Evaluation Summary International Labour Office Evaluation Office Combating Hazardous Child Labour in Tobacco Farming in Urambo (UTSP) Urambo District, Tanzania [Phase I] - Final Evaluation Quick Facts The final evaluation exercise (carried out from 7th to 20th February, 2007 and involving desk Countries: Tanzania research, field investigations in more than 50% of Final Evaluation: 7/2007 the project communities, and participation in a final evaluation and programming workshop in Evaluation Mode: Independent Tabora, Tanzania), was designed to measure the Administrative Office: IPEC results and achievements of the project and assess its impact on the target villages in Urambo Technical Office: IPEC District. The project was funded by the Eliminating Child Labour in Tobacco-growing Evaluation Consultant(s): Stanley Asangalisah Foundation (ECLT Foundation), and executed by Project Code: URT/06/03/ECT the International Labour Office (ILO) through its International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY II. Findings/Observations: Based on the intensive desk research, extensive Based on the information and data made available field interactions with project managers, to the evaluator by the project managers, implementers and collaborators in Dar Es collaborators, beneficiaries and stakeholders, and Salaam, Tabora, and Urambo, and the community within the limits of human error, the following is meetings and focus group discussions with a summary of the evaluator’s assessment of the project beneficiaries in 5 (out of the 9) project results, achievements and impact of the Urambo Wards, namely: Tobacco Sector Project (UTSP). It should be noted that the findings are based on project • Itundu Ward (Itundu, Kasisi, Wema, Mpigwa, reports and stakeholders’ interviews and limited Kitete) field visits in Urambo. The evaluation team was • Muungano Ward (Muungano, Kalemela A, not able to independently verify all of the Kalemela B) project’s reported achievements due to limited • Imalamakoye Ward (Imalamakoye, Nsenda, time for field visits. Itebulanda) • Songambele Ward (Songambele, Igunguli, I. Background Information Jionee-Nwenyewe, Uyogo) ILO Evaluation Summaries - Page 1 • Kaliua Ward (East Kaliua, West Kaliua, Kasungu, Ulindwanoni) Collaboration with the 2 main Tobacco Trading Companies, namely: Tanzania Leaf Tobacco The independent evaluator made the following Company Ltd, and Alliance One Tobacco findings: Tanzania Ltd as well as their agency, Association of Tanzania Tobacco Traders (ATTT), was i) Project Environment diverse and very encouraging (see page 23 for The project environment in its entity is a difficult details) and should be strengthened in phase-II. rural setting characterized by: There was however no formal agreement between the project and the traders with regard to their • Poor roads network, which becomes worse involvement in fighting child labour in tobacco during the raining season growing and processing. It is therefore • Very weak communication infrastructure with recommended that the necessary legal avenues be no internet connectivity at all explored to foster a formal agreement in UTSP- • Unreliable power supply II. There was no collaboration whatsoever with • Poor transportation services Tanzania Tobacco Growers Co-operative Union, and the involvement of Tanzania Plantation and ii) Project Design Agricultural Workers Union (TPAWU) was The vertical logic of the project design is evident limited to only the following: in the vertical linkages between activities, outputs and objectives. However, the indicators do not • TPAWU under COMAGRI identified contain specific verifiable measurements such as vulnerable children and parents in Urambo how much, how well, by when and where project District, and UTSP relied to some extent on their objectives have been reached. In ILO/IPEC these list for selection of beneficiaries. specifications and exact targets are to be set in the • TPAWU representative participated in facts Project Monitoring Plan (PMP). The evaluator finding and proposal development for feels however that the indicators should include UTSP phase-II specific targets. Clearly, the Trade Unions were not actively iii) Project Implementation involved in UTSP’s implementation. Their The implementation of UTSP had the benefit of active involvement in phase-II must be the collaboration (or suffered the lack of ensured, particularly in child labour collaboration) of the following institutions. monitoring activities. Collaboration with National TBP: iv) Implementation Challenges: • The CTA of TBP Supervised the The following were some of the major challenges implementation of UTSP faced during project implementation • UTSP project officer co-ordinated the • Low capacity of some