New Partnership for Food and Agriculture Organization Africa’s Development (NEPAD) of the United Nations Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Investment Centre Division Development Programme (CAADP)
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
SUPPORT TO NEPAD–CAADP IMPLEMENTATION
TCP/URT/2908 (I) (NEPAD Ref. 05/28 E)
Volume I of VII
NATIONAL MEDIUM TERM INVESTMENT PROGRAMME (NMTIP)
April 2005
UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA: Support to NEPAD–CAADP Implementation
Volume I: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
Bankable Investment Profiles (BIPPs) Volume II: Phase II of Madibira Rural Development (Mainland) Volume III: District Irrigation and Water Harvesting Support (Mainland) Volume IV: Crop and Livestock Private Sector Development (Mainland) Volume V: Small and Medium Enterprises in support of Participatory Forest Management (Mainland) Volume VI: Land Management and Development of Irrigation Schemes (Zanzibar) Volume VII: Private Sector Development for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Zanzibar)
UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA:
NEPAD–CAADP National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
Table of Contents
Currency Equivalents ...... iii Abbreviations...... iii Preamble...... 1 I. INTRODUCTION...... 3 A. The Economy...... 3 B. The Agricultural and Rural Sector ...... 3 (i) Mainland...... 3 (ii) Zanzibar...... 5 C. The Strategic Framework ...... 5 (i) Mainland...... 5 (ii) Zanzibar...... 8 D. The NEPAD Vision and CAADP Pillars...... 10 E. Existing and Pipeline Interventions ...... 12 F. Development Partners...... 14 (i) Donor Objectives and Strategies ...... 14 (ii) Farmers’ Organisations, the Private Sector and Non–Government Organisations...... 14 (iii) Regional Economic Cooperation ...... 15 II. CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES...... 16 A. Constraints ...... 17 B. Opportunities ...... 20 III. INVESTMENT PROGRAMME OUTLINE...... 24 A. Selection Criteria for Bankable Investments and Links to Five Pillars of CAADP ...... 24 (i) Mainland...... 24 (ii) Zanzibar...... 25 B. Priority Areas for Investment...... 25 C. Investment Profiles ...... 26 Investment Profiles 1 and 2 (Mainland): Irrigation, Water Control and Water Harvesting...... 26 Investment Profile 3 (Mainland): Private Sector Development for Crops and Livestock ...... 27 Investment Profile 4 (Mainland): Private Sector Development for Forestry ...... 28 Investment Profile 5 (Zanzibar): Zanzibar Land Management And Irrigation Development ...... 29 Investment Profile 6 (Zanzibar): Zanzibar Private Sector Development for Agriculture...... 29 Linkages Between Priority Areas of Investment and CAADP Pillars ...... 29
NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
IV. FINANCING GAP ...... 30 A. Mainland...... 30 B. Zanzibar...... 33 C. Consolidated Tanzania CAADP Financing Gap...... 34 V. MONITORING AND EVALUATION...... 35 A. Implementation Arrangements...... 35 (i) Role of Stakeholders ...... 35 (ii) Financial Arrangements...... 36 B. Monitoring and Evaluation...... 37 C. Coordination...... 37 ANNEXES: Annex 1: ASDP Components Annex 2: List of References
ii NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
Currency Equivalents
Currency Unit = Tanzanian shilling 1.00 US$ = 1,100 TSh 1,000.00 TSh = 0.91 US$
Abbreviations
ADB African Development Bank ADF African Development Fund ASDP Agricultural Sector Development Programme ASDS Agricultural Sector Development Strategy ASF African Swine Fever ASLM Agricultural Sector Lead Ministries ASP Agricultural Service Providers ASSP Agricultural Sector Support Programme BADEA Banque Arabe pour le Développement Economique en Afrique (Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa) BIP Bankable Investment Profile CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme CBO Community–Based Organization CBPP Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia DADP District Agricultural Development Plan DADS District Agricultural Development Strategy EAC East African Community ECF East Coast Fever EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (of the United Nations) FASWOG Food and Agriculture Sector Working Group FBD Forest and Beekeeping Division FFS Farmers’ Field Schools FINIDA Finnish International Development Agency FMD Foot and Mouth Disease FSP Fisheries Sector Policy GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environmental Facility GoT Government of Tanzania HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency ICIPE International Centre for Insects and Pests ICM Inter–Ministerial Consultative Mechanism IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency LGA Local Government Authority M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MAFS Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security MANREC Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Co–operatives (Zanzibar) MCM Ministry of Cooperatives and Marketing
iii NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
MDGs Millennium Development Goals MFEA Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs MIT Ministry of Industry and Trade MNRT Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism MoW Ministry of Works MTEF Medium Term Expenditure Framework MTITM Ministry of Trade, Industries and Marketing (Zanzibar) MVIWATA Mtandao wa Vikundi wa Wakulima Tanzania (Network of Tanzania Farmer Groups) MWCEL Ministry of Water, Construction, Energy and Land (Zanzibar) MWLD Ministry of Water and Livestock Development NCD Newcastle Disease NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development NFP National Forestry Programme NGO Non–Government Organization NIMP National Irrigation Master Plan NMTIP National Medium–Term Investment Programme OPEC Oil Producing and Exporting Countries PBZ Peoples’ Bank of Zanzibar PER Public Expenditure Review PFM Participatory Forest Management PO–RALG President’s Office, Local Government and Regional Administration PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper RDS Rural Development Strategy RGoZ Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar SADC Southern Africa Development Community SME Small and Medium Enterprise TBDs Ticks and Tick–Borne Diseases TIC Tanzania Investment Centre UNCDF United Nations Capital Development Fund UNDP United Nations Development Programme URT United Republic of Tanzania VIC Veterinary Investigation Centre WB World Bank WHO World Health Organization WWF World Wide Fund for Nature ZASP Zanzibar Agricultural Strategic Plan ZDs Zoonic Diseases ZIPA Zanzibar Investment Promotion Agency ZPRP Zanzibar Poverty Reduction Plan
iv NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
Preamble
African Heads of State and Government have adopted the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) as an overall framework for achieving Africa’s self–reliant development. NEPAD’s objectives include the eradication of poverty, accelerating sustainable economic development and ending of economic marginalisation. An annual growth rate in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 7 percent is targeted over the next 20 years.
In recognition of the importance of agriculture in the future development of Africa, the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) has been established as the NEPAD programme for agriculture. It is based on an acknowledgement that past efforts in agriculture and rural development have not been successful, and it recognises that agriculture in many African countries is currently in crisis. It aims to promote interventions that best respond to the widely recognised problems that face agriculture in Africa. There is clear acceptance that it will not be possible to tackle all problems at once. There is therefore a need to prioritise opportunities, interventions and investments.
This report presents Tanzania’s National Medium Term Investment Programme (NMTIP) of the CAADP and includes consolidated investment programmes for both the Mainland and Zanzibar.1 The NMTIP constitutes an important step for expanding the level of awareness about NEPAD, sensitising and involving a wide range of stakeholders in the process of developing proposals for medium–term, bankable investments under CAADP, and in mobilising incremental financial support for key activities.
1 The United Republic of Tanzania (URT) is composed of Mainland and Zanzibar. The Government of the United Republic of Tanzania has authority over all Union Matters in the United Republic and over all other matters concerning Mainland. The Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar (RGoZ) has authority in Zanzibar over all matters, which are not Union Matters, including among others agriculture and livestock development, as well as natural resource management. Consequently, for non–Union Matters, the Mainland and Zanzibar have their own institutions (including ministries), poverty reduction strategies, as well as specific agricultural and rural development policies and strategies.
1
NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
I. INTRODUCTION
A. The Economy
I.1. Following an extended period of economic decline, Tanzania launched a series of broad– based economic reforms in 1986, which has stimulated economic growth. Macro–economic stability has been achieved with inflation at less than 5 percent in 2003 — compared to over 30 percent ten years earlier. Poverty has declined in both urban and rural areas. However, currently about 17 million of 37 million Tanzanians, almost half the population, still live below the poverty line of US$0.65 per day and 87 percent of the poor live in rural areas. Between 1991 and 2001 overall food poverty declined from 22 percent to 19 percent, while basic needs poverty declined from 39 percent to 36 percent. Poverty decline was the most rapid in Dar es Salaam (28 to 18 percent) and the least rapid in rural areas (41 to 39 percent).
I.2. While there have been increases in children’s participation in education over the last decade, this has been much more substantial in urban areas than in the countryside. About a quarter of all adults have no education, though there have been some improvements in literacy rates since the early 1990s. Rural women are particularly marginalized, with 41 percent being illiterate.
I.3. The economic recovery and the resulting growth during the 1980s and 1990s was built on improved macro–economic management. However, this source of growth will not persist, so development opportunities will increasingly depend on other factors.
I.4. The economy is heavily dependent on agriculture. However, a significant part of recent growth in this sector has come from increased cropped area — frequently through clearing primary forest. This is an exhaustible and non–sustainable source of growth. Therefore, future growth in agriculture will have to come from efficiency gains in production, processing and marketing.
B. The Agricultural and Rural Sector
(i) Mainland
I.5. Over 80 percent of the population live in rural areas, where agriculture and the use of natural resources is crucial to their livelihoods. For the vast majority of people, more profitable and sustainable agricultural production combined with the rational use of natural resources, offer the main possible way to reduce poverty and improve food security. Agriculture currently contributes 50 percent of the country’s GDP and generates over 50 percent of the nation’s foreign exchange earnings. The potential importance of agriculture for economic growth and poverty reduction should therefore make it a critical sector for development. Unfortunately, the sector has not performed to its full potential due to a number of factors explained under Section II.A.
I.6. With a total land area of over 945,000 km2, only 3 percent of the land area is under arable crops, and one percent under permanent crops. It is estimated that only 11 percent of the potential irrigated area has been developed. About 60 million ha of the area is rangelands and pasture. However, about 60 percent of this area is tsetse infested leaving a balance of 40 percent of available land for grazing. About 38 percent is forest and woodland. There is potential for profitable land development if appropriate plans and controls can be developed for small, medium and large–scale farm development as well as forestry development in connection with the sustainable use of natural resources, including the conservation of the country’s unique natural habitats and biodiversity.
3 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
I.7. Approximately 3.5 million farm–families cultivate some 4.5 million hectares of land, mainly using hand–hoe technology. The main food crops grown are maize (which accounts for important subsistence support and 20 percent of the total agricultural GDP), rice, sorghum, cassava, wheat and beans. Within cash crops, the most important by export value are coffee, cashew, cotton, tobacco, tea and maize. Over 40 percent of rural incomes come from the sale of food crops and 30 percent of cash crops.
I.8. The sale of livestock and livestock products account for a little over 5 percent of rural incomes. Currently, the country annually produces some 332,000 tons of meat (in year 2003/04, the country produced 348,800 tons) virtually all for local consumption, 1.2 billion litres of milk and approximately 910 million eggs. Over 1.5 million cattle and 3 million small stock are slaughtered each year. Commercial output from the sector is increasing, especially for milk (10.6 percent growth) and egg (8.6 percent growth) production (MWLD 2004/05 Budget Speech).
I.9. Over the 1990s, agricultural growth — at an average of 3.6 percent — was not high enough to significantly reduce rural poverty, despite being higher than in the 1970s and 1980s when annual agricultural growth averaged 2.9 and 2.1 percent respectively. During the 1990s, agricultural exports grew at an annual rate of over 7 percent per year, although this rate has slowed in recent years due to declining world market prices. Food crop production has grown at about the rate of population growth, and accounts for 65 percent of agricultural GDP, with cash crops accounting for only 10 percent. The government’s official annual agricultural growth target is currently 5 percent. National data show significant progress towards this objective, with an increase of the five–year moving average agricultural GDP growth rates from about 3.3 percent from 1991 to 2000 to 4.3 percent over 1999–2003.
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
Agricultural GDP Growth Rate (Percent) (Percent) Rate Growth GDP Agricultural 2.0 1991-95 1992-96 1993-97 1994-98 1995-99 1996-00 1997-01 1998-02 1999-03 Five Year Moving Average
Source: National Accounts (2004) Figure 1: Five Year Average Agricultural GDP Growth Rates (percent)
I.10. Forestry is also important in the Mainland. It is estimated that there is about 38.8 million hectares of forest, of which approximately 13.5 million hectares are gazetted as national or local government forest. The remainder is on village or public land, legally referred to as general land.
4 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
(ii) Zanzibar
I.11. The total area of the Islands is 2,643 km2 (Unguja 1,658 km2 and Pemba 985 km2). Based on 2002 National Population Census, Zanzibar is the most densely populated part of East Africa with 370 people per km2 and an annual growth rate of 3.1 percent. About 60 percent of the two Islands is coral rag, where agriculture is possible only with drought resistant crops. The rest of the Islands is dominated by plantations, mainly coconut and clove, where most of the agricultural activities are concentrated. The total arable land is about 130,000 ha, of which about 110,000 ha (85 percent) is already under crops, hence leaving little opportunity for expansion.
I.12. Agriculture is the most important sector of the economy, accounting for some 35 percent of the GDP. However, at 1976 constant prices, its share has declined from 58 percent in 1985 to 35 percent in 2002. Agriculture provides employment to over 65 percent of the labour force and contributes to about 75 percent of foreign exchange earnings and 30 percent of tax revenues. The decline in agriculture share of the GDP is due mainly to the drop in crop production and to an increase of other sectors, in particular tourism which has increased its share from 11 percent in 1992 to 18 percent in 2002. During the 1990s the contribution of livestock to agriculture GDP has increased from 7 to 12 percent and is expected to continue to increase as livestock enterprises grow in popularity. Fisheries contribute, on average, 6 percent to country GDP and 10 percent to agricultural GDP. From 1976 to 1987, agricultural output decreased by 25 percent mainly because of falling clove production from about 12,000 tons in the 1970’s to some 4,500 tons in 1987. While clove is still the main export crop, Zanzibar has experienced falling demand in world markets and stiff competition from Brazil, Indonesia and Madagascar.
I.13. About 60 percent of the total cultivated land is planted to food crops. Cassava, grown by virtually every rural household is the most important food crop, followed by banana, sweet potato, legume, maize, millet and sorghum. Rice is also grown wherever there is suitable land. Except for rice, other crops are grown as intercrops, mixed crop in complex association often under tree crops. Although rice is the preferred food, cassava is the primary staple of most households. Fisheries are predominantly artisanal, and most of the fish catch is consumed locally.
