Aide Memoire for the.. - Ministry Of Agriculture, Food and Cooperatives

THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA 

AGRICULTURAL SECTOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME 

(ASDP) 

AIDE MEMOIRE FOR THE SECOND JOINT 

IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW 

19/10/2007 – 2/11/2007 

Final Draft

November 29, 2007 

Contents 

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………...2 

Findings on Implementation and Progress on the Agreed Actions……………………………...4 

Summary of Recommendations and Way Forward………………………………………….....12 

Lesson Learned from the Review…………………………………………………………….....13 

Annex 1: Overall Terms of Reference Agricultural Sector Development Program (ASDP) 

Joint Implementation Review October 1 – 19, 200………………………………….14 

Annex 2: Table 1: Status of Agreed Actions from the first Joint Implementation Review…………....18 

Annex 3: Table 2: Agreed Actions and Way Forward for 2007/2008 Implementation 

Primary Actions: For the next Six Months………………………………………………..21 

Table 3: Agreed Actions and Way Forward for 2007/2008 Implementation 

Secondary Actions: Beyond Six Months……………………………………………………..24 

Annex 4: Basket Fund Disbursement Status for 2007/08 as of September 2007 (US $ '000)….26 

Annex 5: Summary of Visited Regions and LGAs……………………………………………………...27 

2


Introduction: 

1. The first Joint Implementation Review of ASDP was carried out in April, 2007 by the 

Government and ASDP Development Partners. The review focused on assessing progress made during 

the first year of implementation of the program and to identify specific actions that will facilitate 

implementation in the following six months. 

2. The main objective of the second Joint Implementation Review was to carry out a review of the 

implementation progress of program activities over the last six months, since the first review. 

Specifically the JIR focused on: (i) monitoring implementation progress of the specific agreed actions 

needed to improve the implementation of ASDP, identified during the last review 1 and (ii) evaluate 

implementation progress of sub-components/thematic areas that were not adequately addressed in the first 

review, including, marketing/private sector development, irrigation, agricultural Services and food 

security and (iii) provide recommendations for future implementation of the program.. This Joint 

Implementation Review took a wider approach. As shown in Annex 5, a total of 10 regions and 22 

districts were visited. The review team also had discussions with directors of ASLMs and other staff at 

the national level. The review team comprised of representatives of the four Agricultural Sector Lead 

Ministries - ASLMs (MAFC, MLD, MITM and PMO-RALG), Development Partners (DPs: EU, IFAD, 

FAO, Japan, Irish Aid and World Bank) and other stakeholders. The IFAD and MAFC provided the 

overall leadership and coordination of the review process on behalf of DPs and ASLMs respectively. 

3. The mission began with one day discussion in Dar es Salaam followed by one week field work by 

technical teams (Thematic Groups) organized around five specific themes. The teams visited Rukwa, 

Mbeya, Iringa, Ruvuma, Tabora, Shinyanga, Arusha, Kilimanjaro and Dodoma regions. The ASLM 

directors and Development Partners visited Tanga region (Handeni and Muheza districts for two days). 

Annex 1 contains the overall TOR which guided the ASDP Review. 

4. The ASLMs and stakeholders assembled in Dar es Salaam on 2 nd November, 2007 in a wrap up 

meeting chaired by the PS (MAFC), Mr.Peniel M. Lyimo to discuss the findings and recommendations 

from the review.. The meeting was attended by high level decision makers of ASLMs, as well as some 

regional and district officials in areas visited. Members are listed in Annex 5 along with their 

organizations and respective regions and districts visited. 

Background 

5. The Agricultural Sector Development Program (ASDP) is the Government of Tanzania’s 

instrument for agricultural growth and poverty reduction as outlined in the Agricultural Sector 

Development Strategy (ASDS) and National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty 

(MKUKUTA). The Program has two objectives (i) to enable farmers to have better access to and use of 

agricultural knowledge, technologies, marketing systems and infrastructure, all of which contribute to 

higher productivity, profitability, and farm incomes; and (ii) to promote agricultural private investment 

based on an improved regulatory and policy environment. 

1 Status of the agreed actions of the first ASDP Implementation review can be found in Annex 2 including agreed 

action and way forward for the second review. 

3


6. These results are delivered through Local and National components. Local component activities 

are grounded in District Agricultural Development Plans (DADPs) and focus on three subcomponents: (i) 

local agricultural investments (including irrigation), (ii) local agricultural services, and (iii) local 

agricultural capacity building and reform. National support focuses on five subcomponent areas: (i) 

reforming agricultural services, primarily research and extension; (ii) improving the overall sector policy, 

regulatory and legal framework; marketing and private sector development; capacity building; 

information and communication; (iii) investing in strategic national level irrigation infrastructure and 

technical support for local level irrigation investment, and (iv) enhancing food security and (v) 

establishing a framework to ensure the quality and technical soundness of investments and delivery of 

services at local levels. 

7. Donor financing ASDP comes through a joint Basket Fund to which five donors have currently 

committed funds. 2 The Fund supports national activities via an agreed expenditure program for the four 

ASLMs with district and village level activities supported by performance based grants channeled 

through the Local Government Capital Development Grant (LGCDG) system coordinated by PMO- 

RALG. 

8. Given this context, the team was assigned to review and monitor the agreed actions during the 

first review, assess progress made and addressing challenges in respective thematic areas, as well as 

Government’s implementation capacity and lessons from ongoing activities. 

Findings on Implementation and Progress on the Agreed actions. 

9. The findings below have been arranged according to the six thematic groups as stipulated in the 

overall 3 TOR that guided the review. These findings indicate the overall implementation progress, status 

of agreed actions in the last review, challenges to ASDP implementation and additional actions necessary 

to enhance implementation progress. To achieve further progress in the future, pro-active attention, 

commitment and timely actions to overcome challenges are necessary. 

10. Overall Status and Progress of Implementation 

Overall, there is progress made in some areas over the last six months and it is still possible to achieve 

further progress in order to achieve development objectives as set out in the ASDP programme document. 

The mission found that 14 out of the 26 agreed actions were completed, and 2 out of 14 are in progress. A 

detailed matrix of the status and progress of the agreed implementation actions of the April review can be 

found in Annex 2. Summary of implementation progress is outlined below: 

ASDP M&E Framework approved: The M&E Framework has been approved by Committee of Directors 

in July and a draft Terms of Reference for baseline data collection and tender has been prepared. 

Awareness of DADPs guidelines and DFTs (District Facilitation Teams) in place: Almost all districts 

visited reported that the DFTs are all aware of the DADPs guidelines and DADPs cycle of planning. All 

districts have DFTs in place 

2 Annex 4 contains basket fund disbursement status and commitments as of September 2007. This is being updated 

to reflect increased FY07/08 contributions from other participating donors that have partially compensated. 

3 Annex 1 contains the overall TOR which guided the ASDP Review. Each thematic group had its own TOR 

addressing specific thematic issues as well as monitoring the agreed actions in accordance with the first Aide 

Memoire 

4


Progress has been made in improving planning and budgeting for ASDP over the past year. Key 

improvements include preparation of an integrated action plan and cash flow that extracts ASDP financed 

activities from within the MTEF and shows them by department and by thematic area 

Thematic Working Groups have been formed and TORs on their functions have been shared with the 

Development Partners. Currently, there are 6 thematic working groups addressing different themes under 

ASDP. They have further developed an integrated workplan which has been extracted from the MTEF 

and will be used as a monitoring tool for the thematic groups. 

Irrigation: There has been a significant increase in the number of proposed new irrigation schemes from 

15 to 136 as of the time of the review. This signifies further that the communities are well aligned with 

DADPs process. 

11. Common challenges of implementation 

DADPs guidelines: Despite massive awareness of guidelines in the LGAs, operationalization of the 

guidelines by the DFTs remain a problem. This consequently affects to a great extent the quality of 

DADPs as most of them do not adequately address rural poverty reduction, food security and hunger 

reduction initiatives. 

Late disbursement of funds has serious implications on most aspects of agricultural development. 

