financing credits, triggers the safeguard policy on international waterways (OP7.50) associated with irrigation development. The AF will not finance new irrigation investments; thus no additional abstractions from riparian water sources are foreseen. The AF will finance completion of on-going irrigation schemes and software services for strengthening returns and sustainability of existing irrigation schemes. The riparian notifications were issued for the original and the previous IDA AFs Credits. 29. The Mid-term Review (MTR) done in 2008 noted slow follow-up of ESMF processes. To strengthen preparation of safeguards documents based on the ESMF and RPF and other safeguards requirements, several actions have been implemented by the Government in response to recommendations provided. ESMF principles for ESIAs, ESMP and RAPs have been incorporated into the training modules and DADPs Guidelines. The ESMF and RPF documents have been distributed to all districts and training on application of ESMF/RPF principles is in progress. The LGAs have appointed District Environmental Management Officers (DEMOs) responsible for coordination and supervision of local investments to ensure integration of safeguards issues in subprojects. The DEMOs have been trained on the application of ESMF and RPF principles, and the need to carry out ESIAs and preparation of ESMPs and RAPs for specific subprojects. Most of the civil works so far have focused on the rehabilitation of existing irrigation systems and few new irrigation subprojects have required ESIAs. In addition, an environmental and social safeguard condition has been included as one of the performance criteria in the Local Government Development Grants (LGDG) performance assessment framework for awarding competitive top-up grants for local investments. 30. The activities initiated to strengthen adherence to safeguards procedures have generated positive results. The safeguards assessments done in recent project reviews shows that awareness about environmental and social safeguards has increased tremendously and environmental issues have been integrated in planning of DADPs. Some 10,744 sub-projects have been implemented since the project was approved in May 2006. About 97 percent of them (10,397 sub-projects) have involved small, localized rehabilitation works with minimal environmental and social impacts. For the remaining 353 sub-projects, 99 ESIAs and/or ESMPs have been prepared or are under preparation. An assessment done by the Bank in May 2012 for a sample of 32 sub-projects in 2012/13 DADPs, confirmed that all the sample sub-projects were screened for environmental and social safeguards and had acceptable ESMPs, with corresponding budgets and monitoring plans. In addition, the task team has visited 29 sites and found the environmental and social management to be satisfactory. Most of the 21 new irrigation schemes in 2011/12 DADPs were subjected to environmental assessment and required full ESIA, in accordance with OP4.01. The implementation of the ESIAs for these investments is at different stages. Nonetheless, for some local infrastructures, implementation of mitigation measures in ESMPs has been slow. 8 31. To ensure that the principles of the ESMF and RPF have been followed the borrower will undertake in FY13 an environmental and social safeguards audit of selected ASDP investments. The audit will reconfirm whether safeguards procedures have been followed and the extent to which mitigation measures based on the ESMF and RPF have been implemented. The audit will obtain more detailed site-specific information about the impacts of project activities from a larger sample, including information on whether ESIAs and ESMPs were appropriately done and whether there is need for additional mitigation measures and/or site specific RAPs. In the event that there has been or will be land acquisition leading to involuntary resettlement or restrictions of access to resources or livelihoods, sub-project RAPs acceptable to the Government and the Bank will be prepared, consulted upon, and disclosed. The audit will also review potential short and long term cumulative impacts of infrastructure to be constructed, such as dams that could be located in the same watershed. The audit findings will be the basis for more informed assessment of safeguards compliance and provide lessons and guidance for addressing compliance gaps for the next phase of the ASDP. 32. The Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA) for the national irrigation master plan and the national irrigation policy was completed in May 2011. The SESA identifies potentially adverse environmental and social impacts emanating from the implementation of the national irrigation policy/national irrigation master plan, such as degradation of river catchments and riparian ecosystems/biodiversity, soil salinization, loss of forests and other vegetation, reduction of environmental flows, degradation of ecologically sensitive areas, etc., and identifies strategic guidance on how to minimize and mitigate those impacts when implementing irrigation development projects/programs in the sector. 