I.14. Being an island, Zanzibar is endowed with rich marine resources. Seaweed farming has emerged as a potential activity in poverty reduction particularly for women living in the coral rag areas of east coast of the two Islands. Though Zanzibar experiences high land pressure, the potential of the available land for agriculture has not been fully utilized, and there are opportunities for sustainable and profitable intensification. Also, high value crops such as fruits, vegetables and spices can be further developed. There is also potential for developing surface irrigation particularly for vegetable and rice production. Following the successful eradication of tsetse flies, Zanzibar now has the potential of livestock development to meet domestic demands. The island has 112,000 cattle, 45,000 goats, 600 sheep, 16,000 pigs, 325,000 chickens and 490,000 ducks. The expanding tourism sector has encouraged great participation of private sector. The existing forestry resources also offer an excellent opportunity of eco–tourism development.
C. The Strategic Framework
(i) Mainland
I.15. During the past ten years, Tanzania has significantly altered its development strategy. There has been an increased focus on poverty alleviation and substantial moves towards the liberalization of the economy and decentralization. Efforts have been made to encourage the private sector to invest in
5 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
production and processing, and Direct Foreign Investment has been promoted. Local Government Authorities (LGA) have been given greater responsibility and authority, and it is now acknowledged that local communities must be empowered and facilitated to assume control of the local development processes, including planning and production. These are substantial changes, which demand a mindset change and new ways of working.
I.16. The principal goals of the government are sustainable economic growth and poverty alleviation. The government has sought to achieve this through a series of policies and strategies designed to establish an enabling environment for sustainable development. These include: • Tanzania Vision 2025 of 1995; • Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper of 2000 and follow up National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (draft, 2005); • Tanzania Assistance Strategy of 2002; • Rural Development Strategy of 2002; • Agricultural Sector Development Strategy of 2001; • National Forest Policy of 1998; • Fisheries Sector Policy of 1997; • Agriculture and Livestock Policy of 1997; • Wildlife Policy of 1998; • National Water Policy of 2002; • Land Policy, 1995 and revised in 1997, and • National Coastal Zone Management Strategy of 2002.
I.17. The policies and strategies support decentralization, the greater participation of stakeholders at all levels and greater involvement of producers, resource users and local communities in the development processes. They also define a new, limited, role for central government and advocate harmonisation of donor–support. For the moment, much of the new legislation and policies are neither well known nor understood in most rural areas. Furthermore, their detailed implementation modalities are still inadequately defined. Nonetheless, they establish a basically sound strategic and legal framework for future development in rural areas.
I.18. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for 2015 would require broad–based growth. It is estimated this would require an annual GDP growth rate of between 6 and 7 percent. The MDGs include: (i) eradicating extreme poverty and increasing the share of income and consumption of the poorest 20 percent; (ii) achieving universal primary education; (iii) halving the proportion of people without access to safe water; and (iv) combating HIV/AIDS and other diseases.
I.19. As agriculture dominates the economy, higher levels of agricultural growth will be critical in meeting these targets. This would require the accelerated and sustained realization of the available economic opportunities. This, in turn, requires the mobilization of the country’s substantial human and natural resources for improved, profitable agriculture, forestry and fisheries.
I.20. A number of initiatives have been launched to support private–public partnerships (Smart Partnerships) including the establishment of the Tanzania National Business Council, the
6 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
establishment of the Investors Roundtable Meeting, the implementation of the Business Environment Strengthening for Tanzania (BEST) Programme, and the establishment of a land bank in every region. There is also now quarterly reporting on key issues of concern to the private sector such as land, labour, taxation, security, legal questions and financial matters.
I.21. Effective implementation of the new way of doing business in the agricultural sector will depend on a fundamental change in mindset and in the basic approach to development. This involves all stakeholders, but is a particular challenge for civil servants and remote communities. New styles and methods of information and communication are required, as well as a move to give networking and team–work greater priority: transparency and individual accountability will increasingly become important.
I.22. Mainland Agricultural Sector Development Strategy and Development Programme. The Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS) was formulated in 2001 and it is closely linked to both the Rural Development and Poverty Reduction Strategies. It has established a framework for improving agricultural productivity and profitability in order to achieve improved farm incomes, reduced rural poverty and greater food security. The specific targets are: (i) reducing the proportion of the rural population below the basic poverty line to 20.4 percent by 2010, (ii) reducing the percentage of rural food poor to 11.6 percent by 2010, and (iii) achieving a growth rate in agriculture of at least 5.2 percent.2
I.23. At the heart of ASDS is a sector–wide approach that changes the functions of central government from an executive role to a normative one by limiting its role to policy, legislation, regulation and oversight. The Strategy focuses on productive and gainful agriculture — where subsistence agriculture would be replaced by profitable agriculture — and where both the spotlight and resources switch from public institutions to farmers and agri–business.
I.24. The Agricultural Sector Development Programme (ASDP) is the operational framework response to ASDS. Completed in 2003, the ASDP framework stresses the need to change the way things are done in the sector (“business as un–usual”). ASDP is a long–term process designed to forge connections both between the Agricultural Sector Lead Ministries (ASLM3) themselves, and between the government and empowered farmers using a demand–driven, field–based planning process. In addition the programme proposes to expand the type of support to include both public and private sector service providers.
I.25. The ASDP has three Sub–Programmes. These are listed in some detail Annex 1. In summary they entail:
• Sub–Programme A: Covers decentralised activities undertaken in the field in direct support to agricultural production and processing. It is envisaged that at full development 75 percent of public resources in agriculture would be invested in this component. This Sub–Programme will be implemented through each District Agricultural Development Plan (DADP).
2 The Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, however, has expressed expectations that annual growth rates would be able to reach 7 percent, or even 10 percent. 3 Throughout this report ‘agriculture’ is taken to include crop and livestock production and the range of activities associated with helping this happen in an efficient and profitable way. The ASLM comprise Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MAFS), Ministry of Water and Livestock Development (MWLD), Ministry of Cooperatives and Marketing (MCM) and the President’s Office – Regional Administration and Local Government (PO–RALG).
7 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
• Sub–Programme B: Covers central, national level public sector functions needed to support the policy and regulatory framework, research and advisory services, private sector development, marketing and rural finance. Approximately 20 percent of public resources would be invested in this sub–programme.
• Sub–Programme C: Cross–cutting and cross–sectoral issues such as gender, HIV/AIDS, the environment, land tenure, energy, water, forestry and other natural resource management activities. Approximately 5 percent of the public budget for agriculture would be invested here.
I.26. Mainland National Forest Programme. The country’s forest resources have a crucial role in contributing to poverty reduction for the rural poor, economic development and environment conservation. The National Forest Programme (NFP), the framework to implement the National Forest Policy, is in line with other related sectors and national macro–economic policies. The NFP has set priority Development Programmes developed in consultation with key stakeholders.
I.27. Tanzania has vast forest resources. Local resource exploitation is important — building poles, firewood, charcoal, medicinal plants, honey and the use of other non–wood products. However, unsustainable community–based use as well as large scale, often uncontrolled, commercial logging and the cutting of forests for agriculture — most destructively for tobacco production — is placing the resource under increasing risk. Large tracts of forest are managed by the government, principally as Catchment Forests. Other areas are protected through National Parks and Local Government Reserves.
I.28. Although forestry is not recognised as a priority sector under the Poverty Reduction Strategy, there is a growing understanding of the important role forest and woodland resources play in supporting livelihoods, providing income for the rural poor and in sustaining important ecological services. Participatory Forest Management (PFM) is the government’s strategy to achieve sustainable forest management by encouraging the management or co–management of forest and woodland resources by the communities living closest to the resources. PFM can contribute to improving rural livelihoods whilst protecting the environment and promoting gender–equality.
I.29. The strategy is to increase the demand for PFM from forest adjacent communities whilst increasing and improving the delivery of PFM services available to these communities. Implementation would be staggered in the selected districts depending on their previous involvement in PFM activities and in accordance with the provisions of the Guidelines for Community Based Forest Management. Developing simple, low cost and replicable PFM models and improving the range of benefits of PFM to stakeholders would address additional constraints to the expansion of PFM.
(ii) Zanzibar
I.30. In Zanzibar, the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Co– operatives (MANREC) is responsible for the agricultural sector, including crop, livestock, fisheries, forestry and cooperative development. The Ministries of Finance and Economic Affairs (MFEA) and of Water, Construction, Energy and Land (MWCEL) have a bearing on cash crop development through their involvement in approving private investment in agriculture as in other sectors. MFEA has prime responsibility in the approval of private investment projects through the Zanzibar Investment Promotion Agency (ZIPA). The Ministry of Trade, Marketing and Tourism (MTITM) plays a major role in cash crop development with respect to information and research, export promotion and facilitation, licensing exporters and export procedures.
8 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
I.31. Since the mid–eighties, the Zanzibar economy has undergone fundamental transformation that has resulted in re–defining the role of government and that of the private sector. With the exception of agriculture which is lagging behind, the process has paved the way for the withdrawal of government involvement in direct production, processing and marketing activities, and encouraged the private sector to take over. The main thrust of these changes has been to deregulate prices and remove subsidies; to increase real interest rate; to improve the quality of public policies and to liberalize foreign trade. The changing micro–economic environment prompted a review of many public policies to see if they conform to the adopted liberal economy. The main policies and strategies, which are highlighted below, include: • Zanzibar Development Vision 2020; • Zanzibar Poverty Reduction Plan; • Zanzibar Agricultural Sector Strategic Plan; • Zanzibar Environmental Policy; • Zanzibar Local Government Reform.
I.32. Zanzibar Development Vision 2020 and Poverty Reduction Plan. The Vision 2020 for Zanzibar guides the development of the agricultural sector to eradicate poverty through increased food and livestock production and productivity so as to enhance food security, increase agro–export and farmer income. Modernization and commercialization of agriculture is the main strategy to achieve these objectives.
I.33. The Zanzibar Poverty Reduction Plan (ZPRP) spells out the overall objective in agriculture as being to increase production and productivity of crops, livestock, fisheries and forestry and to achieve national and household food security. Regarding agriculture, the objectives of the ZPRP are to: (i) create a conducive environment for performant agricultural produce marketing systems; (ii) strengthen agricultural support services; (iii) develop agricultural investment; (iv) strengthen management and organization for agriculture; (v) improve food crop production; (vi) rehabilitate clove plantations and promote diversification into other cash crops; (vii) streamline sector ministry and farmer organizations; (viii) promote social forestry, agroforestry and small–scale fuel wood production; (ix) improve productivity and marketing of fishery products and provide support to artisanal fisheries’ communities and seaweed farmers; and (x) adhere to sustainable environmental management through community involvement.
I.34. Zanzibar Agricultural Sector Policy and Strategic Plan. The specific objectives of the Agricultural Policy (2000) are aimed at modernizing and commercialising agriculture so as to improve productivity and rural income, hence improve food security and people’s nutritional status. The policy also recognizes the importance of ensuring gender equality, expanding employment opportunities, increasing foreign exchange earnings, and encouraging private sector participation. The agricultural policy is also linked to other policies that impact on agriculture, including policies on land, gender, environment, population, water, energy, industry and education. The agricultural sector policy sets out strategies and targets to reduce poverty, in line with the ZPRP. Currently the Government of Zanzibar is completing its Agricultural Strategic Plan (ZASP), with the support of BADEA,4 which builds on the strategic priorities agreed upon of the ZPRP.
4 BADEA: Banque Arabe pour le Développement Economique en Afrique (Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa).
9 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
I.35. Zanzibar Environmental Policy. The Environmental Policy was prepared in 1990. While the policy’s primary focus is on the marine and urban environments, it highlights the agricultural–related environmental problems of coral rag land management — deforestation and declining soil fertility — and worsening of soil erosion in the areas of deeper fertile soil.
I.36. Zanzibar Local Government Reform. The ZPRP highlights the need to reform the public sector. In 2002, an assessment concluded that the present local government system is characterized by unclear and inconsistent institutional arrangements, inadequate balance between functions and resources assigned to local governments, and low capacity. It is understood that, after empowering communities, only a democratic and cost effective system of local governance can address the problems outlined in the ZPRP and deliver services in a participatory and responsive manner. This will entail a reform of the local government system and a comprehensive capacity building programme for local government councillors and staff.
D. The NEPAD Vision and CAADP Pillars
I.37. The overall NEPAD vision is of “a prosperous continent free of conflict in which our people can fulfil their potential, that participates effectively in the global economy on an equal footing”. Although NEPAD has developed its own vision and strategy, it recognises that, at country level, these should be harmonised with national strategies and priorities. The overall development priorities to be pursued within the NEPAD framework are:
• Conditions for Sustainable Development: Capacity building for improved transparency and accountability, facilitation of private sector involvement, empowerment of local communities, legal sector reform, regional security within the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the East African Community5 (EAC), and capacity building in economic policy formulation and analysis.
• Human Resource Development: Primary education development, rationalization of tertiary and higher education, health sector reform, the roll–back of malaria, telemedicine and health care, integrated disease surveillance network, reproductive and child health, HIV/AIDS control, water and sanitation development, vocational education and training.
• Infrastructure Development: This includes improvements in SADC and EAC cross– border and domestic grid inter–connections, the generation of energy in accordance with the 2001 Revised Power Sector Master Plan, the East African Road Transport Corridors programme, railways, ports and shipping, air transport and aviation, pipelines and telecommunications.
• Productive and Economic Services: Involving trade development, agricultural diversification, mining, manufacturing, export processing zones, establishment of capacity for agro–processing and the processing of natural resources, tourism, lands development and environmental protection and conservation.
I.38. NEPAD’s Declaration on Agriculture and Food Security in Africa was ratified by the African Union Assembly of Heads of State and Government in Maputo, in July 2003. The vision for agriculture is that by 2015 the continent should: • Attain food security;
5 Comprising Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya.
10 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
• Improve agricultural productivity to achieve 7 percent annual growth; • Develop dynamic national and agricultural markets; • Integrate farmers into the market economy; • Achieve more equitable distribution of wealth; • Become a strategic player in agricultural science and technology; and • Practice environmentally sound production systems based on sustainable management of the natural resource base.
I.39. A major objective of NEPAD in the agricultural sector is to see countries increase their budgetary allocations to the sector to 10 percent of the total national budget. This might represent a very substantial challenge to some countries, though much depends on how the area of activity is defined. This is discussed further in Chapter IV.
I.40. The overall aim of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) is to restore agricultural growth, advance rural development and improve food security. The CAADP comprises five Pillars:
• Expansion of the area under sustainable land management and reliable water control systems;
• Improvement of rural infrastructure and trade–related capacities for improved market access;
• Enhancement of food supply and reduction of hunger;
• Development of agricultural research, technological dissemination and adoption to sustain long–term productivity growth;
• Sustainable development of livestock, fisheries and forestry resources.