Improved disbursement linked with the agricultural cycle is required. 

Private sector involvement: The involvement of private sector remains a big challenge in the LGAs. This 

comes in two dimensions: the unwillingness to involve the sector as stakeholders in the planning and 

implementation and the lack of knowledge on procuring private sector services 

Capacity Building: There is a need to increase capacity both human resource with required skills and 

physical (machinery and equipments) at all levels. Specific capacity building components are included in 

each theme below. However, there is a need to consolidate all capacity issues as a single area of activity. 

Staff and facilities: There is loss of institutional memory due to senior staff at national, zonal and LGA 

levels as majority are retiring and not being replaced, as well as obsolete facilities and equipment 

12. Key findings and challenges from the review are summarized below: 

Local Component 

13. The review teams held discussions during the field visits with LGAs, Regional Administrative 

Secretaries and Zonal Agricultural Research Institutes to assess implementation progress in respective 

thematic areas: 

• Agricultural planning and implementation 

• Irrigation 

• Agricultural services (research and extension) 

• Private Sector and marketing development 

• Food Security 

14. Agricultural planning and implementation: 

All visited districts have formed the District Facilitation Teams (DFTs) and Ward Facilitation Teams 

(WFTs), or are aware of the urgency and roles of these teams in the planning process. This is considered 

5


to be a good progress compared to the last review. Districts seem to be progressively conversant with the 

program design and implementation arrangement. Also, most districts are aware of the participatory 

planning approach of DADPs through O&OD or PRA, even in cases where the approach has not been 

used for planning. Generally, all the districts visited have prepared DADPs. Involvement of the private 

sector is also in the process, to some extent 4 , even though it is still at its initial stage. Despite the observed 

progress the following key challenges were noted 

Generall challenges: Budget guidelines are not released on time to guide the planning process and 

frequent changes of budget ceilings affect annual work plan and budget in most districts. 

DADPs Operational Setting: Despite the observed progress, the quality of DFTs and WFTs teams still 

needs to be improved through continued training and backstopping. The DADPs Guidelines (especially 

the Kiswahili version) should be widely distributed and ensure that all DFT/WFT members have copies 

and are enforced by the PMO-RALG to use the guidelines for developing the DADPs. 

. 

Comprehensiveness of DADPs: The DADPs concept as a comprehensive plan is still unclear to most 

DFT members. Awareness at the community level is minimal. Some confusion still exist among LGAs in 

that DADPs is a project parallel to conventional ones such as PADEP or other donor-supported activities. 

DADPs Formulation Process and Strategic Quality: Generally, all the districts visited have prepared 

DADPs. However, the quality of DADPs is generally poor due to inadequate participatory and strategic 

planning process. The reasons include: 

• Strategic Planning: Though poorly prepared, almost all districts visited had developed strategic 

plans in place. However, these strategies were not used during DADPs preparation. Criteria for 

intervention selection are often the source of problems, size of beneficiaries, whether or not 

supported by other projects in the past, etc. Sometimes the level of ownership of communities is 

taken into consideration. There are cases where priorities are a priori instructed by higher 

authorities. In general, equity rather than efficiency seems to be of greater concern in the selection. 

• Use of Participatory Planning Methodologies: O&OD is yet to be rolled out in many LGAs. PRA 

was used in such LGAs to identify priorities of community level interventions. Nevertheless, there 

is no evidence that the PRA or O&OD results have been used for DADPs preparation. During the 

field visit, it was often confirmed that in an ordinary O&OD exercise, the issues of agricultural 

sector have not been sufficiently highlighted. 

• Stakeholder Involvement: Private sector inventory is in place in all LGAs, but there is minimal 

involvement in the planning process. Involvement of private sector in provision of agricultural 

service is still a challenge. 

• MTEF planning format: All LGAs have not understood the three years planning concept as per the 

MTEF, hence it was not used by some during planning. 

Allocation and Utilization of DADPs Conditional Grants: Review of DADPs documents and discussion 

with DFTs indicates the impression that there is still low level of understanding on the use of ASDP 

grants especially the top-up part of the A-EBG and A-CBG. This has led to misallocation of the grants 

and hence potential risk of attaining expected outputs and outcomes. For instance, issues of contracting 

out, capacity building of private sector and farmer empowerment are not taken into account by some 

LGAs in the fund allocation. 

ASDP’s linkage to LGCDG and Reporting Systems: Generally, awareness of the reporting systems 

(PlanRep2, Epicor and LGMD) is fair in all LGAs, although majority of LGAs reported that the systems 

4 For example, Monduli DC requested plans from the private sector, and Mwanga DC has included the private sector rep in the 

DFT. 

6


are not user friendly. PlanRep is widely used in planning but not in progress reporting as this is not a 

reporting requirement by PMO-RALG. The PlanRep system is currently incompatible at different 

institutional levels and LGAs are facing difficulties during submission of plans to the Ministry of 

Finance. The LGAs are currently using formats from the Ministry of Finance. Local Government 

Monitoring Database (LGMD) is known but not used by all LGAs. Epicor is equally not used due to 

inadequate technical capacity. 

Knowledge of the LGCDG system is still confined to a small group (DED, DPLO, and only sometimes 

DALDO) of LGA’s organization, leading that DALDO and DFT are barely knowledgeable of Minimum 

Conditions (MCs) and Performance Assessment (PA) of the system. Use of LGCDG account and 

Development account for disbursement of ASDP grants is still not clear to most LGAs. Contrary to the 

guidelines, some LGAs are still maintaining the DADPs account into which funds from LGCDG and 

Development accounts are internally transferred. 

DADPs implementation: Late disbursement of funds affected implementation of 2006/07 action Plan. For 

most LGAs some activities planned for 2006/2007 (especially irrigation projects that are subjected to 

seasonality were shifted to the 1st quarter of FY 2007/08. Activities for 2006/07 were in some districts 

not identified through participatory process. All LGAs had not received DADPs funds (both basic and top 

up grant) for 2007/08. Therefore development activities planned for 2007/08 had not started. 

In principle, the effective implementation of DADPs presupposes sufficient managerial capacity of 

communities (financial, organizational, reporting, and contracting abilities). This precondition also 

underlines the importance of farmer empowerment. However, many communities are still very much 

short of such capacity. The facilitation by LGAs is often constrained by the shortage of human and 

financial resources. Such situation encourages the continuing practice of the conventional top-down 

approach, i.e. the LGAs construct facilities, supply materials (kits, seeds, chemicals, etc.), technical skills 

(trainers or exemplars), and show farmers to follow. There are cases where the communities were neither 

involved in the identification of projects nor implementation. This practice is inconsistent with the basic 

vision of ASDP: farmer empowerment and private sector promotion. 

Linkage with Regional Secretariat (RS): The regional secretariats described their roles as involving both 

supervisory and advisory functions, particularly regarding the preparation of DADPs. But with growing 

sense of LGAs being independent, together with the limited human resources, the RS offices seem to feel 

less effective in influencing LGAs in their DADPs activities. Hence it would be necessary to consider 

carefully about the roles and duties of the RS office on the guidance (and technical backstopping) of 

LGAs for DADPs preparation and implementation, and the linkage between RS and PMO-RALG. 

Communication between LGAs and the Central Ministries: Districts officially submit their quarterly 

reports to PMO-RALG through the RS. In practice, the DALDO office often communicates directly to 

the PMO-RALG skipping RS office. The fact that consolidation of reports is done only partially at the 

Regional level makes the work at PMO-RALG significantly laborious. Also sending reports from the 

Region to PMO-RALG without copying to ASLMs also found to hampers smooth communication 

between Regions and the Central level. 

Linkage with Zonal Institutions: Research institutes are aware of ASDP and have received sensitisation. 

The ZARDEF committees were established. Some collaborations between LGAs and ZARDI through on 

farm research activities, seed multiplication and variety evaluation were observed, most arising from 

previous programs such as DADS and TARP II. Examples included cross ridging, testing new varieties 

of beans and intercropping with legumes. There was also ongoing collaboration with SUA, TaCRI, TRIT 

and international institutions. However, linkage with districts still needs to be strengthened. 