33. D. Monitoring and Evaluation System. A comprehensive M&E Framework for ASDP, including Results Framework (RF) was developed in 2008. Subsequently, the RF of the original IDA project was revised in 2009 as part of preparation of the first AF to align with government’s RF for the overall program and again, changed slightly in 2011 to adjust targets for the percentage of households using improved seeds, fertilizers and improved breeds and percentage of smallholders using mechanization associated with the PHRD Grant (Annex 1). The Government’s M&E system possesses robust operational structures including data collection mechanisms. The project experiences challenges in obtaining household data to allow regular assessment of progress of outcome indicators for adoption of improved technologies (e.g. seed, fertilizer and mechanization). This is mainly due to lags in conducting the National Panel Surveys and National Agricultural Sample Census which were the main data sources for ASDP outcome indicators at design. The first NPS was conducted in 2009/10 – presenting a two year data lag. 34. Efforts initiated by government in 2009 to address data gaps include the development of agriculture routine data system and strengthening processes for collection of project outcome data from local level. The Basket Fund development partners and the Government are conducting joint impact assessment studies focusing on irrigation development, extension services and local infrastructure. The three areas of ASDP investment account for more than 80 of the project expenditure at local level. The impact studies will provide a sturdy assessment of pay-offs from the project, key achievements and provide lessons for designing of the ASDP-2. 9 The studies will be completed by January 2013. In addition, the World Bank is analyzing geo- referenced data from the 2010/11 NPS to establish the basis for assessment of achievement of the PDO. In order to improve agriculture data and sector M&E systems in the future, sector stockholders have proposed to conduct Annual Agricultural Surveys as one among several strategic options to be pursued in the second phase of ASDP. E. Key Risks. The overall risk rating at Appraisal was Moderate. Over the past six years of project implementation most of the critical mitigation measures to identified risks have been addressed. The overall project Operational Risk Assessment Framework (ORAF) was prepared in 2010 as part of preparation of the first AF and revised in 2011 for PHRD grant. The Updated ORAF presented in Annex 2 suggests that the overall risk is currently Low. 10 Annex 1: Results Framework and Monitoring United Republic of Tanzania: Agricultural Sector Development Project Revisions to the Results Framework Comments/ Rationale for Change PDO Current (PAD) Proposed Change (i) to enable farmers to have No change better access to and use of agricultural knowledge, technologies, marketing systems, and infrastructure; and (ii) to promote agricultural private investment based on an improved regulatory and policy environment� PDO indicators Current (PAD) Proposed change 1.Farm households using No change improved seed, fertilizer, and improved livestock breed 2.Smallholders using Baseline data for oxen adjusted Based on national mechanization: oxen, mechanization survey of 2011 tractors 3. Irrigation area developed No change 4. Flow of private funds No change into agriculture 5. Ratio of processed No change exported agricultural products to total exported agricultural products Beneficiaries (households) 6. Project beneficiaries No change 7. Of which female No change (beneficiaries) Intermediate Results indicators Current (PAD) Proposed change 1. Productivity of rice in No change irrigation schemes 2. Agricultural No change infrastructure constructed or rehabilitated 3. Farmers receiving visits No change from private and public 11 Revisions to the Results Framework Comments/ Rationale for Change extension staff 4.Private agricultural No change service providers in LGAs contracted for service