I.41. As a member of the African Union, Tanzania is committed to the objectives of NEPAD. As a result of recent reforms it is in a good position to participate effectively and gainfully in all aspects of the partnership. Within Tanzania, responsibility for the coordination of all NEPAD–related activities is undertaken by the Office of the President. Of particular significance for Tanzania is that:
• It has adopted a Good Governance Framework, which promotes the participation of its people in decision–making, the principles of constitutionalism, the rule of law, the administration of justice, the protection of human rights, gender equality, the culture of accountability, transparency, integrity in the management of public affairs and the principles of electoral democracy.
• It has implemented comprehensive economic reforms laying the basis for market– oriented competitiveness.
• It is an active member of Southern African Development Community and the East African Community. These regional linkages are important instruments in promoting economies of scale in terms of market size and the mobilization of resources.
I.42. Furthermore, Tanzania is in the process of formulating a Programme of Action for NEPAD. Special emphasis would be placed on continued policy reform and incremental programmes with a
11 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
critical bearing on poverty eradication. The Programme would promote regional and continental linkages, the involvement of the private sector, exports to the region and beyond, and facilitate cross– border movements of goods and services.
E. Existing and Pipeline Interventions
I.43. In order to assess the priority areas for possible CAADP incremental investment, it is first necessary to understand the nature of investments in the sector. The result of an analysis of current investments on the Mainland is presented in Table 1. It is intended that under ASDP a comprehensive inventory of all ongoing public sector agricultural operations would be developed and maintained. This has not yet been completed, but preliminary results of this work are presented in Annex 1. For Mainland and Zanzibar, there are approximately 35 major donor–supported projects and programmes in operation at the moment. This does not include the many, small but locally important NGO projects which do not appear in most formal lists.
I.44. Table 1 below shows mainstream large agricultural projects and programmes under implementation.6 The pipeline proposals are shown in Table 2. The implementation responsibilities for these activities are varied. Some are focused on agricultural sector ministries, others are implemented by District Teams. Still others are implemented by project units, sometimes operating outside local or central government agencies. Associated, and critically important, cross–sectoral and cross–cutting work being undertaken by other ministries, such as the Ministries of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT), Works (MOW) and Industry and Trade (MIT) have not at this stage been included in the Tables.
Table 1: Major Agricultural Projects and Programmes Project or Programme Donor CAADP Pillar (*) Agriculture Sector Programme Support (ASPS II) (a) DANIDA 1,5 National Agricultural Extension Project (NAEP II) (b) (**) WB 3,4,5 Tanzania Agricultural Research project (TARP II) (a) (**) WB/Netherlands 3,4,5 Special Programme for Food Security (SPFS) (a) FAO/ADB 1,3 Participatory Irrigation Development Programme (a) IFAD 1 Participatory Agricultural Development and Empowerment Project (PADEP) (b) WB 1,3 Rural Finance Services Programme (a) IFAD 2 Agricultural Marketing Systems Development Programme (ASMDP) (a) IFAD/ADB 2,5 National Coconut Development Programme (b) GTZ 3 Kilimanjaro Agricultural Training Centre Phase II (a) JICA 3, 1 Smallholder Dairy Support (a) Netherlands 2, 5 Kagera Community Development Programme (a) Belgium 3, 4 Integrated Pest Management (a) (*) GTZ 3, 4, 5 Pan–African Programme to Control Epizootics (PACE) (a) EU 3, 4 Rehabilitation of Training and Research Institutions (a) GoT 4 Agricultural Feasibility Study (c) BADEA 4 Livestock Development (c) OPEC/IAEA 1,2,5 Livestock Marketing Project (a) (*) ADB 2,5
6 A number of the projects and programmes have been recently completed: the National Agricultural Extension Project (NAEP II), the Tanzania Agricultural Research Project (TARP II), Mara Farmers’ Initiative Project (MARAFIP), Kagera Agricultural and Environmental Management Project (KAEMP) and the River Basin Management and Smallholder Irrigation Improvement Project (RBMSIIP).
12 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
Table 1: Major Agricultural Projects and Programmes Project or Programme Donor CAADP Pillar (*) Animal Diseases Control (FMD, CBPP, ASF, NCD, ECF, TBDs, ZDs, etc.) (a) GoT, AusAID, FAO 4,5 Biological control and stem borers for maize & sorghum (c) ICIPE 3,4,5 Integrated Natural Resources Management Program (forestry conservation & CARE– 1,3,4 development of Jozani National Park) (c) Austria/UNDP/GEF Community Based Coastal Resources Management and Sustainable Livelihoods (b) WB/Japan Social 1,2,3,4 Development Fund Menay Bay Conservation Project (c) WWF 1,3,4 Sustainable Management of Lands and Environment (SMOLE) (c) Finland 1,3,4 District Rural Development Programmes (a) Netherlands 5 District Development Support (a) Ireland – Mwega Irrigation Scheme (a) (*) JICA 1 Eastern Zone Client Research and Extension Oriented Programme (EZCORE) (a) Ireland 3, 4 Small Enterprise Loan Facility (SELF) (a) ADB/ADF 2 Lake Victoria Environmental Management Project (a) (*) WB/GEF/SIDA 4 Land Management Project (LAMP) (a) (*) SIDA 1,3 Tanzania Tea Research (a) Private Sector, 2, 4 EU, GTZ Poverty Reduction Support Credit (PRSC) (a) WB 2, 3 Rural and Micro–Finance Project (a) WB 2, 3 Business Environment Strengthening in Tanzania (a) DFID 2 Coverage of the interventions: (a) specific for Mainland, (b) operational in Mainland and Zanzibar, and (c) specific for Zanzibar. (*) There is no CAADP Pillar specifically for capacity building and institutional support. (**) Recently completed
Table 2: Major Agricultural Programmes and Projects under preparation – The Pipeline Project / Programme Donor CAADP Pillar (*) Agricultural Sector Support Programme (ASSP) (b) through ASDP Basket Fund on IFAD, WB, others 3, 4, 5 Mainland to be determined Pastoral and Agro–Pastoral Livestock Development Programme (PAPLIDEV) (b) IFAD 2, 3, 4, 5 District Agricultural Sector Investment Project (DASIP) (ASDP support in North–West ADB 1,2,3,5 Tanzania) (a) Capacity Building in the Coast Region (a) JICA – Support for DADPs (including irrigation) through the ASDP Basket Fund (a) JICA, EU, Danida, 1,3,5 WB, others Marine and Coastal Environmental Program (MACEP) (b) WB 1,3,4 Coffee Quality Improvement (a) EU 2,4 Coverage of the interventions: (a) specific for Mainland; and (b) operational in Mainland and Zanzibar. (*) There is no CAADP Pillar specifically for capacity building and institutional support.
13 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
F. Development Partners
(i) Donor Objectives and Strategies
I.45. The most significant multi–lateral donors currently supporting the agricultural sector are the World Bank (WB), the African Development Bank (ADB), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa (Banque Arabe pour le Développement Economique en Afrique, BADEA), the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) and the European Union (EU). Multi–lateral donors investment strategies of relevance to the CAADP include: • World Bank Country Assistance Strategy (CAS); • IFAD Country Strategic Opportunities Paper (COSOP); • ADB Country Strategy Paper (CSP); • EU Country Strategy Paper and National Indicative Programme.
I.46. Active bilateral partners supporting agriculture include Denmark, Ireland, Japan, France, Belgium, Germany, Norway, Sweden and Finland. Economic development is supported by a wide range of partners. They share the common goal of poverty alleviation and sustainable development, but each has its own priorities, and particular geographical and thematic areas of interest. This is partly due to historical precedent, and partly due to the policies and priorities of the donor country’s governments. This is not going to change in the medium term.
I.47. Moving away from the project–based support to programme/sector–wide approach, some donors subscribe to the concept of a Sector–Wide Approach to development and to some form of Basket Funding. Others prefer to develop ‘their’ projects and programmes more independently. Some donors work through existing national and local institutions: others do not. It needs to be acknowledged that the shift towards a Sector–Wide Approach, as experienced on Mainland, is not an easy one, especially for those donors who are required to maintain a tight control on the disbursement of funds. The move requires confidence in the implementing agencies and the establishment of monitoring systems, which fulfil donor supervision requirements. Some donors have clear areas of specific interest — such as IFAD focusing on livestock, marketing and rural finance. There is, however, increasing support for district–based investment in improved capacity building and community–driven initiatives.
I.48. Donors have significant influence on the shape of development in the country. This takes place through a series of fora for discussion and dialogue on macro–economic and sector–specific issues for agriculture. In the Mainland, within the structure of ASDP, there is a Food and Agriculture Working Group (FASWOG) that is intended to provide a focal point for coordination of key donors and government ministries. There is no such coordination mechanism for Zanzibar. Since donors generally treat Tanzania as one country, Zanzibar will have to be represented in the future FASWOG meetings.
(ii) Farmers’ Organisations, the Private Sector and Non–Government Organisations
I.49. The millions of small–scale farmers form the backbone of private sector agricultural operations. They must be the focus of the majority of public sector support to agriculture. There is growing support for farmers’ organizations with emphasis on empowering farmers so that they can identify their needs and take an active role in managing agricultural service delivery and reception.
14 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
This represents a substantial change in the way agricultural research and extension is undertaken. Moreover, the country has a rich diversity of farmer groups:
• To improve their access to technology through experimental learning such as in participatory farmer research groups and farmer field school (FFS) groups,
• To access funding (e.g. credit and saving groups), for crop processing and marketing (commodity groups), for livestock production (dairy or poultry groups), for gender–based activities; and
• To support members in case of need (indigenous/traditional, religious and cultural based groups).
I.50. A range of legal mechanisms exists for the registration of groups. Options include an NGO, a not–for–profit company, a co–operative, an association or a trust (PELUM, 2004). For example, since its formation in 1993, MVIWATA 7 has expanded to cover 120 local networks with over 1,000 affiliated groups in 82 districts. MVIWATA is currently able to ensure effective representation of between 50,000 to 70,000 farm–families. It also takes part in a number of national fora for the sector. In other sub–sectors, groups are increasingly becoming formalised and networked at district level and higher. For example in the dairy sector, producer/marketing associations have linked with a national dairy board. Seed grower associations have successfully built marketing links for small farmers to produce and sell improved seed.
I.51. The medium– and large–scale private sector farmers, growing cash crops such as tea, coffee, horticultural crops and tobacco, require less direct support than small–scale farmers. But they do need an enabling environment of appropriate land laws, tax structure and reasonable administrative procedures that create incentives to invest and produce. To date, and despite considerable potential, there has been only limited development of medium– and large–scale agriculture. There are some significant areas of plantation crops, intensive horticulture and some large–scale cereal and legume production. Furthermore, the potential for partnerships between large and small–scale producers — such as through outgrower agreements being implemented for tea production — has yet to be fully exploited.
(iii) Regional Economic Cooperation
I.52. Tanzania is an active member of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the East African Community (EAC). These Regional Economic Organisations8 are supportive of the NEPAD–CAADP objectives, as well as the Mainland ASDP and Zanzibar ASP. Under the SADC Regional Indicative Development Strategic Plan (RISDP), the proposed activities under the aim of agriculture and food security for poverty reduction include: • Sustainable agricultural financing and investments; • Improved crop and livestock production; • Water resources development and management for promoting irrigated agriculture; • Access to productive agricultural land; • Improved access to key agricultural inputs;
7 Mtandao wa Vikundi wa Wakulima Tanzania (Network of Tanzania Farmer Groups). 8 SADC Flagship Programmes and EAC Agricultural and Rural Development Policy and Strategy.
15 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
• Sustainable utilization of natural resources; • Strengthening research–extension–farmer linkages and other support services; • Gender equality; • Enhanced access to food security; • Enhanced disaster preparedness and response; • Mitigating the impacts of HIV/AIDS and other chronic diseases; • Improved institutional structures and capacity for effective and efficient support to food security and agricultural development.
I.53. The above areas are reflected in the Long and Short Term Plans of Action of the SADC Dar es Salaam Declaration on Agriculture and Food Security of 15th May 2004. Although presented in a different sequence, they correspond well with both the CAADP priorities and the main ASDP and ZASP Components.
I.54. Under the EAC, Partner States have developed and adopted a Common Agricultural and Rural Development Policy (CARDP) and an Agricultural and Rural Development Strategy (ARDS). Identified areas of intervention are almost similar to those in SADC. Development of joint programmes is underway.
I.55. These regional cooperation programmes will have to be mainstreamed within ongoing national strategies, programmes and plans, and will require substantial resource commitments from governments, as well as partnership from multilateral and other development partners.
II. CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
II.1. The agriculture sector in Tanzania — both on the Mainland and in Zanzibar — is characterized by low levels of productivity and profitability, and inappropriate and often unsustainable use of natural resources. There are many reasons for this: but the most significant are poverty, the low levels of investment (the cycle of poverty and hand–hoe culture can not be broken), inadequate delivery of public services, poor marketing opportunities and infrastructure, and inadequate control mechanisms. While these constraints are serious, they can be addressed.
II.2. Behind these primary constraints lies a series of underlying problems which have been identified and must be resolved if agriculture is to realise its full potential in Tanzania. These cover financial and institutional issues as well as technical and socio–economic concerns. They have been recognized through the processes of ASDS/ASDP and ZASP formulation, and will be priority areas for future action. Support from NEPAD through the CAADP will be an important input in the process.
16 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
A. Constraints
II.3. From the farmers’ perspective there are a number of critical constraints to improved and more profitable production.
II.4. Poverty: The most serious constraint for the largest number of farmers is underlying poverty. It limits farmers’ capacity to take risks in modifying their production systems, in investing in inputs, new equipment and technology, and it requires them to sell their harvests as quickly as possible — usually at a time when prices are lowest. As a result, the majority of farmers are trapped in a constraining cycle of poverty, dependent on a traditional farming culture of the hand hoe, which significantly limits productivity and profitability. Poverty is further exacerbated by a high frequency of disease which both kills and debilitates — especially malaria, HIV/AIDS and communicable disease. This significantly reduces the effectiveness and productivity of the under–equipped labour force. Furthermore, low levels of literacy, especially amongst women, is a significant constraint to poverty alleviation.
II.5. Weak farmer organisations: Farmers and farmers’ organisations have seldom been in a position to effectively express their concerns and articulate what sort of assistance and support they require to improve their agricultural production. Through farmers’ empowerment programmes, the situation is changing.