7


15. Irrigation: 

The review team observed some positive signs that the number of proposed new irrigation schemes has 

increased. As of May 2007, 15 requests for funding were submitted to the DIDF committee from 6 

districts, whereas in this financial year as of 30 th October 2007, 136 requests from 22 Districts have been 

received. However, the absolute number as proposed under ASDP-DIDF remains low. The following 

key challenges were identified: 

Level of incorporation of capacity building in irrigation scheme development: The level of incorporation 

of capacity building trainings in irrigation scheme development differs from one district to another (In 

some districts farmers were trained at KATC, Moshi on water management and operation and 

maintenance of irrigation schemes). Hence it should be encouraged that LGAs incorporate capacity 

building in their DADPs. In most cases farmers were in demand of capacity building trainings . 

Existence and Effectiveness of Irrigators Organizations: It was observed that registration of irrigator’s 

organizations is not well defined in the project cycle. In some districts, the organizations are formed after 

the completion of construction of irrigation infrastructure, which normally results in the absence of sense 

of ownership by the farmers and consequently the projects ends up being unsustainable. There is a need to 

clearly define the advantages and disadvantages of forming farmer’s organizations as either associations 

or cooperative societies and to let farmers choose what they prefer. 

Institutional Capacity and Willingness to Outsource: Most of the districts have on average 1 – 2 

irrigation technicians only, whereas some do not have any. There are very few districts with an 

irrigation/agricultural engineer. With this situation it is difficult to implement irrigation interventions in 

those districts. The utilization of the technical backstopping from the Zonal Irrigation and Technical 

Services Units (ZITSUs) needs to be strengthened. 

Quality of Irrigation Development: It is observed that those districts which do not seek technical 

backstopping from the ZITSUs end up with slow progress and poor quality of irrigation 

systems/infrastructure. The team found that some of the system designs and implementation arrangements 

in the field were questionable. Currently there are no legal regulations to be followed by irrigation 

development players pending the on-going formulation of the National Irrigation Policy and Strategy. 

There is need for setting a mechanism for quality control during design, implementation and after 

completion. 

Environmental Issues in Irrigation Projects: The DFT recognizes issues of environment in irrigation 

development. However no environmental assessments have been conducted at any level. There is need to 

involve district environmental officers in all irrigation projects in districts. 

Capacity at National and Zonal Level: Although staff at the DITS and zonal level are qualified, still there 

is need for them to attend refresher courses on undertaking feasibility studies, designs and construction 

supervisions with contract management. The newly employed professionals will also benefit from such 

arrangements by putting their graduate knowledge to a more practical approach. With proper arrangement 

this can be done using MATI-Igurusi with outsourced experienced trainers, in possible collaboration with 

the National Construction Council (NCC). 

16. Agricultural services (research and extension): 

Agricultural Services in this aspect means both research and extension for both crops and livestock. The 

review team agrees that there are significant activities and better environment for development of 

agricultural services in the LGAs. Linkages within districts were observed between district staff and ward 

and village farmers fora, particularly in the preparation of DADPs. While complaints were expressed by 

8


some groups that farmer and village plans/projects loose priority at district level, others were successful in 

having theirs included. Some top down projects were also observed and while they were not the groups 

first choice, groups involved felt they were very worthy. New innovations at village level included clonal 

coffee, banana, goats, improved chicken and pig keeping. Almost all villages were vaccinating for 

newcastles disease. 

Agriculture services implementation is more advanced for extension than for research. Concerning 

extension, implementation is being helped by formation of DFTs and WFTs that include extensionists, 

and identification of their role in technology transfer. While extensionists have yet to embrace their new 

role of facilitating formation of farmer groups, the field team found farmer groups particularly FFS to be 

active in most LGAs visited, and noted that they provide a promising platform for technology reception 

and dissemination as well as formation of local networks (SACCOs, local marketing organizations). 

Some collaborations between LGAs and ZARDI through on farm research activities, seed multiplication 

and variety evaluation were observed, most arising from previous programs such as TARPII. Examples 

included cross ridging, testing new varieties of beans and intercropping with legumes. There was also 

ongoing collaboration with SUA, TaCRI, TRIT and international institutions. 

Major challenge is to support these developments at LGA level in a coordinated way from the national 

level. There is also a need to focus on capacity building to enhance and sustain these developments. 

Specific challenges include: 

Lack of capacity at district/ward/village levels: The review team noted the following capacity related 

issues at local level 

• Shortage of staff at ward and village level. Too few extension officers and many extension 

officers are serving more than one village 

• Technical capacity of WEOs/ VEOs to deliver both crop & livestock advice is weak. 

WEOs/VEOs are trained in either livestock or crops. However many villages have both 

enterprises. It is difficult for an untrained crop extension officer to give advice on livestock and 

vice a versa 

In adequate animal health service delivery: There is no enough veterinary diagnostic facilities and 

equipment at district and ward levels. Diagnostic facilities particularly in the more rural areas are weak or 

absent. The private sector has not produced the expected take up and this has caused a vacuum. There is 

also a lack of manpower and shortage of drugs. East Coast Fever is still the major disease and little use of 

immunization leading to high levels of livestock mortality particularly calf mortality 

Slow roll-out of CORDEMA and ZARDEF in the ZARDI 

• The implementation of CORDEMA and establishment of ZARDEF as instruments for strengthening 

the linkage between research and LGAs is lagging behind: ZARDI visited reported that researchers 

have participated in sensitisation workshops on CORDEMA and ZARDEF but lack knowledge and 

guidelines on how ZARDEF and CORDEMA are going to operate. The institute has identified Zonal 

Technical Committee and Zonal Steering Committee for managing ZARDEF, training of the two 

committees is underway, as well as development of ZARDEF constitution. However, ZARDEF will 

not be operational in FY08/09 due to phased disbursement schedule proposed in the PIP. The team 

noted from the FY07/08 allocation that some ZARDIs will receive funds for ZARDEF in the fourth 

year of ASDP implementation. Also it was noted that the budget allocation for FY07/08 does not 

reflect the zonal research priorities. 

• There is loss of institutional memory due to senior researchers retiring and not being replaced. Other 

challenges include obsolete facilities and equipment and lack of basic reagents and poor information 

9


flow to extension. The ZIELU staffing plan has not been implemented. This is a key linkage unit in 

ensuring that information flows both upwards to the national level and downwards to farmers and 

districts. 

Weak Linkage of Veterinary Investigation Centres (VICs) with research institutes and districts. There are 

no links between the VIC and the operation of the ZARDEF funds. The VIC is not represented on any 

ZARDEF committees and thus is unaware of these activities. Similarly links between the VIC and district 

are weak. VICs do not receive timely, accurate and detailed information from districts to enable them to 

implement an effective disease surveillance system 

17. Marketing and Private Sector Development: 

Agricultural marketing is not well established and in most cases is undertaken in open spaces. Cross 

border trade is prominent due to Tanzania’s borders with DRC, Zambia, Ruanda, Burundi, Malawi, 

Kenya and Uganda. The prevailing agricultural situation in these countries affects the market in Tanzania. 

Many private traders supply inputs and buy produce from individual farmers. The availability of timely 

and accurate market information on local, regional and cross border markets for both crops and livestock 

is critical in order to enable farmers and other stakeholders to make appropriate trading decisions. 

Marketing of crop products is being done successfully through participation of private-public 

involvement. However price trends are not controlled by farmers, who normally sell their produce to 

informal markets. There are agricultural selling centres (magulio) in districts, standard measurements are 

still normally used. And warehouse receipt is already popular in some districts. Some LGAs have 

empowered farmers by supporting them through marketing groups and networks for their produce, 

especially cash crops e.g. coffee. This has improved access to information, bargaining power and reduced 

transaction costs. Key challenges include: 

Poor Rural Infrastructure 

• Poor rural road networks. Long distances prevail between many towns and villages and some areas 

are not accessible during the rainy season. 