delivery 5. LGAs that qualify to No change receive performance bonus 6. Operational research No change budget flowing through Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Funds 7. Smallholder households No change participating in contract farming and marketing outgrower schemes 8. Agricultural marketing No change regulations and legislation in place 12 Revised Results Framework Project Development Objective (PDO): To enable farmers to have better access to and use of agricultural knowledge, technologies, marketing systems, and infrastructure and to promote agricultural private investment based on an improved regulatory and policy environment. Baseline Cumulative Target Values Responsibility PDO Level Results Unit of Original Progress Data Source/ Frequency for Data Comments Indicators Measure Project to Date Methodology Collection Core 2003/04 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 1. Farm households using improved seed, fertilizer, and improved livestock breed: Progress is based National on 2009/10 data, to Survey/ Bureau of (i) Improved seed % 18 19.5 - 20 - - - - 25 Periodically be updated upon reports Statistics completion of on- (NBS) going panel survey Progress is based on 2009/10 data, to Survey/ (ii) Fertilizer % 12 11.6 - - - - - - 22 Periodically NBS be updated upon reports completion of on- going panel survey Progress is based on 2009/10 data, to (iii) Improved livestock Survey/ % 2 4 - - - - - - 5 Periodically NBS be updated upon breeds reports completion of on- going panel survey 2. Smallholders using mechanization: Progress is based Survey/ on national (i) Oxen % 20 24 - - - - - - 30 Periodically MAFC/NBS reports mechanization survey Progress is based Survey/ on national (ii) Tractor % 3 14 - - - - - - 5 Periodically MAFC/NBS reports mechanization survey 13 Project Development Objective (PDO): To enable farmers to have better access to and use of agricultural knowledge, technologies, marketing systems, and infrastructure and to promote agricultural private investment based on an improved regulatory and policy environment. Baseline Cumulative Target Values Responsibility PDO Level Results Unit of Original Progress Data Source/ Frequency for Data Comments Indicators Measure Project to Date Methodology Core Collection 2003/04 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 3. Irrigation area Progress is based ha 249,992 370,814 264,000 357,102 376,742 - - - 380,000 Annually Reports MAFC developed on 20011/12 data Tanzania 4. Flow of private funds Tsh 167,000 691,000 175,739 184,716 193,951 463,000 Annually Reports Investment into agriculture million Centre 5. Ratio of processed exported agricultural Tanzania products to total ratio 18.7 27.4 22 22.6 23.3 - - - 23 Annually Reports Revenue exported agricultural Authority products Beneficiaries (households) Local number 6. Project beneficiaries 0 228 142 171 199 - - - 285 Annually Reports Government (000s) Authorities 7. Of which female number 0 46 28 34 40 - - - 57 Annually Reports (beneficiaries) (000s) 14 Intermediate Results and Indicators Baseline Data Source/ Target Values Responsibility Intermediate Results Unit of Original Progress Methodology Frequency for Data Comments Indicators Measure to Date Core Collection Project 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Component 1: Local Level Support New indicator; PHRD 1.Productivity of rice in t/ha 4.5 5 - - - - - - 6.0 Grant will contribute irrigation schemes from selected schemes 2.Agricultural infrastructure constructed or rehabilitated: Progress is based on Local 2009/10 data, to be Survey/ Government (i) Irrigation schemes number 1,000 1,325 1,056 1,428 1,507 - - - 1,520 Annually updated upon reports Authorities and completion of on- MoWI going panel survey Local Government Progress is based on Authorities and 2009/10 data, to be Survey/ (ii) Dip tanks number 0 294 620 635 645 - - - 640 Annually Ministry of updated upon reports Livestock completion of on- Development going panel survey and Fisheries Local Government PHRD Grant will Authorities and construct additional (iii) Markets (warehouses) number 0 200 - - - - - - 250 Annually Survey Ministry of warehouses in selected Industries, irrigation schemes, Trade, and adding to existing ones Marketing Progress is based on 3. Farmers receiving visits Local 2009/10 data; PHRD from private and public % 10 60 - - - - - - 52 Periodically Surveys Government Grant activities will extension staff Authorities and contribute 4.Private agricultural Progress is based on Local service providers in LGAs 2009/10 data; PHRD number 0 30 - - - - - - 