II.6. Inadequate and poor access to credit and markets: Very few poor farmers have access to credit: which is another factor of poverty. This is partly because there are few operational agricultural credit schemes. In addition, the complicated legal framework for land tenure and the administrative constraints to the allocation of Right of Occupancy makes it difficult for most farmers to borrow money using their land — their greatest economic asset — as collateral. This is against a background of a robust and well–endowed commercial banking system that is eager to lend to appropriate clients.
II.7. For most commodities, there is a weak linkage between the producer and the markets. Such links exist for a few crops — such as tobacco and out–grower tea — but they are poorly developed for general mixed farms and livestock. The costs of getting produce to market are high, especially due to poorly developed rural roads. It has been estimated that up to 60 percent of the marketing costs of maize is due to transport. Moving from subsistence agriculture to profitable agricultural surplus production requires, among other things, access to reliable markets. This is a major constraint in many areas. There are several programmes trying to remedy that in selected areas of the country, but more support is needed.
II.8. Inadequate technology: It is well accepted that there are many relatively simple techniques that could increase production and profitability for small–scale farmers that are not being adopted. The majority of them still rely on the hand hoe as major means of production. There are a number of reasons for this: (i) affordability: poor farmers cannot afford the cost and the risk on a new technology; (ii) uncertainties of markets — especially for new commodities — discourage farmers from venturing outside their traditional cropping systems, even if it means that they are competing in an oversupplied seasonal market, 9 (iii) past failures in the extension system: the coverage of the current public extension services is limited and many farmers have little contact with a ‘Bwana Shamba’;10 and (iv) insufficient linkage between researchers and extension workers; as a result new technologies have not necessarily responded to farmers’ priority needs. None of these constraints are particularly difficult to overcome with some determination and a few resources. Some are already being directly tackled.
9 A classic example is rainfed tomatoes around Dar es Salaam. 10 Agricultural field officer.
17 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
II.9. For the livestock sub–sector, the principal constraints are inadequate production systems, the presence of a number of serious livestock diseases, poorly developed markets and limited capacity to add value to production through processing and packaging.
II.10. It is generally agreed that public sector capacity, especially at district level, is limited and cannot deliver the level of services required. However, despite this understanding, many new development initiatives continue to put unrealistic demands on both weak public service delivery systems and on inadequately informed, resource–poor rural communities. There are unrealistic expectations on the delivery and absorption of new technology under conditions that are not conducive to dissemination or adoption. Increasing understanding and expanding awareness of these critical constraints — and an increasing wealth of understanding of the underlying issues — will be an important step to accelerated rural development.
II.11. Inappropriate land and water management: While there are significant areas of high agricultural potential with good soils and reliable rainfall, other areas, especially in the central part of the country, suffer from low and erratic rainfall and inherently poor soils which constrain production and increase risk. Poor management of soil moisture and soil fertility results in depressed yields and crop failure. In many years, this would not be necessary had appropriate, available and low–cost land and moisture management technologies been applied.
II.12. Unsustainable natural resource management: Both forestry and fisheries are based on natural resources which were once plentiful, but which are now declining at an alarming rate in many areas. Sustainable utilisation methods are not being practiced in most instances and there is substantial environmental degradation and enormous loss of long–term economic potential. Cutting forests to clear agricultural land and, in some critical areas for wood for tobacco curing, has devastating environmental consequences.11 On the other hand, there remains a vast natural resource base of both forests and fish. This will not last forever and it is critical that profitable and durable exploitation systems are developed. It is acknowledged that this would require not only technical responses, but also a determined political responses to ensure effective control and respect of existing regulations.
II.13. In fisheries, there has been a rapid increase in the catch and a rapid expansion in trade, including live crustaceans to Asia. In many areas, wild stocks are being exploited beyond sustainable levels, which is particularly noticeable for coastal fisheries where destructive techniques such as dynamite fishing, beach seining and the use of under size gill mesh are widely practiced.
II.14. The large–scale farmers and agro–processors private sector is also constrained in investing and operating in agriculture. Despite recent government efforts to improve the attractiveness of direct foreign investment, this has remained generally weak. The banking sector is highly liquid and looking for clients, and international interest rates at historically low levels. But flows of local and foreign private sector investment in agriculture remain limited. They are certainly not commensurate with the importance of the sector to either the country’s economy or the livelihoods of the population. Approximately only 10 percent of the Direct Foreign Investment passing through the Tanzanian Investment Centre (TIC) is for the agricultural sector.
II.15. Taxes and operating costs are often not conducive to profitable medium and large–scale farming, and, despite positive changes, there are still significant administrative and bureaucratic
11 See, for example SADC, 2004: Enhancing agriculture and food security for poverty reduction in the SADC Region. Key issues paper SADC/FANR/M/3/2004 for Extra–Ordinary Summit, Dar es Salaam, on 10th April, 2004. Dated 5.2.04.
18 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
impediments to profit, and therefore private sector investment. Obtaining reliable, legal access to land, building permits and other licences remains a major hurdle for investors.
II.16. The Local Government Authorities are increasingly being given responsibility for supporting field implementation. This will be achieved through the development of District Agricultural Development Strategies (DADS) and Plans (DADPs). Some districts have received external support, training and operational funding, some for many years, but many others have not. Many districts still have very limited financial, planning and implementation capacity. Building up this capacity must be a high priority for the development of the agricultural sector. Current projections indicate that limited implementation capacity at the District level would seriously constrain many districts from achieving effective utilisation of 75 percent of the public sector spending in the agricultural sector as envisaged in the ASDP. The Local Government Authorities face a significant and particular set of problems. The Local Government Reform Programme is under implementation, but has not yet been able to achieve widespread impact. As a result many constraints remain. These include:
II.17. Insufficient finance: Most District and Municipal Councils are continually short of investment and operational funding. Councils remain dependent on central government grants, or donor projects, to remain operational. Most of the central government subvention to the LGAs is spent on personnel emoluments. Little goes to operational activities. On the other hand, agriculture is, and fisheries and forestry could be in certain districts, a major contributor to Council revenue. Only a very small proportion of this revenue is currently collected and recycled into the sector.
II.18. Weak capacity: Partly due to inadequate funding, but also due to other reasons, the capacity of the staff in many Districts is limited. Decentralisation of responsibilities and finance alone, therefore, will not be an adequate response. The capacity and incentives to implement the activities is a critical requirement. This has a significant impact on the implementation of agricultural development and natural resource management activities and the level of support to rural communities.
II.19. In Zanzibar, the system of local government differs from the Mainland, and it has not yet benefited from a Local Government Reform Programme. Interest in reforms was triggered by consultations in 2002 for the African Government Forum on Local Governance. The Tanzania Country Paper emphasized the dual system of local governance within the United Republic of Tanzania and pointed in broad terms to the local governance issues in Zanzibar. A subsequent assessment (RGoZ and UNCDF/UNDP 2002) concluded that the present system is characterized by unclear and inconsistent institutional arrangements, inadequate balance between functions and resources and numerous capacity issues. The report concludes that the overall policy framework as a priority needs to be addressed before the more operational aspects of capacity building at central and local government can be addressed comprehensively.
II.20. The Central Government Ministries, on the Mainland and Zanzibar, also face substantial challenges, including:
II.21. Weak capacity: The most significant problem faced by most ministries is limited technical capacity to plan and implement their core activities. While under the Public Sector Reform Programme the roles and range of functions of central government have been reduced, so have the number of staff. The result is that many of those who are capable and committed end up with enormous workloads and seldom have the time to complete all that needs to be done. Recent experience shows that support for high quality central public service delivery is critical if the sector is to develop. This requires both understanding and long–term commitment to real change from all involved stakeholders.
19 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
II.22. Inadequate flow of funds: Tanzania depends heavily on external support for agriculture and rural development. There is considerable external financial support for national programmes, but often–limited capacity constrains the ministries from making rapid use of the funds. In many cases, this results in lower than anticipated disbursement rates. These shortfalls, however, are often the result of unrealistic planning and overestimation of the absorptive capacity of public sector institutions.
II.23. The domestic component of the development budget for the agricultural sector is very small when compared to foreign resources, which leads to serious concerns about donor dependence and risks of under–funding public–sector agricultural operations. Budget projections for 2004/2005 in Mainland indicate the foreign component at 87 percent for MAFS, 89 percent for MWLD, and 69 percent for MCM. A similar trend is observed in Zanzibar.
II.24. If public sector service delivery is to improve, it will be necessary to improve the flow of funds to critical sections of the agricultural sector; which is high priority for NEPAD. Currently, however, there are substantial constraints in this area and there is a discrepancy between approved and actual expenditure for both the recurrent and development budget for agriculture. Disbursements are significantly lower than the approved expenditures: in 2002/03 only 52 percent of approved expenditure was used (URT, 2004a). Inadequate and delayed release of funds have been constraints in the sector and greatly increase transaction costs and decrease operational efficiency. Ensuring prompt release of approved expenditure will be a critical factor in ensuring effective progress.
B. Opportunities
II.25. The richness of the country’s natural resources, the generally sound policy and legislative framework, the peace that exist in the country, the industrious nature of the farmers, and the potential for developing new trade and market arrangements established a significant basis for considerable opportunity to expand and improve productivity and profitability of both small–scale and large–scale agriculture. Some improvements have already started through the removal of the monopoly status of some Marketing Boards and a reduction in government control over price regulation. As a result, producers receive a greater share of the profits — in general, an increase from 55 to 65 percent — and they are paid in cash in a more timely manner. Furthermore, food prices have declined, private sector investment in processing has increased and export value performance has improved considerably: 29 percent for coffee, 283 percent for cashew and 102 percent for tobacco.
II.26. There may be a considerable increase in funding available directly to support farmers, farmers groups and rural communities if the changes in agricultural budget emphasis proposed in the Mainland ASDP — whereby 75 percent of the public budget would be spent at the local level by 2007, and the CAADP target of 10 percent of the national budget for agriculture and rural activities — can be implemented.
II.27. Although progress has been made, further improvements in policy relating to the agricultural sector are possible. With reduced space for further improvements through macro–economic policy reform, sector–specific reforms will need to play an increasingly important role in stimulating growth. Measures to reduce the burden of excessive taxes on producers have already been implemented, but there remains room to improve on the implementation of existing reforms as well as to introduce new measures to stimulate production and increase profitability.
II.28. Improved crop and animal husbandry, applying already tested and established techniques would have a positive impact in most areas. There are many areas of potential future growth. Overall, Tanzania has a comparative advantage in maize and rice, as well as in traditional export crops (cashew,
20 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
coffee, cotton, tea, tobacco and clove). In terms of technology, for example, crop yields have increased, largely due to the adoption of improved varieties. For maize, this has been through the release of grey leaf spot resistant varieties and improved management practices. For cassava it has been through the release of mosaic virus resistant strains. The livestock sub–sector offers tremendous opportunities for growth through expansion of current disease control programmes, the introduction of improved breeds and husbandry techniques, and the development of local and external markets. II.29. However, for this to happen, the extension and information/communication services need to be more responsive to farmers needs and more able to respond to what the farmers themselves identify as constraints and opportunities. Empowering farming communities to identify their technical knowledge and information needs, and ensuring that public and private sector service providers are able to respond, is a critical element in improved productivity, and a central point in the forthcoming Agricultural Sector Support Programme (ASSP). II.30. Another key area for growth is the timely provision of appropriate and affordable inputs. Improved access to and use of modern farm inputs — especially fertiliser, improved seeds, veterinary drugs and affordable machinery — will enhance productivity and profitability, if applied in conjunction with appropriate technology. In addition, the exploitation of the national resources, such as natural gas and phosphorous, may constitute an opportunity for producing fertilisers locally. The environment for private sector participation in the production, procurement and distribution of farm inputs has improved. This has been an area of some confusion and tension between the private and public sector. Clarification — and dissemination — of policy and a better understanding of the functions of the key actors over an extended period of time is needed to improve the delivery of these critical inputs. II.31. There are many examples of successful community–based production and natural resource management operations (Participatory Forest Management — the Ngitiri System — and Integrated Coastal Zone Management, for example) as well as farmers groups and networks (such as MVIWATA) which show what can be achieved. The emerging trend of new projects and programmes is to increasingly incorporate participatory approaches in diagnosis, planning, implementation and evaluation of the project activities. Successes with projects and programmes implemented in this way have also yielded encouraging results in Zanzibar. Examples of these include: Jozani–Chwaka Bay Community Conservation Project, Integrated Production and Pest Management and the Special Programme for Food Security. II.32. The challenge is to find low cost, effective ways of scaling up these initiatives to a national level. Agricultural services, especially research and extension, are being prepared for major reforms which build on the greater empowerment of producers, much greater coordination between the services and the mobilization of private sector capacity for agricultural service provision. The reform process and the possible investment programme are still being designed. A critical element here will be the absorptive capacity of the public and private sector actors to provide the required technical services and make the best use of available funding. II.33. The diversification of crops and the improvement of animal breeds are also areas where there is considerable potential. This, however, needs to be linked to dissemination of new skills and appropriate market development, as farmers need to be able to sell profitably the new and improved crops and animals they produce. One specific opportunity that merits detailed investigation is the potential to develop the production and export of soya beans to Europe and China, and chilli peppers to the European market; but there will be others. The re–introduction of improved Boran cattle for increased meat production in semi–arid areas is, for example, one area of great potential. Much of these needs to be done by the private sector. But it is critical that the public sector supports and encourages new initiatives.
21 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
II.34. In the Mainland, the potential irrigable area is around 29.4 million ha, but only 292,890 ha (11 percent of the potential area) is under irrigation. For Zanzibar, only 3.9 percent (8,500 hectares) of the irrigable potential area has been developed. The development of small and large–scale irrigation has potential, though this must be undertaken within a carefully controlled and monitored system of cost–benefit analysis, and careful market development programmes. This also needs to be accompanied by detailed attention to land and water rights, the corresponding issues of equity and traditional rights of upstream and downstream users, other social issues and environmental impact. The recently completed National Irrigation Master Plans for both Mainland and Zanzibar (URT, 2003b and URT 2003f) and the Draft Report of the Mainland ASDP Working Group on Irrigation (URT, 2004b) have outlined the lessons learnt and future potential for irrigation development. This activity represents potential in a number of areas for increased productivity and profitability, and represents a significantly under–developed tool for poverty alleviation. It also responds to one of the main goals of the CAADP Pillar 1.
II.35. Tanzania is one of the eight SADC member states to benefit from an ADB programme to support irrigation and water resource management. The programme would aim to develop small–scale irrigation and water harvesting in drought prone areas and support capacity building. There is considerable potential, for example, for expanding the use of low cost treadle–pump and drip irrigation systems that are already commercially available in the country.