• Lack of market structures, warehouses and processing facilities. Many districts lack market 

structures and warehouse facilities. Many are also lacking processing facilities which can add 

value and extend shelf life. 

• Lack of knowledge on marketing issues. Farmers have limited access to market information. 

The marketing process is complicated by the use of non-standardized weights and measures. 

• Lack of collective marketing. Most marketing is conducted by middlemen traders dealing 

directly with individual farmers. Few farmers sell in groups and thus have no collective 

marketing power. 

Inaccessibility to financial services: Financial services, particularly credit, for small farmers and 

traders are necessary for successful marketing. 

18. Food Security: 

The food security team reviewed food security issues and assessed practicability of food security 

guidelines. LGAs are very much aware of ASDP. Despite the dry weather conditions of the places visited, 

the community cultivated a variety of food crops, using traditional irrigation ways, with food crops 

including tomatoes, onions, and leafy vegetables. The community is willing to contribute to development 

projects e.g. irrigation, dips. Key implementation challenges are summarized below: 

10


Food preferences in some households have shown to affect utilization e.g. in the drier areas of Northern 

zone, Tabora etc. farmers consider themselves as food insecure because they are not willing to accept 

sorghum as an appropriate alternative food crop for their area. 

There is lack of knowledge on improved food processing and preservation technologies: Hence the 

farmers have to sell their produce immediately after harvest to avoid losses: a situation that creates food 

shortages and hence food insecurity even if the production was higher in these areas. It was also noted 

that the available storage structures do not prevent crop losses. 

Identification of vulnerable groups: There was no clear system of identifying and supporting the 

vulnerable groups such as old and sick people both at district level. The characteristics and behavior 

patterns of insecure communities were not understood, making hard to identify the possible projects to 

alleviate the situation. 

The effectiveness of early warning system (information flow): The districts are not receiving information 

on the risks of food insecurity in their areas in time. The knowledge and use of early warning system are 

not properly considered in preparation of DADPs. Furthermore, there is lack of capacity at the district 

and ward levels to carry out vulnerability assessments to determine the magnitudes of the vulnerability in 

most areas. 

19. Cross Cutting issues: 

Findings reveal that there have been adequate efforts to consider gender and HIV/AIDs issues in various 

processes related to the design and formulation of the VADPs/DADPs respectively. However, noticeable 

variations were observed both within and across District Councils with respect to capacities for 

integrating cross cutting issues in their respective DADPs and VADPs. This was caused possibly by 

inadequate or lack of capacities in gender analysis, gender planning, gender mainstreaming and or gender 

budgeting and gender statistics. Key challenges are summarized below: 

Lack of baseline indicators: Whilst the ASDP M&E framework have only been approved in July 2007 

and field testing of indicators is underway, the LGAs remain unknowledgeable on the proposed indicators 

and the use of baseline indicators henceforth. Due to this, the integration of cross cutting issues 

(HIV/AIDs, gender, environment and governance) in the monitoring and evaluation of ASDP will still be 

a challenge in the future. 

ASDP M&E Cross-cutting indicators: the indicators found in the M&E framework for crosscutting issues 

are rather few and not exhaustive considering the broadness of the sectoral programme. The indicators 

presented in the framework are thinly addressing cross cutting issues by merely raising awareness and 

mostly leaving out implementation and mainstreaming of cross cutting interventions. 

National Component 

20. The team focused on the overall national implementation and monitoring of the programme, 

existing institutional set-up for coordinating ASDP, institutional linkages, planning and budgeting, 

participation and dialogue mechanism among stakeholders (Thematic Working Groups-TWGs), ASLMs, 

Committee of Directors, ASDP Secretariat, other ministries and non-public actors) 

Overall National Implementation and Monitoring: Overall, progress has been made on implementation 

and monitoring at the national level. The M&E framework that is supposed to be the monitoring tool for 

the sector programme was developed by M&E TWG and approved by the Committee of Directors, and 

there are plans for development of guidelines and dissemination. Progress reports for the 3 rd and 4 th 

11


quarter of 06/07 are available. Work is still underway to prepare quarterly reports for the 1 st quarter of 

07/08. 

Planning and budgeting: Progress has been made on improving planning and budgeting for ASDP over 

the past year. Key improvements have been the production of an integrated action plan and cash flow that 

extracts ASDP financed activities from within the MTEF and shows them by department and by thematic 

area. Nonetheless, approval and release of funds still remains behind schedule. Due to the late approval of 

the work plan and budget and lack of sufficient funds in the Basket Holding Account, funds for national 

level activities during the first quarter were not available. Most ASDP financed activities at the local and 

national levels will only take place starting in late second quarter 2007/08. 

Institutional Linkages and Coordination: Improvement in coordination at national level was suggested in 

the first JIR. Since then some adjustments have been made to improve coordination through the creation 

of TWGs. The TWGs submit the action plans to the DADP Planning and Implementation TWG who 

prepares an integrated work plan and it is their responsibility to ensure implementation of the integrated 

work plan. The chairs of the TWGs must commit to support the implementation of the integrated work 

plan. Other efforts to improve ASDP coordination have also been made but effective coordination and 

clarity of roles and relationship of ASDP Secretariat, DPP-MAFC and TWGs 

Summary of Recommendations and Way Forward 

21. This part summarizes the recommendations made by the thematic working groups on the findings 

of the review. Generally, progress has been made since the first implementation review in April, 2007. 

However, challenges still exist in the implementation of the ASDP. To overcome these, the following has 

been recommended by the review team. (A detailed matrix on recommended actions and time frame for 

implementing them can be found in Annex 3, Table 2 and 3) 

Training and backstopping of quality DADPs with an emphasis on the MTEF three year roll out plan, 

O&OD, ASDP grants and their application, reporting and prioritization of DADPs should continue as 

earlier planned. This will help improve data systems to better track activities under the programme. 

Further strengthening of ASDP coordination: The review has found that further efforts are needed in 

strengthening coordination among ASLMs by improving skills, equipment and by recruitment of new 

staff, in particular strengthening the capacity of DPP of ASLMs and the Agricultural Support Unit of 

PMO-RALG are urgently required for better communication. Also needed is the further improvement of 

the functions of the Thematic Working Groups through revision of their Terms of References. 

There is a need to review guidelines on private sector engagement in marketing and establish an 

inventory of existing capacity, provide incentives for marketing infrastructure development and 

information, contracting out delivery of services, and establish criteria for accreditation of service 

providers. On the coverage of private sector actors and other stakeholders including government, a joint 

sensitization program on roles and functions under PPP should be emphasized and made clear. 

Capacity gaps both human and physical continue to exist at all levels. To achieve the outputs of the 

program and realize the outcomes of MKUKUTA, skill gaps should be thoroughly and immediately 

addressed to take ASDP to the next level. In this regard, capacity need assessment should be undertaken 

by improving on the previous capacity study done. 

Strengthening the role of thematic working groups by harmonizing interventions in MTEF across various 

stakeholders and ensuring no overlapping of actions and key strategic areas are covered. Providing 

targeted support activities to support implementation (such as the development of guidelines). 

12


Additionally TWGs should assist in facilitating joint planning as required. However, it should be noted 

that the integrated TWG work plan should only be used to check the overlapping of interventions across 

sector-ministries and identifying gaps by theme, and not for monitoring as stipulated in Aide Memoire of 

the first JIR, April 2007. 

Cross-cutting issues: This JIR has had a Gender specialist for the first time. However, data collected and 

the baseline indicators set during the review was not sufficient to evaluate the integration of cross cutting 

issues into ASDP implementation. More support on integrating and mainstreaming cross cutting issues 

into the program implementation is needed. 

Lesson learned from the Review 

22. This part covers the lessons learnt from the time of planning and arranging for the review to the 

wrap up meeting. Some of the key lessons learnt and that should be taken up for the third implementation 

review are summarized below: 

• Organize the event much earlier. 

• Timeframe was too tight for field visits and report preparation. 

• The presence of a management team for the entire exercise was positive and should be continued. 

• Inputs from the thematic working group have been very helpful, and should be continued. 