558 Periodically Surveys Government contracted for service Grant activities will Authorities and delivery contribute 5. LGAs that qualify to Progress based on % 0 92 64 61 100 - - - 100 Annually Reports PMO-RALG receive performance bonus 2009/10 assessment 15 Intermediate Results and Indicators Baseline Data Source/ Target Values Responsibility Intermediate Results Unit of Original Progress Methodology Frequency for Data Comments Indicators Measure to Date Core Collection Project 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Component 2: Nation Level Support 6. Operational research Progress is based on budget flowing through 2009/10 data, to be Zonal Agricultural % 0 73.3 - - - - - 75 Annually Project reports MAFC updated upon Research and Development completion of on- Funds going panel survey Progress is based on 7. Smallholder households Local 2009/10 data, to be participating in contract number 821 2713 1280 1320 1350 - - - 1400 Annually Survey/reports Government updated upon farming and marketing (000s) Authorities completion of on- outgrower schemes going panel survey Based on 2009/10 data, 8. Agricultural marketing to be updated upon regulations and legislation number 7 23 17 19 20 - - - 21 Annually Reports MITM completion of on- in place going panel survey 16 Annex 2: Operational Risk Assessment Framework (ORAF) United Republic of Tanzania: Agricultural Sector Development Project 1. Project Stakeholder Risks Rating Moderate Description : Risk Management: Limited participation of agribusiness partners and farmer 1.1 Dialogue on improving policy environment for private sector investment has led to vibrant organizations in project activities, especially their envisaged role Government commitment to enhance private investment in agriculture through initiatives like the in marketing and value addition interventions. Southern Agricultural Grow Corridor for Tanzania (SAGCOT). Resp: Government and Stage: Implementation Due Date : Status: On-going Development Partners Risk Management: 1.2 Commodity Value Chain Approach was introduced in FY12 to strengthen partnership in planning and prioritization of local interventions. Potential partners including agribusiness and farmer organizations in Local Government Authorities have been identified and participated in formulation of 2012/13 DADPs and their roles in implementation have been identified. In addition, Stakeholder’s forum at various levels, such as National Consultative Agricultural Sector Group involves private sectors and NGOs to enhance stakeholder’s coordination in project implementation. Resp: Local Due Date : June 30, Government Stage: Implementation Status: On-going 2013 Authorities 2. Implementing Agency Risks (including fiduciary) 2.1. Capacity Rating: Low Description: Risk Management: Inadequate Implementation capacity in Local Government There has been on-going efforts by government to strengthen local level project implementation capacity Authorities may lead to delays in implementation of project through training and technical backstopping from the National Facilitation teams. The LGA capacity that activities. has been achieved will be used to support implementation of project/AF activities. Resp: ASLMs Stage: Implementation Due Date : N/A Status: Ongoing 2.2. Governance Rating: Low Description: Risk Management: Inadequate budget and accountability systems may undermine Each ASLM has functional internal audit and audit committee. The project Steering Committee provides internal controls and funds may not be used efficiently and oversight on allocation and utilization of project resources to ensure that funds are used for the intended economically for intended purposes. purposes. Recruitment of qualified accounting staff, internal auditors, and procurement staff at national level has been done, and efforts to strengthen capacity of Local Government Authorities in accounting, internal audit, and procurement are ongoing. Resp: Implementing Stage: Implementation Due Date: N/A Status On-going agency 17 Risk Management: Resp: Implementing Stage: Implementation Due Date : On-going Status: NYD Agency 3. Project Risks 3.1. Design Rating: Low Description: Risk Management: A complex SWAP with multi-sector set-up nature of the project The ASDP coordination and management structures and mechanisms are in place and functional, their may lead to project management hindrances, especially the performances has been improving over the past six years and have been effective in providing both interface between local and -national level components. This strategic and technical