II.36. Like many Sub–Saharan Countries, agriculture in many parts of the country is highly susceptible to low and erratic rainfall. The use of simple water harvesting techniques in arid and semi–arid areas has a particular potential to help farmers, especially resource poor farmers living in marginal areas. A range of different methods have been developed in sub–Saharan Africa over the past twenty years, and Tanzania could make substantial progress through applying appropriate models.
II.37. Improved dry land management techniques — including reduced or zero tillage, the use of animal traction, agro–forestry, fodder crop development and water harvesting — have the potential to have a widespread, low cost impact amongst the poorest of the country’s farmers. The development of effective mixed–farming systems that integrate crop and animal production and that provide a more holistic focus on sustainable land and soil management will be essential if the potential of small–scale agriculture is to be realized (URT/FAO 2000 and 2003).
II.38. Tanzania has the third largest herd in sub–Saharan Africa, and the first in SADC, with 17.7 million cattle (Zanzibar 112,000), 12.5 million goats (Zanzibar 45,000), 3.5 million sheep (Zanzibar 600), 0.88 million pigs (16,000) and 47 million chickens (Zanzibar 325,000). Most meat comes from traditional cattle (mainly Tanzania Short–Horn Zebu) which are grazed communally in semi–arid rangelands in central and southern parts but the country’s livestock sub–sector is still inadequately developed and only 5 percent of average rural household income comes from livestock and livestock products.
II.39. There is vast potential for improvement of the traditional livestock sub–sector through the adoption of new, advanced production, processing and marketing technology. Despite the constraints of Tsetse fly in some areas and a number of other disease problems, the Mainland has excellent extensive rangelands and great potential for commercial ranching and better integration of livestock into mixed farming systems. Despite the large cattle population very little use is currently made of animal traction. There is increasing support for improved intensive dairy production and efforts are being made to improve livestock marketing systems. Existing breeds can be considerably improved and the potential for future development in this sub–sector is very significant.
22 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
II.40. Improvements in animal disease control would help boost production. One particular area where an important, low cost and high impact opportunity lies is in implementing a full scale national Newcastle Disease Eradication Programme. This disease of poultry kills about one third of the national flock each year: yet it is controllable by the use of thermo–stable vaccines that can be produced in Tanzania on a commercial basis. It has great potential impact on rural poverty, food security and nutrition. Following the successful eradication of tsetse flies in Zanzibar, the islands now have the potential of livestock development to meet domestic demand including the expanding tourism sector. Although East Coast Fever (ECF) stabilate has also been developed for immunization purposes, ECF is still a problem as the cost of the antibiotic treatment is prohibitive and cattle dipping is seldom undertaken by farmers. The other diseases mentioned above are still present in Zanzibar but no studies have been conducted to assess their importance.
II.41. The linkages and two–way communication between the farmer and the consumer are generally poorly developed and great progress can be made using relatively simple, modern technology such as mobile phones.
II.42. Improved rural infrastructure would increase the price of export crops, and reduce farm– gate input costs. This will greatly enhance the chance of bringing more farm families into profitable, commercial agriculture and allow them to escape from the trap of subsistence production. There is therefore great potential benefit for improving processing, storage markets and market infrastructure. This is an important CAADP Pillar and the need for this type of activity is well recognised in Tanzania. The potential for soya beans, cassava and chillies has already been mentioned: but pyrethrum, other oil seeds, milk and dairy products, meat, hides and skins are other examples, which would benefit from improved processing and marketing. An area of marketing that is only beginning to be addressed in the agricultural sector is output quality and packaging and presentation. Improved quality of output would greatly help in the growth of marketed produce as would assuring a reliable, high–quality basic product.
II.43. Tanzania is making significant progress with Participatory Forestry Management (PFM), an approach that closely involves local communities in the control and use of forest resources. There is significant potential to further expand this approach through a closer liaison with agricultural and livestock extension work; and in doing so, start to develop a more integrated community–based land and natural resource management system.
II.44. Improved forest and fisheries production and harvesting techniques (such as private sector plantations, agro–forestry, stable fish attraction devices, marine and freshwater aquaculture) can help improve production and profitability. There is also potential to improve the marketing of non–wood products. But it is acknowledged that this will achieve little without improved control and surveillance mechanisms. This would require not only improved administrative and technical capacity, but also the high level political commitment to implement and follow–through with the necessary controls.
II.45. The private sector has the potential to play a much more vigorous and productive role in agriculture and natural resource management. While there are some areas — especially plantation crops such as sisal, tea and coffee, as well as sugar — where large scale production systems are important, there is still a tremendous untapped potential for medium and large–scale development, with the possibility of associated outgrowers to involve neighbouring small scale producers.
II.46. There is considerable potential to improve the environment to attract and retain local and foreign investment in the sector. This is another area of potential NEPAD–supported investment.
23 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
III. INVESTMENT PROGRAMME OUTLINE
A. Selection Criteria for Bankable Investments and Links to Five Pillars of CAADP
III.1. The bankable investments to be proposed to CAADP will be anchored to, and drive from, existing national strategies — especially the PRS, RDS and ASDS in the Mainland; and the ZPRP and ZASP in Zanzibar. The current medium term investment programmes are also critical. At the same time, they must respond to the major issues covered by the Five Pillars of CAADP. There would, at a later date, be the option of identifying other priorities suitable for investment under CAADP within the ASDP component framework (Annex 1) and the national forestry and fisheries development programmes.
III.2. Criteria need to be used to assess and evaluate possible investments, and to ensure that they are, indeed, ‘bankable’ and that they respond to the objectives of ASDP/ZASP and the CAADP. The following criteria are proposed for new bankable investments:
• the intervention must respond to the priority areas identified in the ASDP/ZASP and in the sector’s Medium Term Expenditure Frameworks (MTEFs);
• the intervention must fit into at least one of the five pillars of CAADP;
• the intervention must have a high likelihood of alleviating rural poverty;
• the intervention must have a high likelihood of success, with private sector and beneficiary participation in its design and implementation;
• the intervention must contribute to enhancing food security; and
• the intervention must be technically and financially feasible, within the acknowledged constraints of national and local capacity.
III.3. Investments made under NEPAD–CAADP would provide focused incremental finance to a few priority areas in the sector. By carefully targeting bankable investments, the additional funding should be able to make a difference to production and poverty alleviation through selected activities in the priority areas already identified by the country’s ASDP/ZASP and CAADP. These investments would enable the country to achieve more than was initially planned and budgeted for.
(i) Mainland
III.4. The ASDP Framework and Process Document (URT, 2003) identifies possible public sector investments to be supported by ASDP. As the full participatory planning and implementation process through the DADPs is still being developed, these potential areas of investments must be seen as provisional proposals. They would be improved and further developed during the medium term as farmers and the districts become more able to articulate their needs and priorities, and more effective in getting them integrated into the sectoral plans and budgets.
III.5. The activities under the ASDP to be implemented at the district and field level (ASDP Sub– Component A; see Annex 1) include: (i) Water and Land Management, and Irrigation Development; (ii) Sustainable Natural Resource Use; (iii) Range Management, Livestock Production and Animal
24 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
Health; (iv) Crop Production and Protection; (v) Storage, Post–harvest and Agro–processing; (vi) Agricultural Mechanisation; and (vii) Local Cross–cutting and Cross–sectoral Issues.12
III.6. At the Central government (national) level (ASDP Sub–Component B; see Annex 1), the priority areas of implementation would to support by improvements in: (i) Policy and Regulatory Frameworks; (ii) Indirect support to implementation in the field; (iii) District Institutions; (iv) Agricultural Information and Advocacy; (v) Community–level Farmers’ Groups Investment; (vi) Research, Advisory and Technical Services; (vii) Private Sector Development; (viii) Market and Agricultural Finance Development; and (ix) Cross–cutting and Cross–sectoral Issues.
III.7. Finally, also at the national level, there would be cross–cutting and cross–sectoral activities (ASDP Sub–Component C) such as support to combat HIV/AIDS, gender concerns, environmental management, and interaction with other sectors involved in natural resource management, energy, land legislation, water and communication.
(ii) Zanzibar
III.8. The Zanzibar Agricultural Strategic Plan (ZASP), which is not yet completed, builds on the ZPRP, hence it will provide the guidance for selecting priority intervention in Zanzibar (see below). Zanzibar faces many challenges in addressing its economic development goals and its effort towards reducing the level of poverty. To realise its objectives Zanzibar has adopted some mechanism of United Nations Millennium Development Goals including those which ensure environmental sustainability. Zanzibar intends to realise such objectives by attracting investment that would guarantee the sustainability of its resource base but at the same time maintain social and cultural fabrics.
B. Priority Areas for Investment
III.9. Two priority investment areas were identified for the Mainland where it would be possible to develop bankable investments under the CAADP. The areas include: (i) Irrigation, Water Harvesting and Land Management; and (ii) Increasing Private Sector Involvement in Agriculture (crops and livestock), Forestry and Fisheries. These general areas respond to both national priorities and CAADP Pillars. They also fit into the priority areas for the SADC Action Plan. It should be stressed that these areas of investment focus on the technical side of the operations. There would, in all activities, be a concomitant need for investment in institutional development and capacity building. These would need to be integrated into the design of each bankable investment.
• Irrigation, Water Harvesting and Land Management: Irrigation and Water Control; Water Harvesting in Drought–prone Areas; River Basin and Catchment Management; Land Husbandry; and Land Survey and Titling; and
• Increasing Private Sector Involvement: Crops, Livestock; Forestry and Fisheries
III.10. The above list was further organized in four sub–areas for future development into Bankable Investment Profiles (BIPs). The main criteria used for the final selection were based on (i) whether the proposed activities fell under the control of the ASLM and the MNRT, (ii) whether incremental investment would be likely to make a real practical difference in the field in the short– or medium–
12 Rural infrastructure and energy; Civil service and LGA reform; Land Act implementation; Health (HIV/AIDS, Malaria); Gender; Education; Environmental Management; Forestry and Fisheries; Water, etc.
25 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
term, and (iii) the extent of existing financing already available in similar areas. However, additional criteria were used, including whether or not the ASLM themselves were able to control the outcome of the investment.13
III.11. Following internal consultation with the Mainland NEPAD team and Zanzibar, it was agreed that Zanzibar will adhere to the same broad priority investment areas, namely: (i) Irrigation, Water Harvesting and Land Management, and (ii) Increasing Private Sector Involvement in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.
C. Investment Profiles
III.12. This section identifies the broad investment areas selected for possible development interventions as BIPs under CAADP support. Bankable Investment Profiles are defined as “documents elaborated in a format and with the information that could make them favourably considered by the financial institutions, donors and private investors as foreseen in the July 2003 Maputo Declaration”. The first four Profiles are for the Mainland, the final two are for Zanzibar.
Investment Profiles 1 and 2 (Mainland): Irrigation, Water Control and Water Harvesting
III.13. The Mainland National Irrigation Master Plan (NIMP) has already identified a range of possible investments. They include the expansion of irrigated areas as well as the construction of dams to improve the control of water resources. Estimates of potential budget requirements in this sub– sector over the next fifteen years range from US$345m to US$475m. Although these figures are based on historical performance, it is important to note that national implementation capacity remains limited, and any such substantial expansion would need to be accompanied by very significant investment in training and capacity development. It would be crucial to make realistic assessments of what can actually be achieved, rather than raise false expectations. While in the detailed preparation of the BIPs a number of options need to be considered and reviewed, it is the opinion of the specialists working on the NIMP that there are several priority sites which provide examples of potential investments.
III.14. Water harvesting is a relatively low–cost technique for increasing production, husbanding the land and reducing risk. It has significant potential for widespread adoption, but is currently little used in Tanzania. Additionally, small–scale, in–field water harvesting systems have tremendous potential for use throughout drought–prone and semi–arid areas. These simple systems use hand–build configurations of earth bunds (tied–ridges, half–moons, ‘negarim’) and pits (‘zai’) to retain surface runoff and increase on–site infiltration. The systems concentrate soil moisture in the planted area and offer the opportunity of precisely targeting the application of scarce compost, fertilizer or manure. The impact of these simple systems on both yield and risk management can be very significant. Under certain conditions, water harvesting systems can be effectively combined with low– or zero–tillage practices.
III.15. Additional support to the development of water harvesting systems (training, demonstration, study tours and farmer–to–farmer field visits) could have an important impact in the semi–arid areas. Elsewhere in Sub–Saharan Africa these systems have been effectively used for crops, range production, agro–forestry and fodder crops.
13 For example, the land tenure and titling issues, and framework legislation to recognize farmers groups are outside the control of ASLM. It would therefore be imprudent to propose a BIP for such issues. These complex and crucial issues will be addressed under ASDP Sub–Component C (see Annex 2).
26 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
III.16. Two separate BIPs will be prepared for this investment profile area. One will present proposals for a large multi–sectoral investment for the Madibira Rural Development14, and the other investments in District Irrigation Schemes that would be implemented through District Agricultural Development Plans (DADPs).
Investment Profile 3 (Mainland): Private Sector Development for Crops and Livestock
III.17. Investment in this area would build on work already underway by the Private Sector Foundation, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, the Ministry of Cooperatives and Marketing, the Ministry of Water and Livestock Development, and the Tanzania Investment Centre. The intention is to enable the government to create an attractive enabling environment for increased small–, medium– and large–scale investment in agriculture. While the natural potential and the government policies for greater private sector involvement exist, the response has been somewhat limited. It is therefore important to understand what are the perceived constraints, what incentives and conditions are needed to attract small and large investors, and what else needs to be done to mobilize the tremendous potential capacity of the private sector. This is an area of considerable concern to the ASLM.
III.18. This area of focus aims to support small and large scale crop and livestock producers and processors, and to help build up better linkages between the two levels. It will provide the information and policy and fiscal support to encourage national and international private sector investment in the sector. The details of the activities would be determined during the preparation of the more detailed Bankable Investment Profile. However, it is possible to identify activities which would respond to current needs and potential. These include:
• Contract Farming and Outgrowers: Already started with some crops, most notably tea, sugar and wheat, there is considerable further potential to support the development of agreements between large–scale and small–scale producers so that the small–scale operators can gain from technical expertise and the benefits of scale by contractual association with large scale producers.
• Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) Development: Tanzania and Tanzanian farmers loose considerably through limited local capacity to process agricultural produce. This provides advantages for competitors and results in the loss of a significant amount of potential added value to the product, especially for marketing and local processing.