• Supply materials (including Aid Memoire) earlier for better discussion and common 

understanding of issues, agreed actions and way forward. 

13


ANNEX 1 

Overall Terms of Reference 

Agricultural Sector Development Program (ASDP) 

Joint Implementation Review 

October 1 – 19, 2007 

Final 

Thursday September 14, 2007 

Background 

The Agriculture Sector Development Program (ASDP) is the Government of Tanzania’s instrument for 

agricultural growth and poverty reduction as outlined in the Agriculture Sector Development Strategy (ASDS) and 

Poverty Reduction Strategy (MKUKUTA). The Program’s two objectives are, first is to increase farm profitability 

and incomes through access to better technology, advice, and markets. Secondly, is to increase private sector 

investment agriculture based on an improved regulatory and Policy Environment. 

The ASDP is financed by a multi-donor basket fund that finances national activities via an agreed 

expenditure program for four Agriculture Sector Lead Ministries, (ASLMs) as well as district and village level 

activities via performance based grants channeled through the Local Government Capital Development Grant 

(LGCDG) system. These latter grants support on-farm investments including irrigation, agricultural service delivery, 

and capacity building. 

The ASDP implementation is now one year since its commencement in July 2006. Activities included 

awareness creation and a first round of training for districts in District Agricultural Development Plans (DADPs) 

This has been followed up by back-stopping activities to support further training of District Facilitation Teams 

(DFTs) and Ward Facilitation Teams (WFTs). The experience was on the whole very positive, and demonstrated the 

ability of ASLM (Agriculture Sector Lead Ministry) task teams, working across sectors and departments, to support 

DADP roll-out. 

2.0 Objectives 

The first Joint Implementation Review was carried out in April, 2007 by the Government and ASDP Development 

Partners in collaboration with other stakeholders. The second JIR will specifically focus on monitoring the agreed 

actions of the Aide Memoire and on some areas that were not adequately addressed in the first review (e.g. 

marketing/private sector development, irrigation, Agriculture Services and food security). The main objectives are: 

o 

o 

o 

o 

To assess the Program progress against set objectives and Targets, 

To evaluate and review the status of marketing and private sector development, irrigation, Agriculture 

services and food security, 

To monitor the implementation of agreed actions and 

To learn for future implementation. 

The review will both draw on and provide input to ongoing Government-lead processes for sector monitoring, 

decision making, and evaluation. The most prominent of these are: 

o 

o 

o 

Quarterly meetings of the ASDP Basket Fund Steering Committee, which recommend disbursements 

from the ASDP Holding Account based on the Government’s quarterly reports monitoring ASDP 

physical and financial progress, at both national and LGA levels 

Budget cycle activities, including ASLM and LGA formulation of work plans for agriculture related 

activities; budget preparation; budget execution and reporting; and reporting on work plan outputs 

Yearly agriculture sector review and public expenditure review 

Considering the broadness of the first review and that ASDP is a year into implementation, activities in the Review 

can usefully be organized around five specific themes. These are: 

o Irrigation 

o Food Security 

14


o 

o 

o 

o 

Services (Research and Extension) for crops and livestock 

Marketing and Private sector development 

Planning and Implementation 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

Some activities which are directly relevant to the Review will be carried out prior to the mission, and will provide 

direct input to it. These include the Agriculture Sector Review and Public Expenditure Review which will be 

finalized by end of September, as well as outputs from an ASDP M&E thematic working group recommendations 

on M&E framework. 

At national level public financial management and institutional issues would be addressed by a smaller team. 

3.0 Mission schedule: October 1 – October 19, 2007 

3.1 Overview 

The mission will start with one day of technical discussions in Dar es Salaam, including internal group discussions, 

meetings with ASLM technical specialists, and a plenary discussion with ASLM decision makers. As outlined in 

the calendar below, this will be followed by seven days of travel and field work. The mission on return to Dar es 

Salaam will have another three days for discussion on what is needed to be done to speed up implementation of 

ASDP. The Discussions will focus on four main groups namely:- 

• Irrigation 

• Planning and implementation 

• Services 

• Marketing and Private sector development. 

The consultants will facilitate these discussions. 

The mission will finish with four working days to consolidate and write up field trip experiences, complete the 

Aide-Memoire (AM) and circulate to the ICC (Inter-Ministerial Coordinating Committee). A wrap-up meeting with 

the ICC will be held on October 19, at which findings will be discussed and agreed actions finalized. For easy of 

reference, this schedule of activities is laid out in the calendar below and mission schedule. 

Misión Schedule: October, 2007 

Activity 

Opening plenary 

Irrigation 

Services 

Marketing/PSD 

Planning/Implementation 

1st 

October 

2 – 7 

Oct 

8– 12 

Oct 

15 

Oct 

16 17 18 19 22 – 26 

Oct 

Food Security 

M & E 

Nat Fin Mgt 

Nat. Inst Issues 

Plenary session on field trips (Four 

Main Groups) 

Dir/DP field trip 

Prep AM 

Wrap-up 

Finalize AM - MoF 

15


3. Activities 

A Management/Core team of GoT and DP representatives will be responsible for planning and co-ordination of the 

review, assignment of tasks to sub teams and logistics, including schedule, time-table, field visit, and arrangement of 

plenary meetings. This team includes Mr. Emmanuel Achayo (MAFC) and Mwatima Juma (IFAD) as team leaders 

for GOT and DPs, respectively, Sophia Mlote (MLD), Julian Gutta (MITM), Aziza Mumba (PMO-RALG) and 

Jacqueline Machangu (FAO). 

Each Thematic Working Group will have its own specific Terms of Reference that have been prepared in 

collaboration with the respective Thematic Working Group. The planning and implementation group would address 

among other things, the agreed actions raised during the last implementation review. 

Each of these groups will complete a two week technical assignment at both field and national level before start of 

the overall review. Groups will visit geographic areas that will inform their particular theme. The groups will be 

small groups of GoT and one or two consultants and any DP with specific expertise that would commit to the entire 

process and be responsible for that part of the Aide Memoire. 

The review will culminate in a short field trip for Committee of Directors, DPs, with some NGO and private sector 

representation. The field trip will be used to practically demonstrate some of the findings of the technical teams field 

visit. 

This will be followed by preparation of a draft Aide Memoire and wrap up with PS of ASLMs and stakeholders. 

The proposed time-frame is 1 st to 19 th October. Participation of DPPs and DPs will be concentrated in third week. 

Given the emphasis of ASDP on decentralizing agricultural development efforts, a substantial portion of mission 

time will be devoted to field trips. Tanzania is a large country with varied agro climatic and institutional conditions. 

Taking into account of this situation and the nationwide scope of the Program, a variety of locations will be visited. 

TWG teams will each travel to two regions, and within each region, at least two districts. The regions and districts, 

and team leaders and proposed member composition are outlined in the Table below. This is subject to revision, 

based on considerations of team size, composition (skills, gender balance), and the preferences of individuals to be 

on a particular team. 

Outputs 

The outputs produced by team members will be of two types: 

• Individual notes of technical specialists and consultants; and 

• TWG notes associated with the field trip work. 

Drafts of these will be produced before the end of mission and submitted to the co-team leaders (Achayo and 

Mwatima) who will prepare an Aide-Memoire based on these outputs that will be discussed with the broader team, 

and subsequently submitted to ASLM decision-makers for discussion in the final wrap-up meeting. Based on 

mission findings, the Aide-Memoire will propose specific time-bound actions to facilitate ASDP implementation 

and impact. 

Individual technical specialist outputs 

Each technical specialist (to be included in Table below) will have a separate TOR geared to their specific issue 

area. Each will be expected to meet with their respective technical counterparts and prepare notes reflecting findings 

and recommendations in their respective areas, for delivery not later than October 17. Summary of consultant 

specialists and key issues to be elaborated in individual TORs is given on the Table below. Also listed in the third 

column are the proposed names of team members who will comment on the notes before final submission. 