Implementing Agencies implementation of TBP in Urambo District. (IA) regarding Action Programmes (AP) • Both projects worked on prevention and preparation, technical and financial reporting. withdrawal of children through education • The majority of IAs had weak speaking, reading alternatives and writing proficiency in the English • Both concentrated on community mobilization language—the project’s official language. and economic empowerment of vulnerable • 60% of IAs did not have the requisite logistics families. such as computers and means of transport. • The project vehicle (a second-hand Suzuki This level of collaboration allowed for cross- Escudo) was too small, too weak and completely fertilization of ideas and dovetailing of the inappropriate for the project terrain. activities of the 2 projects ILO Evaluation Summaries - Page 2 • High illiteracy level and rate of beneficiary • Signatories to the contract are the ILO Area communities. Direct and Representative of the IA. • Delays in disbursement of funds. • After signing the contract, the IA puts in a • Serious understaffing or project field office. written request for advance payment. • The high transfer rate of district political • Advance payment is then processed and paid leaders, District Commissioners (DCs) District into IA account. Executive Directors (DEDs), in Urambo District adversely affected the smooth implementation of All of the above is clearly long winding and the project as the project officer had to debrief bureaucratic, and, according to stakeholders’ and restrategize with 3 different DCs, 4 different reports, can take from 3 to 5 months to DEDs and 4 different District Child Labour complete. Co-ordinators (DCLC). Administrative Procedure for travel v) Administrative Procedures authorization: On the administrative procedures and the steps • Pragramme Officer (PO) agrees with Desk involved in the approval of Action Officer (DO) in Geneva on need to travel Programmes (APs) these are extensive and can • PO completes Travel Authorization Forms take 3-5 months to complete. • Sends Forms to Line Manager, e.g. CTA TBP • AP idea is agreed with Desk Officers in Dar, for signature Nairobi and Geneva • Then Forms are forwarded to ILO Area • AP interventions are developed, and budgeted Director for approval in collaboration with proposed implementing Agency This arrangement is comprehensive but can be • Draft proposal is sent to Dar Es Salaam Desk constraining in times of need for urgent travel. Officer for comments. • Budget is passed through ILO/IPEC Reporting Procedure: Responsible Financial Officer • Technical Progress Reports are written • Draft is then sent to Geneva Desk Officer for biannually Clearance • PO prepares draft report • Cleared draft proposal is then sent to National • Sends to DO in Dar, Nairobi, and CTA for Inter-sectorial Co-ordinating Committee for comments review and approval. • Incorporates comments from above Officers • Comments from above are incorporated and • Forwards 2nd draft to DO Geneva for comments proposal finalized. • Incorporates comments and sends final draft • Finalized proposal resubmitted to Geneva report back to Geneva • Contract Agreement is then prepared for IA to • DO in Geneva finalizes report and forwards it to sign. Donors • For amounts not more than US$20,000 ILO Area Officer could process the vi) Mid-Term Evaluation agreement/contract. The mid-term evaluation was conducted in • If amount is more than US$20,000, then February 2006, when the project was left with Procurement Department in Geneva takes less than one (1) year to completion. The over the approval processes. evaluation team, however, made very relevant • If Agreement is ready for signing, ILO Area short term and long term recommendations, Office Finance and Administration which I could not agree more with (see page 24 Officer studies the agreement and its annexes and for details). The short term recommendation were initiates request for Office Financial Clearance. hardly implemented in the remaining 1 year, or • At this stage, IA is requested to open so, of project phase-1. But, it is gratifying to appropriate Bank Account. notice that all the long term recommendations ILO Evaluation Summaries - Page 3 have been adhered to as project phase-II has already been approved based on a Effectiveness participatorily developed project proposal and The effectiveness (or otherwise) of UTSP was a Project Advisory Committee is on the way to tested from the standpoint of the extent to which being institutionalized. What is left to be done is the project has been able to achieve its set that the relevant administrative, capacity objectives and to reach out to the target building, results consolidating recommendations beneficiaries. To the extent that