• New Market Development: Through the provision of market and technical information and the establishment of suitable incentives, the government could encourage farmers to develop crops for new markets and exploit production potential for established crops. There is, for example, an increasing demand for soya beans on the world market, in particular in Europe and China. 15 There is a potentially lucrative market for which assistance can be provided to growers to respond to this opportunity and develop trade agreements accordingly. Soya grows well in Tanzania, but the crop is little known by
14 Which would constitute a second phase of the ADB–funded Madibira Smallholder Agricultural Development Project. 15 According to FAO estimates, soybean production worldwide increased from 115 million tonnes (mt) in 1993 to 190 mt in 2003, i.e. an increase of about 65 percent. In 2003, the world leading producers are the USA (35 percent), and Latin America (mainly Brazil and Argentina which account for 46 percent), and China (9 percent), with Africa accounting for only 0.5 percent.
27 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
either small or large scale farmers. Similarly, there is a potential market for the development of niche markets for organic and semi–organic produce.
• Cassava is a major crop throughout much of Tanzania and critical to food security, especially in drought–prone areas. There is also a significant opportunity for income generation. Total annual production is currently about 1.5 million tonnes (approximately half the average maize crop and roughly the same as annual rice production). A conference jointly organised by NEPAD and the International Food Policy and Research Institute in 2003 strongly recommended that cassava be promoted as a poverty fighter across Africa. This has led to NEPAD’s African Cassava Initiative whose vision is the “increased contribution of cassava as a food security crop and a major source of industrial raw materials for income generation in Africa by 2015” (NEPAD, 2004). The goal is to tap the enormous potential of cassava to work for food security and income generation. This option will be explored.
• Input Delivery and Marketing: The development of effective private sector input delivery process, and crop and livestock marketing systems is not yet complete. There are a number of projects and programmes that are addressing the problems, but additional support will be required in certain areas.
• Poultry Development: With some 47 million chicken in the country, mostly under the control of women, poultry are crucial to daily survival and income generation. Yet annually some 30 percent of the national flock perish from Newcastle Disease (NCD), an acute, highly contagious disease. It is preventable through vaccination. There is tremendous potential to improve production, increase rural incomes and enhance home nutrition through effectively tackling this simple challenge.
• Meat processing and Marketing: Currently, there is no meat processing plant in Tanzania. Suitably encouraged private sector initiatives could rapidly facilitate meat processing and marketing of the potentially vast quantity of meat.
• Milk Collection, Processing and Marketing: There are poor linkages between the milk producers of the traditional livestock sector and the urban and peri–urban consumers, who currently use imported milk. Suitably encouraged private sector initiatives could rapidly facilitate improved processing, packaging and marketing of the vast quantity of milk that is already produced. This, in turn, would provide stimulus for improved husbandry and, eventually, the introduction of improved breeds and production techniques.
Investment Profile 4 (Mainland): Private Sector Development for Forestry
III.19. Although central and local governments control a significant part of Tanzania’s forest resources, there is increasing acknowledgement that local communities and the private sector will have an important role to play in the management and exploitation of the nation’s forest resources. This has already started through the implementation of the Participatory Forest Management Component of the National Forest Programme, and will expand through encouraging the increasing involvement of the private sector in other areas including: • Commercial plantation development; • Marketing and processing wood and non–wood forest products, and • Delivery of forest services — especially community organisation and technical extension.
28 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
III.20. The development of detailed proposals for this area would be undertaken in conjunction with the Forest and Beekeeping Division (FBD) of the MNRT.
Investment Profile 5 (Zanzibar): Zanzibar Land Management And Irrigation Development
III.21. The Zanzibar National Irrigation Master Plan (ZNIMP) presents the framework and strategies for sustainable irrigation scheme development with the target year 2020, aiming to create an enabling and conducive environment for improving productivity and profitability of the agricultural sector. To achieve this, the ZNIMP proposes 31 specific interventions for improving irrigation performance, mainly through capacity building of support services and farmers. The ZNIMP also proposes further irrigation and water harvesting development over 16 schemes as follows:
Proposed Irrigation Schemes Short–term Medium–term Long–term (by type) 2003–2007 by 2012 by 2020 Surface by dam reservoir 356 ha 756 ha 1,349 ha Surface by diversion weir 90 ha 132 ha 432 ha Groundwater by pump 178 ha 178 ha 602 ha Total 624 ha 1,066 ha 2,838 ha
III.22. An integrated catchment area management approach would be promoted, including both the improvement of land management within the catchment (rainfed annual and perennial cropping, pasture and forest), and the development of irrigation. The required cost of implementation of the proposed irrigation improvement interventions and new development, as well as land management within the respective catchments, is estimated at US$11.3 million. One BIP will be prepared for this investment profile area.
Investment Profile 6 (Zanzibar): Zanzibar Private Sector Development for Agriculture
III.23. Investments in this area focus on partnerships between processors and primary producers in fostering private sector involvement in facilitation of support services. The objective would be to create an enabling environment for increased small–, medium– and large–scale investment in the agricultural sector. The partnership between processors, traders and primary producers would therefore be essential in ensuring access to markets, inputs, and technology for primary producers and in providing a sustainable raw material base for the processors.
III.24. This area of focus would aim to support small and large scale crop, fisheries, forestry and livestock producers and processors, and to help build up better linkages between various levels. It would provide the policy, fiscal and information support to encourage national and international private sector investment in the sector. The government would also support private sector initiatives to establish outgrower and contract farming schemes. One BIP will be prepared for this investment profile.
Linkages Between Priority Areas of Investment and CAADP Pillars
III.25. Table 3 shows the linkages between the areas of possible investment identified in this report and the five CAADP Pillars. It also shows preliminary, indicative levels of finance required to implement the activities over 5 years. It must be stressed that these are provisional estimates, and are not based on detailed assessment of either the extent of the needs and actual implementation capacity. This work would be undertaken during the development of the proposals for Bankable Investments.
29 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
Table 3: Linkage Between Priority Areas of Investment and CAADP Pillars Possible Bankable Investment CAADP Investment Pillars Est. US$ Mainland Irrigation and Water Control: (i) Madibira Rural Development 1, 2 50,000,000 (ii) District Irrigation Development 34,050,000 Mainland Private Sector Development for Crops and Livestock 3, 5 8,500,000 Mainland Private Sector Development for Forest Management 3, 4, 5 7,200,000 Zanzibar Land Management and Development of Irrigation Schemes 1, 2 11,300,000 Zanzibar Private Sector Development for Agriculture 3, 4, 5 9,600,000
IV. FINANCING GAP
A. Mainland
IV.1. The agriculture sector in Tanzania cuts across several different ministries and consequently depends on the budgets of different ministries; principally the four ASLM — the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MAFS), the Ministry of Water and Livestock Development (MWLD), the Ministry of Cooperative and Marketing (MCM), and President’s Office – Regional Administration and Local Government (PO–RALG). These four ministries provide the leadership in, and channel financing for, core agriculture activities including agricultural research and development, extension services, livestock development, food security, production and marketing cooperative, animal production, policy and regulatory framework, the Strategic Grain Reserve, and the provision of other technical services. Additional ministries provide supporting services related to agriculture within the context of a wider range of rural development work including rural roads, fisheries, beekeeping and forestry.
IV.2. Financing for the agriculture sector comes from both domestic and foreign resources. The overall agriculture public sector recurrent budget is mostly domestically financed, though it is difficult to account precisely for the role of program and budget support in financing recurrent costs. On the other hand, the agriculture sector development budget is mostly foreign financed, though there is some limited counterpart funding from domestic resources. Table 4 shows the breakdown of recurrent budget and development budget in agriculture sector lead ministries over the medium term period (MTEF 2004/05–2006/07). It also shows the breakdown of financing/resources in agriculture lead ministries according to local and foreign sources.
IV.3. However, these figures do not portray the true picture of funds actually allocated to the sector in the strictest of senses as: (i) a significant proportion of the allocation for MWLD is for urban water and (ii) the large proportion of the PO–RALG budget is used for local government functions that have little direct impact on agriculture. These figures therefore can not portray the true situation relating to available funds for agricultural development per se.
IV.4. Resource envelope ceilings and projections are based on the estimates of domestic revenue and of donor support as submitted to the External Finance Department of the Ministry of Finance. Most of development financing is from donor–supported projects, though some comes from program support through budget or basket funding. It can be seen from Table 4 that donor financing of development budget appears to be significantly decreasing over time. This, however, is mainly due to the fact that donors do not give firm commitments for the outer years of the MTEF. Consequently, in cases where the information is provided it is generally underestimated.
30 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
Table 4: Proposed Total Allocation for Agriculture Sector Lead Ministries from MTEF, Mainland (TSh million) 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Ceiling Projection Projection Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MAFS) Recurrent 29,080 29,883 30,436 Development 48,461 44,584 39,675 Local 6,436 6,515 7,244 Foreign 42,025 38,069 32,431 Sub total 77,541 74,467 70,111 Ministry of Water and Livestock Development (MWLD) Recurrent 18,912 19,419 19,751 Development 80,246 73,447 64,438 Local 7,097 7,183 7,988 Foreign 73,149 66,264 56,450 Sub total 99,158 92,866 84,189 Ministry of Cooperatives and Marketing (MCM) Recurrent 6,863 7,025 7,105 Development 548 515 484 Local 169 171 191 Foreign 379 344 293 Sub total 7,411 7,540 7,589 President’s Office – Regional Admin. and Local Government (PO–RALG) Recurrent 27,948 28,595 28,899 Development 224,535 203,429 173,372 Local 270 273 304 Foreign 224,265 203,156 173,068 Sub total 252,483 232,024 202,271 Source: Ministry of Finance, Budget Guidelines (MTEF 2004/05–2006/07)
IV.5. Table 5 shows the amount of resources allocated to purely agriculture activities (excluding urban water, and non–agriculture PO–RALG activities) through the ASLM over the MTEF period (2004/05–2006/07). The amounts indicated in MTEF projection include agriculture financing at district level and sectoral level for both priority and non–priority activities. NEPAD targets over the MTEF are calculated by taking 10 percent of the total national budget. The NEPAD financing gap is the difference between the two.
IV.6. The Heads of State and Government of the African Union (AU) committed themselves through the Maputo Declaration of July 2003, to increase budgetary allocations to agriculture and rural development to 10 percent of the national budget by 2008/09 (i.e. within five years). The target of 10 percent is defined to be the “the amount of the total national budget including domestically funded, program and project grants and loans resource allocated to agriculture and rural development”. The difference between the 10 percent expected by the NEPAD–CAADP agreements and actual budget allocation is, for the purposes of this report, called the “CAADP Financing Gap”, or “CAADP Gap”.
IV.7. Using the data from Table 5, Figure 2 shows that the anticipated “CAADP Gap” for the agricultural sector lead ministries — for purely agricultural operations — during the current MTEF period is about 6.6 percent. This means that in order to achieve the envisaged the Maputo target of 10 percent by 2008/09, allocation to the sector in the Mainland has to increase by more than 30 percent per year over the next five years.
31 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
Table 5: “CAADP Financing Gap” for the Agriculture Sector Lead Ministries, Mainland (TSh million) 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Ceiling Projection Projection Total national budget 3,247,723 3,274,373 3,239,564 NEPAD–CAADP target 324,772 327,437 323,955 (10 percent of total national budget) MTEF projection for ASLM 112,327 111,444 111,569 (with non–agricultural activities removed from MWLD and PO–RALG budgets) CAADP Financing Gap 212,445 215,993 212,385 (as compared to the 10% target) Source: MoF, Budget Guidelines, 2004.
10.0%
9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0% 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 CAADP Target 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% MTEF Projection 3.5% 3.4% 3.4% Gap 6.5% 6.6% 6.6% CAADP Target MTEF Projection Gap Note: excluding urban water and non–agricultural PO–RALG budgets. Figure 2: Agriculture Financing Gap – Purely Agricultural Activities within the Mainland Agricultural Sector Lead Ministries
IV.8. Table 6 shows the allocations to agriculture and other related rural development sectors after rural development activities, including rural roads, forestry, beekeeping and fisheries, have been added. The estimated CAADP financing gap for the wider range of all rural development activities, based on the data from Table 6, is indicated in Figure 3.
IV.9. It can be seen that by using this more inclusive set of data, the CAADP gap is significantly reduced when compared to that of the purely agricultural activities of the ASLM. However, the gap still remains significant with an average of 4.1 percent per year over the MTEF period. Under this scenario, in order to achieve the envisaged CAADP’s target of 10 percent national budget allocation to rural development, by 2008/09, allocation to the sector in the Mainland has to increase by some 14 percent per year over the next five years.
32 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
Table 6: “CAADP Financing Gap” for Rural Development, Mainland (Mainland, TSh million) 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Ceiling Projection Projection Total national budget 3,247,723 3,274,373 3,239,564 NEPAD–CAADP target 324,772 327,437 323,955 (10 percent of total national budget) MTEF projection for ASLM 199,845 193,348 185,404 (purely agricultural ASLM allocations and other relevant Rural Development components) CAADP Financing Gap 124,927 134,089 138,550 Source: MoF, Budget Guidelines, 2004; and authors’ calculations.
10.0%
9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0% 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 CAADP Target 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% MTEF Projection 6.2% 5.9% 5.7% Gap 3.8% 4.1% 4.3%
CAADP Target MTEF Projection Gap
Note: including rural roads, forestry, beekeeping and fishery Figure 3: NEPAD Financing Gap for Rural Development (Mainland)
IV.10. The indications are that in order to meet the agreed NEPAD–CAADP targets, there is need for significant growth in the budget allocations to agriculture and rural development activities.
B. Zanzibar
IV.11. In Zanzibar, MANREC provides finance for developing and implementing policy and regulatory framework, agricultural research and extension services, food security, marketing and cooperative development, as well as irrigation development and other technical aspects related to the sector. the sector receives financing from both domestic and foreign contributions. Domestic finance cover almost entirely the recurrent budget. The development budget is mostly financed by donor finance, with limited government counterpart funding. Table 7 shows the breakdown of the recurrent and development budget of the ministry over the medium term period (MTEF 2004–2006/07), with the breakdown in local and foreign finance.
33 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
IV.12. However, the figures shown in Table 7 do not provide a comprehensive picture of allocation to the agriculture sector as some activities, which could not be quantified, notably agriculture marketing and trade, are undertaken by MTIMT, while the few issues related to regional and district agricultural developments are financed by the Ministry of Regional Administration and Special Departments.