16


Field team outputs 

Each TWG team will have a common output, in the form of a note produced shortly after the field trip that has two 

components: (1) a trip report, including list of locations, persons and institutions visited, summaries of discussions, 

and key findings; and (2) report on a set of issues to be addressed by each field team, that are laid out in the 

Appendix in draft form. Each team member will contribute to this group output via discussion, and a team member 

designated by the team leader will be responsible for timely write up, in the form of a note. The main groups 

discussions report, will form another output to this review, together, the three reports will provide important input 

and background to the Aide-Memoire. 

Cross cutting issues 

Cross cutting issues of gender, HIV/AIDS, and monitoring systems will be dealt with both in the individual 

technical reports, and in the group field team reports. Currently there is no Cross cutting TWG in place hence, the 

cross cutting issues will be assessed by each team and be included in field reports. It is proposed that this review 

commissions a gender specialist to assess gender aspects in the agriculture sector as specified below: The gender 

consultant will have to appraise and be conversant with the role of gender/HIV/AIDS in the ASDP. Specifically the 

consultant will; 

• Help define a specific baseline for monitoring gender and HIV/AIDS alignment of the program using 

some key practical indicators that take into account the broad variation in geographic, cultural and 

religious influences that we have in Tanzania. Identify gender related indicators addressed in the sector 

program. 

• To give guidance to the rest of the review team as to how to measure these during implementation 

review so that we have some consistency across the teams 

• To provide input as to how gender and HIV/AIDS issues can be integrated into routine Monitoring and 

Evaluation. 

• Provide practical guidance how gender can be integrated into the ASDP annual work plans and budget 

• Provide a checklist in assessing gender in the sector program. 

17


ANNEX 2 

Table 1: Status of Agreed Actions from the first Joint Implementation Review 

Issue Agreed Action in April, 2007 Status as in November 2007 

Improvement in 

flow of funds 


ASLMs present and discuss 2007/08 MTEF with 

basket donors, and agree on national and local work 

plans and budgets before finalization in May/June, 

2007 parliamentary vote. 

Late disbursements remain an issue 

Local planning 

and 

implementation 

Districts should consolidate their numerous separate 

local bank accounts, starting with closure of the 

DADPs account. 

ASDP transfers are fully integrated with the LGCDG 

system. A letter from PMORALG accompanies each 

LGCDG funds transfer to districts, notifying of the 

transfer and making clear the funds’ intended use. 

ASLMs to prepare and submit to PMO-RALG 

proposals to incorporate rural growth concerns into 

O&OD 

DADPs planning and implementation thematic 

working group to revise their ToR and develop a workplan 

for back-stopping the DADPs process focused on 

Quality Control, which will include the following: 

o DADPs to be selectively assessed to improve 

ability of planning process to identify village 

and farmer groups need for investment 

(DADG/DIDF), advice (A-EBG), and 

capacity to plan, prepare, implement and 

monitor local investments (A-CBG.) 

DADPs accounts are still operating and 

PMO-RALG is yet to issue letters to LGAs 

to close accounts 

Proposal prepared but not officially 

submitted to PMO-RALG 

TOR revised 

Backstopping on DADPs is underway (in 

mid November, 2007) to improve planning 

process 

o 

Organize training materials for wards and 

villages so that villages and farmer groups 

have skills and resources needed to prepare 

profitability analysis and marketing strategies 

for all investment proposals. 

No action has been reported on training 

materials 

o Environmental and social planning should be 

integrated into the district planning process, 

building on implementation experience in 

ongoing projects. 

Local Government Regulations on Selection and 

Employment of Consultants, and Procurement of 

Goods and Works, is prepared and issued. 

Action plan developed for improving procurement 

knowledge of LGAs’ procurement and supplies 

officers, including procurement planning. Training 

completed. 

Not action has been reported 

No action has been reported 

Procurement and financial management 

procedures are not clear to community 

members and district officials. For example 

it was noted that the district staff on some 

of the LGAs have undertaken procurement 

on behalf of the communities. 

18



National 

Management and 

Capacity 

Building 

TORs completed and members identified for ASLM 

thematic working groups of which only 3 have been 

formed (M&E, Agri-Services and DADPs). More 

working groups need to be formed as per AM 

recommendation. The selected members should be 

professionals and committed to the assignment 

An ASDP 6-month ahead work plan is developed for 

the Committee of Directors that integrates all working 

group tasks into one consolidated, monitorable plan, 

based on priority MTEF actions. The consolidated 

plan will, in addition to giving an implementation 

overview, assist in coordinating and reducing parallel 

activities. Monthly outputs and inputs will be specified 

in the plan, and the Committee of Directors will meet 

at least bimonthly to monitor implementation. 

6 TWGs formed (Services, Marketing/PSD, 

Planning and implementation, M&E, Food 

Security, Irrigation), all with TORs. 

An integrated work plan has been 

developed covering one year period. 

However, it has been found that it is not 

implementable to have monthly 

outputs/inputs. 

Committee of directors meets quarterly. 

Irrigation 

M&E 

Procurement 

Agriculture 

Services 

The committee of ASLM directors would be the 

drivers of the ASDP. The Secretariat would be 

assigned specific duties by the DPP-MAFC and no 

other parallel units would be established. However, 

staff levels at DPP need to be strengthened in order to 

provide leadership in ASDP 

Clarity on roles and definition of responsibilities 

between ASDP Secretariat and DPPs office should be 

outlined. Role of ASDP Secretariat needs to change in 

order to improve implementation of the programme 

Finalize strategic environmental assessment TOR 

among government stakeholders and development 

partners 

Start procurement process by launching expression of 

interest/general procurement notice 

Data on existing irrigation scheme accumulated under 

NIMP needs to be shared and rolled out for use by 

district, basin officers and private sector. 

Revise and re-issue district irrigation guidelines in 

tandem with completion of institutional arrangement 

for national irrigation strategy. 

M&E framework finalized by June. TOR prepared for 

agricultural baseline survey and tender prepared 

ASDP procurement plan preparation for 07/08 should 

be carried out within annual \MTEF work plan and 

budget. 

Guidelines for expansion of CORDEMA to other 

regions be undertaken. 

Staff within ASLMs is increasingly 

assisting in coordination of ASDP. 

However the staffing level is still a 

challenge. 

No changes made to ASDP Secretariat, 

however, it was clarified that under the 

present set up ASDP Secretariat falls under 

the DPP MAFC and should not be 

considered a parallel structure. 

TOR has been prepared, and submitted to 

other stakeholders. 

Not done. 

It has been distributed to all stakeholders 

including MPs. 

Guidelines are revised for formulation of 

irrigation schemes but not yet distributed. 

M&E Framework approved by Committee 

of Directors. Draft TOR for baseline data 

collection and tender prepared. 

Conflict exists between 18 month 

procurement plan proposal and already 

established 12 month procurement plan 

linked to MTEF. 

Drafts of the guidelines have been prepared, 

but not yet available at district level. 

Districts have received sensitization on 

extension reforms and most districts have 

implemented staff reforms 

19


Clarity on the 

role of Regions 

Lessons 

from 

projects 

learnt 

other 

Standardized guidelines for extension reform at LGA 

level, including contracting the private sector, 

advertising, tendering and different types of service 

contracts be made available and that all district staff 

should be sensitized on extension reforms. 

Inventory of private service provider completed and 

private service provider sensitized to district 

contracting framework and rules. 

Develop best bet technology menus and models of 

profitability analysis. 

All district identify core extension staff with remaining 

staff relocated (including to ward level) 

Utilize completed situation analysis to identify 

backstopping role for RS in areas of planning and 

M&E, developing a proposed work plan to Regions as 

outlined in the Program Document. 

Desk-top review of lessons learnt from projects that 

would assist implementation to be carried out by 

consultant. 

Standardized guidelines on extension 

reform, particularly those relating to 

contracting were not available. District staff 

were not aware of the different types of 

service contracts included in ASDP. Some 

evidence on research extension 

collaboration was reported. 

Private Sector inventory has been in place, 

and sensitization for service provision is 

on-going. But the private sector contracting 

has not started 

Models of good practices related to best bet 

technologies and models of profitability 

analysis not available at district level. 