support for project implementation and supervision from national to local level, might lead to project implementation inefficiencies; affect quality including those for multi-sector coordination. of outcomes and the achievement of intended project objectives. Resp: Implementing Stage: Implementation Due Date : N/A Status: Ongoing Agency: 3.2. Social & Environmental Rating: Moderate Description: Risk Management: There is a risk of inadequate compliance with safeguards policies 4.2.1 The implementing agency has established an environment unit, and the on-going training program related to implementation of project activities, such as irrigation for Local Government Authorities has included safeguards management issues. Progress made so far on investments and use of fertilizers and agro-chemicals. integration of environmental and Social safeguards in project implementation will be strengthened further. The existing ESMF, RPF and IPMP have provided adequate guidance for mitigating environmental and Social safeguards risks. 4.2.2 The Local Government Authorities (LGAs) have appointed District Environment Management Officers (DEMOs) responsible for coordination and supervision of local investments to ensure integration of safeguards issues. The DEMOs have been trained on application of ESMF/RPF/IPMP principles, and the need to carry out Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIAs) and preparation of Environmental, Social Management Plans (ESMPs) and/or Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs). An environmental and social safeguards audit of selected ASDP investments will be carried out in FY13 to confirm the extent to which safeguards mitigation measures based on the Environmental and Social Management Framework/Resettlement Policy Framework (ESMF/RPF) have been implemented and identify gaps that need to be addressed through mitigation measures. Resp: Implementing Stage: Implementation Due Date : N/A Status: On-going Agency 3.3. Program & Donor Rating: Low Description: Risk Management: The project is implemented in parallel with multiple projects and There are on-going discussions and studies on improving coordination among various projects and initiatives funded by other non-basket donors and private sector programs, including project implementation linkages and complementarities at Local level. Partnerships at local level. Inadequate coordination of sector activities at local fora will also be strengthened at local level through Value chain approach. level will overburden the LGAs with competing demands, lead to Resp: Implementing duplication of efforts, and thus undermine success of the project. Stage: Implementation Due Date : 12/31/2013 Status: Ongoing Agency: 18 3.4. Delivery Monitoring & Sustainability Rating: Moderate Description: Risk Management: Results Monitoring remains a challenge in the sector. Long-term Regular training is provided to LGAs on results monitoring, the roll-out of Routine Agricultural Data impact and sustainability of project activities is likely to be collection System will strengthen data availability in the sector; the comprehensive guidelines for undermined by low involvement of stakeholders in project operation and maintenance of irrigation investments will be scaled up to enhance sustainability of local implementation and inadequate community ownership of project infrastructure. investments. Weak systems for operation and maintenance of project infrastructures may also undermine sustainability. Resp: Implementing Stage: Implementation Due Date : On-going Status: NYD Agency 4. Overall Risk Implementation Risk Rating: Low Comments: This is an additional financing for an on-going project. The proposed activities are based on implementation experience and are intended to strengthen the achievement of project development objectives of the original Credit. Most of the mitigation measures for risks envisaged at preparation of original project have been addressed 19 Annex 3: Financing Requirements for ASDP: 2012/13-2013/14 (US$ ‘000) United Republic of Tanzania: Agricultural Sector Development Project 2012/2013 2013/2014 Total URT and Basket Basket Basket Basket Fund Fund Fund Fund Donors URT Donors URT Donors URT Donors Financing Requirements 113,686 14,200 38,353 11,372 49,760 25,573 88,113 Funds Available Financing 60,925 14,200 35,353 11,372 - 25,573 35,353 Financing Gap 52,760 - 3,000 - 49,760 - 52,760 20 Annex 4: Country at a Glance Tanzania at a glance 2/3/12 Sub- Key Development Indicators Saharan Low Tanzania Africa income Age distribution, 2009 (2010) Male Female Population, mid-year (millions) 44.8 840 846 75-79 Surface area (thousand sq. km) 947 24,242 17,838 60-64 Population growth (%) 3.0 2.5 2.2 Urban population (% of total population) 26 37 29 45-49 30-34 GNI (Atlas method, US$ billions) 22.9 944 431 15-19 GNI per capita (Atlas method, US$) 510 1,125 509 GNI per capita (PPP, international $) 1,360 2,051 1,220 0-4 10 5 0 5 10 GDP growth (%) 7.0 1.7 4.6 percent of total population GDP per capita growth (%) 3.9 -0.7 2.4 (most recent estimate, 2004–2010) Poverty headcount ratio at $1.25 a day (PPP, %) 68 51 .. Under-5 mortality rate (per 1,000) Poverty headcount ratio at $2.00 a day (PPP, %) 88 73 .. Life expectancy at birth (years) 55 53 57 200 Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births) 51 81 76 180 Child malnutrition (% of children under 5) 20 25 28 160 140 Adult literacy, male (% of ages 15 and older) 79 71 69 120 100 Adult literacy, female (% of ages 15 and older) 67 54 55 80 Gross primary enrollment, male (% of age group) 106 105 107 60 Gross primary enrollment, female (% of age group) 107 95 100 40 20 0 Access to an improved water source (% of population) 55 60 64 Access to improved sanitation facilities (% of population) 34 31 35 1990 1995 2000 2009 Tanzania Sub-Saharan Africa a Net Aid Flows 1980 1990 2000 2010 (US$ millions) Net ODA and official aid 676 1,163 1,063 2,934 Growth of GDP and GDP per capita (%) Top 3 donors (in 2008): United States 28 39 25 284 10 United Kingdom 73 27 153 217 8 European Union Institutions 25 42 32 138 6 4 Aid (% of GNI) .. 28.6 10.5 13.7 2 Aid per capita (US$) 36 46 31 67 0 -2 Long-Term Economic Trends -4 95 05 Consumer prices (annual % change) 30.2 35.8 -82.2 7.2 GDP implicit deflator (annual % change) .. 22.4 7.6 6.9 GDP GDP per capita Exchange rate (annual average, local per US$) 8.2 195.1 800.4 1,388.2 Terms of trade index (2000 = 100) 138 101 100 117 1980–90 1990–2000 2000–10 (average annual growth %) Population, mid-year (millions) 18.7 25.5 34.0 44.8 3.1 2.9 2.8 GDP (US$ millions) .. 4,259 10,186 23,263 .. 3.0 7.1 (% of GDP) Agriculture .. 46.0 33.5 28.1 .. 3.2 4.3 Industry .. 17.7 19.2 25.5 .. 3.1 9.3 Manufacturing .. 9.3 9.4 9.6 .. 2.8 8.7 Services .. 36.4 47.3 46.5 .. 2.6 7.8 Household final consumption expenditure .. 80.9 78.3 64.7 .. 5.3 0.4 General gov't final consumption expenditure .. 17.8 11.7 18.2 .. -8.8 19.6 Gross capital formation .. 26.1 16.8 28.9 .. -1.1 12.3 Exports of goods and services .. 12.6 13.4 26.1 .. 11.7 11.0 Imports of goods and services .. 37.5 20.1 37.8 .. 4.7 14.8 Gross savings .. 7.7 13.2 20.2 Note: Figures in italics are for years other than those specified. 2010 data are preliminary. Group data are for 2009. .. indicates data are not available. a. Aid data are for 2009. Development Economics, Development Data Group (DECDG). 21 Tanzania Balance of Payments and Trade 2000 2010 Governance indicators, 2000 and 2009 (US$ millions) Total merchandise exports (fob) 710 3,309 Total merchandise imports (cif) 1,495 8,482 Voice and accountability Net trade in goods and services -757 -2,598 Political stability Current account balance -437 -1,893 Regulatory quality as a % of GDP -4.3 -8.1 Rule of law Workers' remittances and compensation of employees (receipts) 8 23 Control of corruption Reserves, including gold -197 -570 0 25 50 75 100 2009 Country's percentile rank (0-100) Central Government Finance higher values imply better ratings 2000 (% of GDP) Source: Kaufmann-Kraay-Mastruzzi, World Bank Current revenue (including grants) 9.5 14.9 Tax revenue 8.5 13.7 Current expenditure 9.9 17.7 Technology and Infrastructure 2000 2009 Overall surplus/deficit -4.8 -10.9 Paved roads (% of total) 8.6 7.4 Highest marginal tax rate (%) Fixed line and mobile phone Individual 30 30 subscribers (per 100 people) 1 40 Corporate 30 30 High technology exports (% of manufactured exports) 1.2 4.4 External Debt and Resource Flows Environment (US$ millions) Total debt outstanding and disbursed 7,142 8,664 Agricultural land (% of land area) 38 39 Total debt service 167 199 Forest area (% of land area) 42.1 39.8 Debt relief (HIPC, MDRI) 2,977 2,517 Terrestrial protected areas (% of land area) .. .. Total debt (% of GDP) 70.1 37.2 Freshwater resources per capita (cu. meters) 2,336 2,035 Total debt service (% of exports) 12.3 3.4 Freshwater withdrawal (billion cubic meters) 5.2 .. Foreign direct investment (net inflows) 463 424 CO2 emissions per capita (mt) 0.08 0.15 Portfolio equity (net inflows) 0 0 GDP per unit of energy use (2005 PPP $ per kg of oil equivalent) 2.1 2.6 Composition of total external debt, 2009 Energy use per capita (kg of oil