Table 7: Proposed Total Allocation for the MANREC, Zanzibar (TSh million) 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Ceiling Projection Projection Recurrent 4,171.00 4,283.00 4,451.00 Development 3,046.25 3,151.75 3,474.75 Local 243.70 353.14 277.98 Foreign 2802.55 2,899.61 3,196.77 Total 7,217.25 7,434.75 7,925.75 Source: Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs, Budget Guidelines (MTEF 2004/05–2006/07).
IV.13. Resource envelope ceilings and projections are based on the estimates of domestic revenue and donor support as submitted to MFEA. Most of the development financing is from donor– supported projects, from loans and grants. Table 8 shows the amount of resources allocated to agriculture and related activities over the MTEF period (i.e. 2004/05–2006/07). The amount indicated in the MTEF projection includes agriculture financing at district level and sectoral level for both priority and non–priority activities. CAADP targets over the MTEF are calculated by taking 10 percent of the total national budget. The CAADP financing gap is the difference between the two.
IV.14. The data from Table 8 show that the anticipated “CAADP gap” for the agricultural sector through MANREC agricultural operations — during the current MTEF period is about 5.3 percent. This means that in order to achieve the envisaged CAADP’s target of 10 percent by 2008/09, allocation to the sector has to increase by over 20 percent per year over the next five years. The indications are that in order to meet the agreed CAADP targets, there is still need for significant budget allocations to agriculture and related activities.
Table 8: CAADP Financing Gap for the MANREC, Zanzibar (TSh million) 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Ceiling Projection Projection Total National Budget 97,304.24 96,098.45 101,087.23 CAADP Target (10 percent of the National Budget) 9,730.42 9,609.85 10,108.72 MTEF projection for MANREC 4,423.14 4,547.74 4,728.98 CAADP Financing Gap 5,307.28 5,062.11 5,379.74 CAADP Financing Gap (percent) 5.4% 5.3% 5.3% Source: MoFEA, Budget Guidelines (2004/05–2006/07)
C. Consolidated Tanzania CAADP Financing Gap
IV.15. The five–year consolidated projections for Mainland and Zanzibar are shown in Table 9. Overall, if the CAADP Target of 10 percent is to be met, there is a need to increase public investment in the agricultural sector over the next five years by more than three fold, from the current estimate of TSh 116,750 million to some TSh 375,355 million.
34 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
Table 9: Agricultural Financing Gap (TSh million) over five years (TSh million) 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Agriculture Programme Requirement 116,750 168,523 233,846 318,698 375,355 Agriculture Programme Forecast 116,750 115,992 116,298 123,276 130,672 Gap (Mainland + Zanzibar) 0 52,532 117,548 195,422 244,683 Total Budget (Mainland + Zanzibar) 3,345,027 3,370,472 3,340,651 3,541,090 3,753,555 Percent Actual 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 Percent Requirements 3.5 5 7 9 10
V. MONITORING AND EVALUATION
A. Implementation Arrangements
V.1. Implementation of the National Medium–Term Investment Programme will be the responsibility of the ASLM and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism in the Mainland, and the MANREC in Zanzibar. All regional programmes and priorities will be harmonized and implemented in line with the existing national framework. In the Mainland, MAFS will guide the implementation process, which will be operated within the ASDS/ASDP framework. Private sector service providers, private sector operators in production, processing and marketing, and other social and economic agencies would be involved to ensure that economic investments are effectively implemented.
V.2. The programme implementation would adhere to the Tanzania Assistance Strategy (TAS), which is the government initiative aimed at restoring local ownership and leadership by promoting partnership in the design and execution of development programmes. It seeks to promote good governance, transparency, accountability, capacity building and effectiveness of aid. TAS is the country’s attempt to consolidate and deepen the ongoing initiatives to overcome remaining problems in delivering development assistance. The TAS best practices in development cooperation are presented in the following page’s Box.
(i) Role of Stakeholders
V.3. Public Sector: The government will facilitate the process and continue to develop and maintain a favourable macro–economic policy environment conducive for private sector participation in the proposed interventions. These will focus specifically on the provision of support services required for increasing and sustaining agricultural productivity, growth of real farm incomes and food security.
V.4. Private Sector: The private sector comprises of various entrepreneurs, traders, farmers, fisher–folk and livestock keepers, and other individuals and organizations that are motivated by profit to undertake investment in the sector, including provision of rural financial services to farmers. The private sector will be responsible for undertaking commercial activities such as production, processing and marketing. Effective private sector participation requires a conducive environment that includes incentives and operating rules that facilitate private sector involvement.
35 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
TAS Best Practices in Development Cooperation • Government leadership in developing policy priorities, strategic frameworks, and institutionalised cooperation in various areas/sector. • Government involves civil society and the private sector in developing national policies, strategies and priorities • Government prioritises and rationalizes development expenditures in line with stated priorities and resource availability. • Integration of external resources into the strategic expenditure framework. • Integration of reporting and accountability systems. • Adequacy in resource disbursements relative to prior commitments. • Timing of resource disbursement is responsive to exogenous shocks to the Tanzanian economy. • Donor policies complement domestic capacity building. • ODA commitments are made for longer time periods. • Improvement in public financial management by government. • Government has created an appropriate national accountability system for public expenditure. • Ministries, regions and districts receive clean audit reports from the Controller and Auditor General. • Transparency in reporting and accountability at the national and sectoral level. Source: TAS Annual Implementation Report for FY2003/04.
V.5. Farmers Organizations: These are grass–root organizations, which are important for development and change in the rural areas. They provide services such as credit, extension, input supplies and market channel for agricultural produce. They will be encouraged to support increased production and productivity, processing, marketing and credit mobilization. The involvement of communities and their organizations is essential to ensure success in the implementation of the policy.
V.6. NGOs and CBOs: These are essential partners in fostering development as they play an important role in the provision of knowledge and mobilization of resources at the grass–root level. They just require an enabling environment for NGOs/CBOs interventions. A strong partnership with NGOs/CBOs in fostering rural development in Tanzania will be encouraged.
(ii) Financial Arrangements
V.7. As part of the implementation of the NMTIP a series of financial arrangements are required. These include:
• Increase government budget for agriculture to 10 percent of the national budget by 2007, as agreed in the Maputo Declaration;
• Encourage local and international Investments through medium– and large–scale investors, NGOs, CBOs and Civil Societies. These will play a big role in financing agriculture in the rural communities;
• Financial institutions including commercial banks, co–operative banks, and development finance institutions will be encouraged to provide investment and operating capital to farmers, traders, artisans and agro–processors. Micro financial services are very crucial for the development of agriculture and the rural sector;
36 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
• Support from and strong collaboration with international development partners (multilateral and bilateral) will be sought for the implementation of the NMTIP;
• In line with the TAS, shift from the current project mode to a programmatic approach, with joint donor financing arrangements established, such as the ASDP basket funding mechanism in the Mainland.
B. Monitoring and Evaluation
V.8. Effective implementation of this programme will depend on an institutional capacity to co– ordinate joint programmes, monitor and evaluate progress. The NMTIP will be monitored within the Mainland Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) ASDP Framework and Process Documents and Zanzibar ZASP. An approach to M&E will be used that complies with the National Poverty Monitoring System. This involves routine tracking, at a national level, of a set of core agricultural indicators, which are part of the Local Government Reform Programme Routine Data System.
V.9. On the Mainland, the internal ASDP monitoring framework would use the output from the Districts, the PRSP and the Agricultural Census undertaken by the Tanzania Bureau of Statistics. The overall monitoring criteria, which were established by the Rural Development Strategy, include: (i) Observation of national standards; (ii) Consistency with national development goals; (iii) Cohesiveness between components; (iv) Compliance with implementation schedule; and (v) Stakeholder performance. These would form the basis for the M&E framework for activities implemented under the NMTIP. ASDP is currently preparing a new M&E Log frame, to guide the process used to bring together the different component of a CAADP M&E process. Some performance indicators to be used when monitoring and assessing the impact of the implementation include poverty trends, food security, quality of environment, contribution of agriculture to GDP growth, and growth of GDP per capita.
C. Coordination
V.10. Effective Inter–Ministerial Consultative Mechanisms (ICM) will be important both in the Mainland and in Zanzibar. The CAADP embraces a wide range of rural activities, and hence involves a large number of sectoral ministries. With the expansion of the scope of the CAADP pillars, other sectors — most notably forestry and fisheries — would become increasingly involved in the process. Coordination for this would be organised within the responsible ministries themselves. In addition, in the Mainland, the External Assistance Coordination Unit of MAFS in collaboration with the ASDP Secretariat will create a database for NEPAD–CAADP intervention profiles and update the IMC whenever required.
V.11. At a higher level of government, CAADP inter–ministerial coordination and review would be undertaken through the Inter–Ministerial Technical Committee drawing membership from linked ministries (ASLIM, MNRT, Trade and Industries, President’s Office – Planning and Privatisation and Vice President’s Office – Environment & Poverty).
V.12. Coordination between Mainland and Zanzibar would take place at technical level between the concerned ministries, with facilitation from NEPAD focal points, and at higher level through established inter–governmental coordination mechanisms.
37
NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
ANNEXES:
Annex 1: ASDP Components Annex 2: List of References
NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
Annex 1: ASDP Components
Sub–programmes Main Components Proposed Sub–Components A. Agricultural Sector Support A.1. Investment and Implementation May include amongst other: and Implementation at District • Irrigation and water management and Field Level (The production and processing of agricultural • Range management outputs) • Livestock development and animal health Indicative funding allocation: • Better land husbandry 75 percent though DADP (indicative funding allocation: 70–80 percent of • Crop production and protection Sub–programme A) • Mechanisation • Storage and post–harvest • Agro–processing A.2. Policy, Regulatory and Institutional • Policy Framework Framework • Regulatory Framework (Supporting enabling environment at LGAs for all • District Institutions farmers) • Agricultural Information & advocacy A.3. Research, Advisory Services and Training • Client–oriented research (Establishing the support services needed for • Animal and plant multiplication agricultural growth) • Advisory services • Training of producers • Service provider training A.4. Private Sector Development, Marketing • Private sector development and Agricultural Finance • Market development and infrastructure (Supporting the commercialization of agricultural • Producer organisations growth) • Financial institutions and services A.5. Cross Cutting Issues with Other Sectors to include amongst other: (Managing links between Agriculture and other • Rural Infrastructure and Energy sectors) • Civil Service and LGA Reform • Village Land Act Implementation • Health (HIV/AIDS, Malaria etc.) • Gender • Environmental Management • Forestry and Fisheries • Water • Education B. Agricultural Sector Support B.1. Policy, Regulatory and Institutional • Policy & Regulatory Framework at National Level Framework (Creating a national enabling • Agricultural Information environment for all farmers and other actors • Advocacy Indicative funding allocation: in the sector) 20 percent B.2. Research, Advisory and Technical • Research Services, and Training • Genetic Material Multiplication and (Establishing the basis for agricultural growth) Conservation • Advisory Services • Technical Services • Training B.3. Private Sector Development, Marketing • Marketing and Rural Finance • Agricultural Finance • Private Sector Development C. Cross–Cutting Issues with May include amongst other links and • Gender other Sectors cooperation with: • Education Managing links between • Rural Infrastructure and Energy • Environmental Management agriculture and other sectors. • Civil Service and LGA Reform • Forestry and Fisheries Indicative funding allocation: • Land Acts’ Implementation • Water 5 percent • Health (HIV/AIDS, Malaria)
Annex 1 – 1 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
STATUS OF PROJECTS AND PROGRAMMES Project Title Projects/Programmes/Components Regions Districts Financing Status Agricultural Marketing AMSDP has the following components: Manyara Hanang, Babati, Simanjiro, Mbulu Government of Implementation started in January 2004 and Services Development • Agricultural Marketing Policy Development (facilitate Arusha Arusha, Arumeru, Simanjiro, Monduli. Tanzania and so far the following activities have been Programme (AMSDP) process of establishing appropriate policies, mkt. Kilimanjaro Rombo, Same, Hai, Mwanga, Moshi IFAD, ADB, implemented: information, M&E); Rural, Moshi Urban. Irish Aid • Programme launching workshop to 7 years programme • Producer empowerment and market linkages Tanga Lushoto, Korogwe, Muheza, Tanga stakeholders; 2003–2009 (facilitate access to credit); Rural, Tanga Urban. US$42.3m • Procurement of material equipment for (Ongoing) • Financial Market Support; Mbeya Kyela, Mbeya Rural, Mbeya Urban, Ileje, activities implementation; • Rural market infrastructure (markets and roads); Rungwe, Mbozi, Chunya and Mbarali. • Training of stakeholders; • Programme coordination and organization. Ruvuma Songea Urban, Songea Rural, • Recruitment of staff and Partner Agencies; Namtumbo, Mbinga • Recruiting Technical Assistants. Iringa Ludewa, Njombe, Makete, Mufindi Rukwa Sumbawanga Urban, Sumbawanga Rural and Nkasi. Participatory Agricultural PADEP has two components: Morogoro Morogoro Rural World Bank • Project became effective in September Development and I. Community Agric. Development Subprojects: Iringa Iringa Rural 2003. Activity Planning will expand to 26 Empowerment Project • Community investment subprojects; Manyara Hanang US$70.0m districts in Tanzania Mainland and two (PADEP) • Farmer group investment subprojects; Singida Singida Rural districts in Zanzibar.
• Community capacity building. Arusha Arumeru • In mainland it is proposed to expand to 5 years project Tanga and Tabora Regions. II. Capacity Building and Institutional Strengthening: Kilimanjaro Hai 2003–2008 • Capacity Building completed in the first • District capacity building; Mtwara Masasi (Ongoing) eight districts. • National capacity building; Lindi Nachingwea • Action plans for implement of Farmer • Policy regulatory reform/private sector; Group Investment Sub–projects and • Strengthening of technical linkages; community. • Project management and coordination. • Investment sub–projects completed. • Eighteen (18) more districts to begin. Capacity building in July 2004. Participatory Irrigation PIDP has four objectives: Manyara Babati and Mbulu Government of • Planning and design completed in year Development Project • To increase availability and reliability of water for Tabora Nzega and Igunga Tanzania, IFAD 2001/2002. Actual construction started in (PIDP) irrigation and domestic use; Singida Manyoni and Iramba and Communities, 2003. Irish Aid • To improve support for farmers using irrigation water; Dodoma Dodoma Rural and Mpwapwa • Twenty one (21) schemes planned. Twelve
2000–2006 • To increase capacity to plan, construct and operate Mwanza Kwimba and Misungwi (12) schemes completed/operational, others US$25.26m at different stages of construction. (Ongoing) irrigation schemes; Shinyanga Maswa and Shinyanga Rural • To enable efficient coordination and management of • Capacity building completed; physical structures. investment ongoing.