Almost all districts have undertaken this 

activity. 

No action reported 

No action reported. 

20


ANNEX 3 


Primary Actions: For the next Six Months 


For the next Six Months 

Issue Recommended Action Target Date Responsible 

Local Planning To ensure the revised and harmonized DADPS November/2007 Plan’g & Impl. TWG, 


Guidelines (Kiswahili version) are distributed to 

Committee of 

Implementation individual DFT and WFT members and encourage 

them to read and use. 

Directors (CDs) 

DADPs 

Formulation 

Process and 

Strategic Quality 

To provide feedback to the LGAs on the results of 

2007/08 DADPs review. 

To establish an institutional arrangement for the 

regular annual survey of DADPs so as to identify 

further improvement and feedback to LGAs. 

November 2007 

By the end of 

March 2008 

Plan’g & Impl. TWG 

PMO-RALG 

(Agr-Coord. Unit) 

ASLMs and 


To identify a set of good DADPs from the 2007/08 

DADPs and distribute to LGAs as examples 

November 2007 


PMO-RALG 


Capacity to Plan 

and Understand 

the Concept of 

Comprehensive 

Plan of DADPs 

To conduct training workshop to members of RS, 

DFT and WFT on participatory planning, three year 

planning concept as per MTEF, reporting, 

considering DADPs as a comprehensive Plan, 

ASDP funds and application and contracting 

private services. 

November2007 

Plan’g & Impl. TWG, 

National Facilitation 

Team 

Irrigation 

Low rate of 

disbursement for 

irrigation 

development 

Tender procedure for recruitment of the consultant 

to conduct the Strategic Environmental Assessment 

(SEA) initiated. 

Multi-annual Action for studies and design works 

should be prepared 

January 2008 

December 2007 

MAFC, 

PMO-RALG 

MAFC, 

Lack of legal 

arrangement for 

DIDF and NIDF. 

Submission to parliament of the bill for legal 

establishment of the District Irrigation 

Development Fund (DIDF) and the National 

Irrigation Development Fund (NIDF) 

The DIDF and NIDF are established legally so that 

annual allocations can be carried over to the 

subsequent financial year. 

June 2008 

June 2008 

MAFC/MoF /DPs 

Staffing levels 

High irrigation potential district needs to have at 

least one engineer, three irrigation technicians and 

one assistant land surveyor 

June 2008 

PMO-RALG/MAFC 

Dissemination of 

Design Manuals 

The design manuals for the River Basin 

Management and Smallholder Irrigation 

Improvement Project (RBMSIIP) and the 

Participatory Irrigation Development Program 

(PIDP) should be disseminated to all targeted staff 

in the DITS 

December 2007 

MAFC 

21


Equipment 

facilities 

Agriculture 

Services 


Improve Human 

resource capacity 

and service 

The procurement plan prepared at the 

commencement of ASDP should be reviewed to 

reflect twelve months instead of eighteen months 

and also to take on board left items and 

implementation should be as soon as possible 

ZIELU should be established according to ASDP 

programme document. 

Member of VIC to join ZARDEF Steering 

Committee and ZARDEF Technical Committee. 

Staff plan for research institutes based on priority 

research areas to be developed with immediate 

implementation on a priority basis. 

Revisit the phased disbursement schedule for 

ZARDEF to ensure that there is no time lag 

between training/sensitization activities and 

operationalization of ZARDEFs 

April 2008 

March 08 

March 08 

June 08 

ASLMs /DPs 

Agr. Research Inst. 

MAFC and MLD 


March 08 MAFC, MLD, 

Agricultural Services 

TWG 

Slow Roll-out of 

ZARDEFs 

Speed-up sensitization and training of Zonal and 

district staff on CORDEMA concept and 

operational modalities of ZARDEFs 

February 08 


TWG 

Send appointment letters of ZARDEF Committee 

members immediately 

Carry Over from first review 

Standardized guidelines for extension reform at 

LGA level, including contracting the private sector, 

advertising, tendering and different types of service 

contracts be made available and that all district 

staff should be sensitized on extension reforms 

Develop best bet technology menus and models of 

profitability analysis 


December 08 MAFC, MLD, 


TWG 

June 2008 Agricultural Services 

TWG 

June 2008 


TWG 

ASDP 

coordination and 

Capacity issues 

Clarity on the 

role of Regions 

Strengthen the coordination role of DPP, MAFC by 

fully integrating the functions of ASDP Secretariat 

into DPP MAFC. 

MAFC should assign at least four technical officers 

with defined roles on a full-time basis under DPP to 

assume the role of coordination for ASDP 

Appoint at least one or two technical officers with 

defined roles on a full-time basis in each ASLM 

under respective DPP (or DSC in PMO-RALG). 

Capacity (manpower, equipment, financial 

resources) of the Agricultural Unit, Department of 

Sector Coordination, RS and PMO-RALG should 

be strengthened. 

Carry Over from first Review 

Utilize completed situation analysis to identify 

backstopping role for RS in areas of planning and 

M&E, developing a proposed work plan to Regions 

as outlined in the program document 

March 08 

March 08 

March 08 

June 08 

June 08 

PS, MAFC 

DPP, MAFC 

DPPs (DSC), MLD, 

MITM, PMO-RALG 

DSC, PMO-RALG 

PMO RALG 

22


Effective 

information and 

communication 

management 

ASDP advocacy should be strengthened through 

development of communication strategy and action 

plan. 

Annual calendar of key meetings (particularly ICC, 

CDs, Consultative Group meetings), 

workshop/conference for stakeholders should be 

developed. 

March 08 

February 08 

DPP, MAFC 

PS/DPP, MAFC 

Role of thematic 

working groups 

Improvement in 

the flow of 

funds into the 

basket fund 

M&E 

Develop a generic TOR for the TWGs which 

defines the rationale, objectives, criteria for 

formation, oversights, workplans, duration, 

membership, etc 

TWGs revise their TORs including their 

memberships and ensure their roles are consistent 

with the generic TOR 

Consultative Group meetings should be effectively 

used to create milestones for on-time dialogue on 

budgeting. 

Explore possibility of 6 month or one year 

disbursement into the holding account 

Yearly or new commitment by DPs should be done 

during the planning stage dialogue 

Carry Over Activities from first review 

ASLMs present and discuss 2007/08 MTEF with 

basket donors, and agree on national and local 

work plans and budgets before finalization in 

May/June, 2007 parliamentary vote. 

Once budget has been approved by the parliament 

and BFSC, disbursement should continue. 

Districts should consolidate their numerous 

separate local bank accounts, starting with closure 

of the DADPs account. 

ASDP transfers are fully integrated with the 

LGCDG system. A letter from PMORALG 

accompanies each LGCDG funds transfer to 

districts, notifying of the transfer and making clear 

the funds’ intended use. 

Strengthening capacity (manpower, equipment, 

financial resources) of the Agricultural Unit, DSC, 

RS and PMO-RALG 

To conduct a survey of the reporting system of 

LGAs, and propose actions for improvement and 

harmonization 

Each ministry (MLD and MITM) should develop 

M&E systems which are in harmonization with 

ASDP M&E framework. 

January 08 

March 08 

December, 2007 

May/June 2008 

December 2007 

DPP, MAFC 

Each TWG chair 

PS, MAFC 

ASDP BFSC 

ASDP BFSC 

May 2008 ASLMs DPPs and 

DPs 

May 2008 

May 2008 

June 08 

PMO-RALG 

PMO-RALG 

DSC, PMO-RALG 

April 2008 PMO-RALG, M&E 

TWG 

June 08 

DPP - MLD & MITM 

23



Secondary Actions: Beyond Six Months 


Beyond Six Months 

Issue Recommended Action Target Date Responsible 

Local Planning and 

Implementation 

To conduct/extend O&OD exercises to cover all 

LGAs to allow communities to participate in the 

identification of community needs 

July 2008 PMO-RALG 

Implementation of 

the participatory To review the O&OD and organize training July 2008 PMO-RALG, CDs 

planning 

materials to include preparation of a fully 

fledged project proposal including profitability 

analysis and marketing strategies to assist 

community to undertake effective 

implementation of approved interventions 

Carry Over from first review 

Environmental and social planning should be 

integrated into the district planning process, 

building on implementation experience in 

ongoing projects 

Local Government Regulation on Selection and 

Employment of Consultnats, and Procureent of 

Goods and Works, is prepared and issued 

July, 2008 

July, 2008 

Irrigation TWG 

MAFC Environment 

specialist with 

PMORALG 

PMO RALG 

DADPs 


(Community 

empowerment) 

Private Sector and 

Marketing 

Poor market 

infrastructure 

To conduct capacity building workshops at each 

of the regions inviting DFT members (4 

participants) from each LGA and community 

members. (To train in such subjects as finance, 

procurement, gender, participatory monitoring, 

and group formation) 

To conduct a study on marketing through 

employing a local consultant who will analyze 

all the major issues relating to marketing, and its 

integration to ASDP implementation. 