equivalent) 392 446 Short-term, IBRD, 0 1,341 IDA, 2,598 World Bank Group portfolio 2000 2009 (US$ millions) Private, 1,134 IBRD Total debt outstanding and disbursed 11 0 IMF, 329 Disbursements 0 0 Bilateral, 948 Other multi- Principal repayments 4 – lateral, 974 Interest payments 1 0 US$ millions IDA Total debt outstanding and disbursed 2,593 2,598 Disbursements 142 608 Private Sector Development 2000 2010 Total debt service 23 16 Time required to start a business (days) – 29 IFC (fiscal year) Cost to start a business (% of GNI per capita) – 30.9 Total disbursed and outstanding portfolio 43 50 Time required to register property (days) – 73 of which IFC own account 43 50 Disbursements for IFC own account 8 16 Ranked as a major constraint to business 2000 2010 Portfolio sales, prepayments and (% of managers surveyed who agreed) repayments for IFC own account 4 5 Electricity 72.9 .. Access to/cost of financing 9.3 .. MIGA Gross exposure 175 0 Stock market capitalization (% of GDP) 2.3 5.4 New guarantees 172 0 Bank capital to asset ratio (%) .. .. Note: Figures in italics are for years other than those specified. 2010 data are preliminary. 2/3/12 .. indicates data are not available. – indicates observation is not applicable. Development Economics, Development Data Group (DECDG). 22 Millennium Development Goals Tanzania With selected targets to achieve b etween 1990 and 2015 (estimate closest to date shown, +/- 2 years) Tanzania Goal 1: halve the rates for extreme poverty and malnutrition 1990 1995 2000 2009 Poverty headcount ratio at $1.25 a day (PPP, % of population) 72.6 .. 88.5 67.9 Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty line (% of population) 38.6 .. 35.7 33.6 Share of income or consumption to the poorest qunitile (%) 7.4 .. 7.3 .. Prevalence of malnutrition (% of children under 5) 25.1 26.9 25.3 20.0 Goal 2: ensure that children are able to complete primary schooling Primary school enrollment (net, %) 51 .. 53 95 Primary completion rate (% of relevant age group) 47 58 55 102 Secondary school enrollment (gross, %) 5 5 6 27 Youth literacy rate (% of people ages 15-24) .. .. 78 78 Goal 3: eliminate gender disparity in education and empower women Ratio of girls to boys in primary and secondary education (%) 97 .. 99 .. Women employed in the nonagricultural sector (% of nonagricultural employment) .. .. 29 .. Proportion of seats held by women in national parliament (%) .. 18 16 30 Goal 4: reduce under-5 mortality by two-thirds Under-5 mortality rate (per 1,000) 157 154 143 81 Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 96 94 89 51 Measles immunization (proportion of one-year olds immunized, %) 80 78 78 90 Goal 5: reduce maternal mortality by three-fourths Maternal mortality ratio (modeled estimate, per 100,000 live births) .. .. .. 454 Births attended by skilled health staff (% of total) 53 47 44 .. Contraceptive prevalence (% of women ages 15-49) 10 18 25 26 Goal 6: halt and begin to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS and other major diseases Prevalence of HIV (% of population ages 15-49) 4.8 7.8 7.3 5.6 Incidence of tuberculosis (per 100,000 people) 178 271 339 297 Tuberculosis case detection rate (%, all forms) 39 59 67 77 Goal 7: halve the proportion of people without sustainable access to basic needs Access to an improved water source (% of population) 49 50 53 55 Access to improved sanitation facilities (% of population) 35 35 34 34 Forest area (% of land area) 46.8 44.5 42.1 39.8 Terrestrial protected areas (% of land area) .. .. .. .. CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 GDP per unit of energy use (constant 2005 PPP $ per kg of oil equivalent) 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.6 Goal 8: develop a global partnership for development Telephone mainlines (per 100 people) 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 Mobile phone subscribers (per 100 people) 0.0 0.0 0.3 39.9 Internet users (per 100 people) 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 Personal computers (per 100 people) .. 0.2 0.3 0.9 Education indicators (%) Measles immunization (% of 1-year ICT indicators (per 100 people) olds) 125 100 50 100 40 75 75 30 50 50 20 25 25 0 10 2000 2005 2009 0 0 1990 1995 2000 2009 2000 2005 2009 Primary net enrollment ratio Fixed + mobile subscribers Ratio of girls to boys in primary & secondary Tanzania Sub-Saharan Africa education (..) Internet users Note: Figures in italics are for years other than those specified. .. indicates data are not available. 2/3/12 Development Economics, Development Data Group (DECDG). 23 Annex 5: Map 24