Annex 1 – 2 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
STATUS OF PROJECTS AND PROGRAMMES Project Title Projects/Programmes/Components Regions Districts Financing Status Agricultural Sector ASPS implements following components: Iringa Iringa Rural, Mufindi, Njombe, Makete, DANIDA and GoT Programme Support • Institutional support/Policy; Rudewa, Kilolo (ASPS–Phase II) • On farm seed multiplication; Mbeya Mbeya rural, Tukuyu, Kyela, Mbarali, US$58.0m • District Agricultural Development Plans; Chunya, Mbozi. 2001–2007 • Private Agricultural Sector support (develop business (Ongoing) plans, loan guarantees, commercial agric.). Tanzania Livestock TLMP includes the following components: Arusha, Manyara, ADB Near completion. Marketing Project (TLMP) • Rehabilitation and construction of essential livestock Dar es Salaam, marketing infrastructure; Coast, Dodoma, 1994–2005 • Establishment of a marketing intelligence service; Kagera, Kigoma, Kilimanjaro, Mara, (Ongoing) • Construction of abattoir and meat industry training Mwanza, centre; and Shinyanga, • Provision of regulatory functions for livestock Singida, Tabora, movement and Tanga Pan African Programme PACE includes the following main components: Country–wide EU and G)T • Epidemiology–surveillance system in for the Control of • Capacity building of national animal health services to place; electronic communication system in Epizootics (PACE) plan, implement, monitor and evaluate the strategic €3.3m place (http//mifugo.go.tz). control of epizootic diseases • Tanzania meets OIE criteria for 2001–2006 • Recognition of Rinderpest Disease Freedom by the Rinderpest. Office International des Epizooties (OIE) • FMD outbreaks monitored. (Ongoing) • Development of private animal health service • ASF diagnosis made in–country. providers • Veterinary laboratories upgraded (near completion). District Agricultural Project components will include the following: Kigoma Kigoma Rural, Kasulu, Kibondo ADB and GoT • Project was appraised in August 2004, Sector Investment Project • Support to farmer group formulation and enterprises Mara Bunda, Serengeti, Tarime, Musoma negotiated in October 2004, scheduled to be (DASIP) management Rural US$ 57.0m submitted to ADB Board in December 2004. • Support to community Development Activities Mwanza Sengerema, Ukerewe, Geita, Magu, • Project effectiveness expected in March 6 years • Formulation of Micro–finance Institutions and Kwimba and Misungwi 2005. 2005–2011 provision of credit Kagera Bukoba Rural, Ngara, Karagwe, Muleba • Project Management and Biharamulo Shinyanga Maswa, Meatu, Bariadi, Kahama, Shinyanga Rural, Kishapu and Bukombe
Annex 1 – 3 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
STATUS OF PROJECTS AND PROGRAMMES Project Title Projects/Programmes/Components Regions Districts Financing Status Coffee Quality • Central pulpuries Major coffee Major coffee growing districts to be GoT and EU Identification of project and formulation in Improvement growing regions identified during project formulation June 2004 US$2.5m (Pipeline) District Based • SACCO Dodoma Region Dodoma Rural, Dodoma Urban, GoT and EU Formulation to begin in June 2004 Investment–DADPs in • Market Formulation Linkages Kongwa, Kondoa and Mpwapwa Dodoma Region • DADPs US$7.0m
(Pipeline) Pastoral and Agro– Areas of project interventions Mwanza, Mara, To be decided GoT and IFAD Formulation started in June 2004. Appraisal pastoral Livestock • Development of rangeland in the pastoral areas; Shinyanga, Arusha, in November 2004 Development Programme • Delivery of animal health services; Dodoma, Tabora, US$40.0m (PAPLIDEV) Mbeya, Morogoro, • Milk collection, processing and marketing from Lindi traditional livestock sector; 5 years (2005–2010) • Strengthening of livestock marketing systems.
(Pipeline) Rural Financial Services Has three developmental components: Rukwa Sumbawanga Rural, IFAD and GoT The programme started in August 2001 and Programme (RFSP) • Improvement of Managerial Capacity and Mbeya Mbarali, Rungwe, Kyela, Mbozi is in progress Performance of Grassroots MFIs: Iringa Mufindi and Njombe US$23.7m 5 years – capacity building of local training institutions; Dodoma Dodoma Rural, Kondoa, Mpwapwa (2000–2004) – strengthening MFI management capacity; Singida Singida Rural, Manyoni • Empowerment of the rural poor; Kilimanjaro Moshi Rural, Same and Rombo (Ongoing) • Development of business skills for micro– entrepreneurs in cash management. Agricultural Services Main components: Gradual phasing (IFAD, WB, Ireland, • Project document produced end of May Support Programme • Farmer Empowerment (improving demand for to cover whole GoT) 2004. services and investment) country • Pre–appraisal in May–June 2004. 15 years • Institutional Reforms and Capacity Building operations US$200–250m • IFAD appraisal in July 2004. (Initial estimate) (2005–2020) (research and extension) • World Bank PPF planned for December • Programme Coordination and Quality Control. 2004, with appraisal as part of broader support to ASDP in early 2005. (Pipeline) To be implemented together with support to DADP (see below) with common basket funding instrument. • Effectiveness expected in early 2005.
Annex 1 – 4 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
STATUS OF PROJECTS AND PROGRAMMES Project Title Projects/Programmes/Components Regions Districts Financing Status Capacity Building Project The capacity building components will be determined Coast Region To be decided Japan and GoT • Comprehensive multi donor funded and later. coordinated project would be a sound (Pipeline) approach during formulation. • More dialogue with JICA to request for investment in DADPs in Coast Region. District Agricultural • Community Initiatives and farmer group activities, All Regions through All Districts GoT • Slow progress in implementation of GoT Development Plans including irrigation development. GoT budget; funded DADP interventions. (DADPs)–Annual Plan • To be implemented together with support to ASSP incremental TSh4.0bn • Development Partner formulation in through MTEF (see above) with common basket funding instrument. support through 2003–2004 November 2004; pre–appraisal in February basket, initially in 2005 and appraisal thereafter. (On–going) Coast, Dodoma, Rukwa and Development Ruvuma Regions. partners to contribute through ASDP Basket Fund to be established in early 2005 (WB, JICA, Danida, Ireland, etc.)
Annex 1 – 5
NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
Annex 2: List of References
1. European Union. 2001. Country Strategy Paper 2001–2007. Brussels. 2. FAO. 2003. Concept Note: Review of Rural Project Implementation Constraints. TCI Assistance in the Preparation of Medium–Term Investment Programmes and the Formulation of Bankable Projects in Support to the NEPAD–CAADP Implementation. 3. FAO. 2004a. Report on Technical Meeting: Monitoring Government Expenditure in Agriculture. Socio–Economic Statistics and Analysis Service, FAO, Rome 4. FAO. 2004b. Twenty Third Regional Conference for Africa. Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme Companion Document. 5. Fintecs Consultants. Feasibility study for the Development of Agriculture in Zanzibar. Phase I – Progress Report; August 2004. 6. Fintecs Consultants. Feasibility study for the Development of Agriculture in Zanzibar. Phase II – Strategic Plan; August 2004. 7. Fleshman, M. 2004. Africa pushes for better aid quality: Donors must also be held accountable for their policies and practices. Africa Recovery, NEPAD Website, 6 pages. 8. Harsch, E. 2004. Agriculture: Africa’s “Engine for Growth”. Africa Recovery, NEPAD Website, 5 pages. 9. NEPAD. 2004. The NEPAD Pan–African Cassava Initiative. Proposal for the Program Initiation Phase. May, 2004. Agriculture Division, NEPAD Secretariat, South Africa. 10. Nkuhlu, W. 2003. Statement to the International Policy Conference “Successes in African Agriculture; Building for the Future”. Pretoria, December 2003. 5 pages. 11. PELUM. 2004. Review of Options for the Institutional and Legal Framework for Farm Groups. Draft Working Paper for Agricultural Sector Support Programme. Dodoma. In preparation. 12. SADC. 2004a. Final Communiqué of the 2004 SADC Heads of State and Government Summit on Agriculture and Food Security. Dar es Salaam 13. SADC. 2004b. Enhancing agriculture and food security for poverty reduction in the SADC Region. Key Issues Paper for Extra–Ordinary Summit, Dar es Salaam, 15 May. SADC Secretariat, Gaborone, Botswana 14. Tandon, Y. 2002. NEPAD and FDIS: Symmetries and Contradictions. Paper Presented at the African Scholars’ Forum on the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD), Nairobi, 26–29 April, 2002. 15. URT. 1997a. Fisheries Sector Policy (Mainland), Dar es Salaam. 16. URT. 1997b. Land Policy (Mainland), Dar es Salaam. 17. URT. 1997c. National Agricultural and Livestock Policy (Mainland), Dar es Salaam. 18. URT. 1998. National Forest Policy (Mainland), Dar es Salaam. 19. URT. 2000. Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (Mainland), Dar es Salaam, 63 pages. 20. URT. 2002. National Water Policy (Mainland), Dar es Salaam. 21. URT. 2003a. Agricultural Sector Development Programme Framework and Process Document. Final Draft (Mainland).
Annex 2 – 1 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
22. URT. 2003b. National Irrigation Master Plan (Mainland). Three Volumes. 23. URT. 2003c. Medium Term Plan and Budget Framework for 2003/04 to 2005/06, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (Mainland). 24. URT. 2003d. Medium Term Plan and Budget Framework for 2003/04 to 2005/06, Ministry of Water and Livestock Development (Mainland). 25. URT. 2003e. Medium Term Plan and Budget Framework for 2003/04 to 2005/06, Ministry of Marketing and Cooperatives (Mainland). 26. URT. 2003f. National Irrigation Master Plan (Zanzibar). Two Volumes. 27. URT. 2004. Tanzania Assistance Strategy – Annual Implementation report FY 2003/04; November 2004 28. URT. 2004a. Agricultural Sector Public Expenditure Review (PER) for Financial Year 2003/2004. Draft Report, February, 2004. Economic Research Bureau, University of Dar es Salaam (Mainland). 29. URT. 2004b. Irrigation Development in Tanzania. Current Performance, Institutional Support, Agronomy, Community Participation, Environmental, Infrastructural, Water and Land Related Policies. Draft Report by Working Group 2 of Task Force 1. Agricultural Sector Development Programme (Mainland). 30. URT/FAO. 2000. Soil Fertility Initiative. Concept Paper (Mainland). Joint MAFS/SUA/FAO Investment Centre Report 00/081 CP–URT (20 Oct. 2000). 31. URT/FAO. 2003. Zanzibar Land Husbandry Improvement Programme. Strategy and Action Plan. Joint MANREC/FAO Investment Centre Report 03/007 CP–URT (24 Jan. 2003). 32. World Bank, Netherlands and NORAD. 1994. Tanzania Agricultural Research Project (TARP II) (Mainland). Washington, D.C. 33. World Bank. 2003. Poverty Reduction Support Credit (PRSC) (Mainland),Washington, D.C.
Electronic reference sites 1. European Union. 2001. Country Strategy Paper 2001-2007. Brussels. http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/body/csp_rsp/print/tz_csp_en.pdf#zoom=100 2. IFAD. 1999. Participatory Irrigation Development Programme. Rome. http://www.ifad.org/gbdocs/eb/67/e/EB-99-67-R-16-Rev-1.pdf 3. IFAD. 2000. Rural Finance Services Programme. Rome. http://www.ifad.org/gbdocs/eb/71/e/EB-2000-71-R-18-Rev-1.pdf 4. IFAD, ADB. 2001. Agricultural Marketing Systems Development Programme (ASMDP). Rome. http://www.ifad.org/gbdocs/eb/74/e/EB-2001-74-R-18-Rev-1.pdf 5. URT. Vision 2025. Dar es Salaam. http://www.tanzania.go.tz/vision.htm 6. URT. 1998. Wildlife Policy. Dar es Salaam. http://www.leat.or.tz/publications/wildlife.policy/background.php 7. URT. 2000. Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). Dar es Salaam. http://www.imf.org/external/NP/prsp/2000/tza/02/100100.pdf 8. URT. 2001. Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS). Dar es Salaam. http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/agriculturalsectordevelopmentstrategy.pdf
Annex 2 – 2 NEPAD – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme United Republic of Tanzania: National Medium–Term Investment Programme (NMTIP)
9. URT. 2002. Rural Development Strategy. Dar es Salaam. http://www.developmentgateway.org/node/285491/content/item-detail?item_id=406792 10. URT. 2003: Agricultural Sector Development Programme Framework and Process Document (ASDP). Final Draft. Dar es Salaam. http://www.agriculture.go.tz/Publications/ASDP%20Framework%20and%20Process%20Document.pdf 11. URT. 2003: National Irrigation Master Plan. Three Volumes. Dar es Salaam. http://www.agriculture.go.tz/Agric_Industry/Irrigation/NIMP/nimp.htm 12. URT. 2003: Medium-Term Plan and Budget Framework for 2003/04 to 2005/06, Vote 43, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security. Dar es Salaam. http://www.tanzania.go.tz/mrambae03.htm 13. URT. 2004: Agricultural Sector Public Expenditure Review (PER) for Financial Year 2003/2004. Draft Report, February, 2004. Economic Research Bureau, University of Dar es Salaam. http://www.developmentgateway.org/download/248318/PER_ENVIRONMENT_Final__10_MAY_20 04.doc 14. World Bank, Netherlands and NORAD. 1994. Tanzania Agricultural Research Project (TARP II). Washington, D.C. http://wwwds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1994/07/29/000009265_39610061 42440/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf 15. World Bank. 1996. River Basin Management and Smallholder Irrigation Improvement. Washington, D.C. http://www- wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1996/06/05/000009265_3961029231024/R endered/PDF/multi0page.pdf 16. World Bank. 2003. Poverty Reduction Support Credit (PRSC). Washington, D.C. http://www- wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2003/12/04/000160016_20031204151108/ Rendered/PDF/274340TA0PID.pdf 17. World Bank. 2003. Participatory Agricultural Development and Empowerment Project (PADEP). Washington, D.C. http://wwwds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2003/05/08/000160016_20030508 130128/Rendered/PDF/257921TZ1Parti1p11IDA1R200310086111.pdf 18. World Bank. 2003. Public expenditure review. Washington, D.C. http://www.countryanalyticwork.net/caw/cawdoclib.nsf/vewAfrica/452684A344C17B6085256C5E00 6954B0/$file/268070TA+P078637.pdf
Annex 2 – 3