July 2008 

July 2008 


PMO-RALG 


MITM, Marketing and 

Private Sector TWG 

To complete the guidelines for the marketing 

and private sector development 

July 2008 

MITM, Marketing and 

Private Sector TWG 

Low involvement of 

private sector in 

planning, service 

delivery and 

capacity building 

Food Security 

Lack of Clear food 

security information 

system 

Lack 

of 

comprehensive 

livelihood based 

food and nutrition 

security information 

system 

To conduct necessary need assessments for 

potential private sector actors. 

Build capacity to LGAs on Food and Livestock 

Early Warning System and timely inform the 

farmers and advice the correct mitigation 

measures 

Establish district level Food Security 

Information Teams (FSITs) to enhance flow of 

food and nutrition security information between 

the national, region, district and village levels. 

Build capacity at all levels for analytical work 

July 2008 

July 2008 

July 2008 

PMO-RALG 

/ Council Directors / 

DALDOs 

MAFC 

ASLMs and MNRT 

(Fisheries) 

24


and providing timely information. 


Ministerial 

systems. 

M&E 

To revise and update indicators for ASDP 

M&E annually (particularly in terms of 

outcome indicators) 

September 08 

MAFC, ASLMs 

25


ANNEX 4: BASKET FUND DISBURSMENT STATUS FOR 2007/08 AS Of September 2007 (US $ '000) 

DONOR 

2006/07 

Commitment 

as per PAD 

Amount 

Deposited Expenditure Balance 

Commitment 

for 2007/08 As 

per PAD 

Carried 

forward 

from 

2006/07 

Revised 

Commitment 

for 2007/08 

Fund 

Deposited to 

Holding 

Account as 

of Sept 2007 

Financing 

gap 

World Bank 14,155 8,053 6,102 20,589 6,102 26,691 - 26,691 

International Fund for Agric. 

Development 7,662 0 7,662 8,235 7,662 15,897 7,662 8,235 

European Union (STABEX) 4,250 9,398 (5,148) 4,250 

Danish International Development 

Agency 2,500 

Embassy of Japan 1,000 752 248 1,000 248 1,248 800 448 

Irish Aid 1,000 1,535 (535) 3,230 3,230 3,230 0 

Balance (Basket Fund Holding 

Account) 10,579 - 10,579 10,579 10,579 0 

TOTAL ( USD) 30,567 19,738 9,159 10,579 37,304 14,012 57,645 22,271 35,374 

TOTAL (in Tshs Equivalent) 25,244,902 11,448,750 13,223,750 46,630,000 17,515,000 72,056,250 27,838,750 44,217,500 

NB: 1. EU deposited 7.1 million Euro (USD 9,398,000) for year 2006/07 

2. Revised commitments for Irish Aid for year 2007/08 is USD 3,230,000.00 

3. Total Commitment for IFAD for FY 2006/2007 include USD 5,662,000 for ASSP and USD 2,000,000 for ASDP -L 

4.Figures in bracket indicates amount deposited above commitment made in year 2006/07 

5.The balance in the ASDP Basket Fund Holding Account for FY 2006/2007 is USD 10,579,125.12. Carried forward for FY 2007/08 

6. DANIDA has officially withdrawn from Agriculture hence the commitment was never made 

26


ANNEX 5 Summary of Visited Regions and LGAs 

Field trip location Team leader and members Vehicles 

Marketing/Private Sector 1. Team Leader: E. Maponde, MITM 

Development 

2. D. B. Massawe- MLD, 

3. Yacinta Tabu–PMO –RALG 

Maponde - MITM 

Rukwa (Sumbawanga Rural 4. Mrs T.Swai – MAFC 

Mrs Swai - PADEP 

and Urban) and Mbeya (Mbozi 5. Mr.Nyimbo 

and Mbarali) 

6. Janet Bitegeko - ACT 

7. Barton Shipella - Consultant 

Agriculture Services 

Iringa (Njombe & Kilolo) and 

Ruvuma (Mbinga & 

Namtumbo) 

Food security 

Tabora (Nzega and Igunga) 

and Shinyanga (Kishapu and 

Meatu) 

Local Planning and 


Arusha (Meru, Monduli), 

Kilimanjaro (Hai, Mwanga) 

Irrigation 

Dodoma (Kondoa & Kongwa) 

and Iringa (Rurla), Mbeya 

(Mbarali) 

National Implementation and 

Monitoring 

Dar- es – Salaam - ASLMs 

Directors/DPs field trip 

Tanga (Handeni and Muheza) 

Issues:Decentralization 

devolution and LGDCG 

by 

1. Team Leader: Sophia N.Mlote 

2. Dr. Otaru, (MLD 

3. Dr. E. Maeda (MAFC), 

4. Mr. Kitosi, (MLD) 

5. Ms. Kisa Kajigili, MAFC 

6. Zainabu Semgalawe - WB 

7. Jim Phelan - Consultant 

8. David Wendover - Consultant 

1. Team Leader: Mr. Mtambo (MAFC) 

2. Gerald Runyoro (FAO), 

3. Hertson Msalale (PMO-RALG), 

4. N.Mbwambo- MLD, 

5. Said Mwikongi (TFNC) 

6. Vida Malle–MITM 

7. Dr.Monica Lyimo - Consultant 

1. Team Leader: Mr. Mpaki, (MAFC) 

2. Mr. Morungu, MLD 

3. A. Ngoo – ASPS II 

4. Aziza Mumba, PMORALG 

5. E. W. Msengi (MITM), 

6. C. Walwa- PADEP, 

7. Dr Arai – JICA - Consultant 

8. Dr. Rose Shayo – Gender Consultant 

1. Team Leader: Eng. Kalinga (MAFC) 

2. De-jong Isberg (National Level) - Consult 

3. Markus Moeller (Local Level) - Consultant 

4. Rhoda Kweka 

5. Eng. Balala (MLD) 

6. One member from water basin- Ministry of Water 

1. Team Leader: A Lamosai (ASDP Secretariat) 

2. Emmanuel Mahinga - PMORALG 

3. C.W. Wambura – MAFC 

4. Michio Watanabe – JICA RADAG 

5. J. Gutta – MITM 

6. Da Silver Mlau - MLD 

7. Kyariga – PADEP 

8. Melissa Brown 

1. Dr. Sichilima, (MAFC) 8. Mr Majengo (MITM) 

2. Dr Haki, (MAFC) 9. Mr Nyakimori (ASDP) 

3. Eng Futakamba (MAFC) 10. Ms Joseph (MLD) 

4. Mrs Kaduma (MAFC) 11. Dr, Mashingo (MLD) 

5. Mwatima Juma(IFAD) 12. Mr Mbonde (PMORALG) 

6. Sizya Lugeye (Irish Aid) 

7. Hoshi Hirofumi (JICA) 

27 

Dr Otaru – MLD 

Zainab - WB 

Gerald – FAO 

Mtambo - MAFC 

Mpaki – MAFC 

Arai - JICA 


Lamosai – FAO 

Michio – JICA 

RADAG

28 

November 29, 2007

Aide Memoire for the.. - Ministry Of Agriculture, Food and Cooperatives

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?