Objective

The overarching objective of the evaluation is to examine the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of the PBL instrument as used by the Bank in regional member countries over the period 1999 – 2009. Specific attention is being given to the evaluation of:

• The AfDB’s institutional and policy framework for the design, appraisal and delivery of PBL: to evaluate the Bank’s formal policy framework, procedures, skills and organisational structure for the delivery of PBL. How well does this reflect emerging international (and Bank) best practice; and is the Bank organisationally equipped to deliver best practice PBL efficiently and effectively?

• Policy and practice: to evaluate the Bank’s approach to the design, appraisal and delivery of PBL instruments in practice and how well this fits or deviates from Bank policy guidelines, with international best practice and country context and needs.

•  Choice of aid instruments: to evaluate how choices are made about the use of aid instrument in the country programmes and how relevant it is to the partner country’s problems, policies and priorities

•  Effects at country level: To assess the contribution made by the AfDB to policy dialogue, joint processes, institutional strengthening and other relevant areas where PBL is focused.

Main Findings

• There has been a clear trend towards greater use of GoT systems and more harmonisation with other DPs activities This is evident both in the shift towards sector PBOs where previously only projects had been implemented and in the co-financing of GBS. This appears to have been driven by changes in the aid architecture brought about by the Paris Declaration, which has led to changes in AfDB rules and procedures instituted by AfDB HQ, as well as pressure from the GoT who have stated a preference for aid to be delivered through budget support. Other DPs have also pushed for the AfDB to join joint donor financing modalities and be more engaged in joint donor initiatives. Problems with delayed disbursements in SALs and projects have also played a role in the shift towards using more effective funding mechanisms. This has led to the AfDB joining the GBS group and aligning funding to support government plans in the education, agriculture and water and sanitation sectors.

 

 

• Decentralisation has increased the efficiency of the PBO implementation, but decision-making authority is still limited at country level AfDB’s Boards of Directors approved the Current Decentralization Strategy (CDS) on September 8, 2004 (AfDB, 2006e). The primary features of the CDS include the opening of 25 field offices in Regional Member Countries (RMC) including Tanzania which also opened in 2004. The AfDB refers to decentralisation as the deconcentration of functions from headquarters to various country offices in the region and changes in the Bank’s human resource and financial management systems and procurement systems to allow increased devolution of authority to the field office level.

• There is a limited focus on delivering results in PBOs This is due to the long time that it takes to complete PCRs, frontloading of funding, lack of policy engagement and the fact that the AfDB seems to be out of step with other DPs in terms of disbursement decisions. In all PBOs an assessment on whether progress has been made according to the PAF for each sector is used to judge whether disbursements should be made. In the case of GBS the AfDB has additional conditions which are drawn from the PAF. An assessment is then made based on government reports on whether indicators in the PAF have been met. This is done at HQ level with the TZFO providing the relevant information. PCRs have also historically tended to be completed a long time after the project has been finished which indicates a lack of interest in results. For example, the PCRs for SAL I and II were undertaken in 2007, more than five years after they were finished. This was acknowledged by staff who noted that there was pressure to complete PCRs when there were likely to be follow-on programmes, although there is now a move from HQ level to undertake PCRs more quickly with OPEV validating these reports.

• The value-added of AfDB participation in PBOs has primarily been through additional funding and a focus on procurement and infrastructure The value-added from AfDB’s participation in PBOs has primarily been through the additional funding that it has provided to the government budget in conjunction with other DPs. There is evidence that budget support (GBS and SBS) has increased the discretionary spending of the GoT as GBS has contributed around 20% of public spending in the fiscal year 2003/03 and 18% in the fiscal year 2009/10. During this period there have been significant increases in spending to the priority sectors from the Tanzania Budget. Priority sectors are classified as agriculture, education, health, roads and water. These priority expenditures have grown significantly faster than non-priority spending over the past five years (IMF, 2010).

• A lack of capacity in the TZFO constrains AfDB capacity to implement PBOs effectively Many of the problems outlined above are related to a lack of capacity in the TZFO. Capacity to engage fully in PBO processes has been an issue for the TZFO as there has been a lack of professional staff with both technical and policy expertise in key positions, such as PFM and transport, while it has taken a long time to fill vacant posts.

• Predictability of disbursement from year to year and in-year remains a problem Predictability has been a problem for AfDB PBOs. Efforts have been made by the TZFO to improve performance in this area, but predictability both from year to year and in-year remains an issue, as it is important for the GoT’s budget planning. Failure to disburse committed funds on time by DPs results either in planned activities not being undertaking or the government resorting to borrowing on financial markets, which is expensive.

• The AfDB has made significant progress in harmonisation and alignment over the evaluation period PBOs implemented by the AfDB use government financial, procurement, reporting, monitoring and evaluation and audit systems. The objectives of PBOs have also been aligned with GoT plans and have been harmonised with those of other DPs. Despite the AfDB not being able to fund sector baskets it has followed the same procurement, planning and reporting procedures and funded the same activities as the baskets. This is broadly in line with other DPs as according to the 2008 OECD Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration, 71% of DPs use country systems in Tanzania and 61% use programme-based approaches.