JAST ACTION PLAN AND MONITORING FRAMEWORK

List of Abbreviations

AcGen Accountant General
CAS Country Assistance Strategy
CMO Chief Minister’s Office
DP Development Partner
DPG Development Partners Group
GBS General Budget Support
IFMS Integrated Financial Management System
IMG Independent Monitoring Group
JAST Joint Assistance Strategy for Tanzania
LGA Local Government Authority
MCDGC Ministry of Community Development, Gender and Children
MDAs Ministries, Departments, and Agencies
MITM Ministry of Industry, Trade and Marketing
MKUKUTA Mkakati Wa Kukuza Uchumi Na Kupunguza Umaskini Tanzania
MKUZA Mkakati Wa Kukuza Uchumi Na Kupunguza Umaskini Zanzibar
MOF Ministry of Finance
MOFEA Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs (Zanzibar)
MOHA Ministry of Home Affairs
MPAMITA Mkakati Wa Pamoja Wa Misaada Tanzania
MPEE Ministry of Planning, Economy and Empowerment
MS-PORASF Ministry of State (President’s Office) – Regional Administration and Special Forces (Zanzibar)
MTEF Medium-Term Expenditure Framework
NSAs Non-state actors
ODA Official Development Assistance
OECD-DAC Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development – Development Assistance Committee
O&OD Obstacles and Opportunities for Development
PER Public Expenditure Review
PFMRP Public Financial Management Reform Programme
PIU Project Implementation Unit
PlanRep Planning and Reporting Database (for Local Government)
PMO-RALG Prime Minister’s Office – Regional Administration and Local Government
PO-PSM President’s Office – Public Service Management
PO-RC President’s Office – Revolutionary Council
PPAA Public Procurement Appeals Authority
PPRA Public Procurement Regulatory Authority
RIMKU Ripoti Ya Utekelezaji Wa MKUKUTA (MKUKUTA Monitoring System)
SBAS Strategic Budget Allocation System
TA Technical Assistance
TOR Terms of Reference
TPSF Tanzania Private Sector Foundation
WG Working Group

Table of Content

1. What is the JAST Action Plan and Monitoring Framework?…………………………. 5
2. Structure of the JAST Action Plan and Monitoring Framework ……………......……..5
3. JAST Monitoring and Evaluation Process.....……………………………………..…....6
4. Immediate Actions for JAST Implementation………………………………………….7
5. JAST Action Plan and Monitoring Matrix.. ……..………………………………….….8
Annex I: Paris Declaration Indicators……………………………….…………………...20
Annex II: Tanzania Baseline and Targets for Paris Indicators…………………………..22
Annex III: Methodology Note for Monitoring JAST Indicators……..………………….25

1. What is the JAST Action Plan and Monitoring Framework?

The Joint Assistance Strategy for Tanzania (JAST), in Kiswahili “Mkakati Wa Pamoja Wa Misaada Tanzania” (MPAMITA), is Tanzania’s national strategy for managing development co-operation between the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania (the Government) and its Development Partners (DPs) so as to achieve national development and poverty reduction goals. Whereas the JAST Document outlines main objectives, principles, commitments and broad arrangements for JAST implementation, the JAST Action Plan and Monitoring Framework specifies the concrete actions to be undertaken by the Government and DPs to put JAST into practice during its cycle of implementation (2006/07-2010/11). The JAST Action Plan and Monitoring Framework also list a range of monitoring indicators for assessing progress in achieving JAST commitments and objectives.

2. Structure of the JAST Action Plan and Monitoring Framework

The JAST Action Plan and Monitoring Framework is presented in the matrix in section 4. The matrix is structured as follows:

a) The matrix is organised around the five JAST objectives, which are:
i. Strengthening national ownership and Government leadership of the development process;
ii. Aligning DP support to Government priorities, systems, structures and procedures;
iii. Harmonising Government and DP processes;
iv. Managing resources for achieving development results, in particular on MKUKUTA/ MKUZA; and
v. Strengthening domestic and mutual accountability.

b) Under each JAST objective, the matrix is arranged into JAST commitments (column 1), which capture general commitments or principles outlined in the JAST Document and are the reference point for both activities and monitoring indicators. As much as possible, commitments have been limited to those that matter in particular for aid effectiveness and constitute an additionality to the already existing commitments in MKUKUTA/ MKUZA, PER, core reforms and other processes.

c) Columns 2 to 5 from “activities” to “means of verification/monitorable output” constitute the Action Plan part of the combined Action Plan and Monitoring Matrix. For each JAST commitment, relevant activities are identified for its realisation. To each activity, agencies that are responsible for implementation are assigned, whereby lead agencies are also indicated (M-Lead for agencies that take lead on mainland activities; Z-Lead for agencies that take lead on Zanzibar activities). The timeframe is also specified, i.e. the month and year by when the activity is expected to be completed. In addition, the column “means of verification/monitorable output” lists the output by which it can be verified that an activity has taken place.

d) The columns of the matrix that are particular to the monitoring framework are the “outcome indicators”, “indicator baseline” and “indicator target”, and the “indicator review process” (columns 6-9). The monitoring indicators are outcome-based and are linked to the JAST commitments. Some of them (in italics) are indicators from the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness , which Tanzania together with other countries reports on internationally through biennial surveys conducted by the OECD-DAC. Not all Paris indicators are included in the JAST monitoring framework, because related actions have either already been completed or are undertaken in other existing processes. Tanzania nevertheless reports on them to the OECD-DAC monitoring survey on the Paris Declaration every two years until 2010. Baseline values for the outcome indicators are set for 2005 and indicator targets for the end of the first term of JAST implementation in 2010/11. For Paris indicators, the baseline was taken from the 2006 survey using data from 2004/05; targets correspond for most indicators to the Paris equivalents, for some, they are set more ambitiously than the Paris targets to reflect the more progressive environment of Tanzania and the fact that for some indicators, Tanzania has already or almost reached Paris targets. Further details on the Paris indicators and targets, Tanzania’s progress against them, as well as their interpretation and measurement in the Tanzanian context can be found in annexes I, II and III respectively. The indicator review process shows which process is used to generate the necessary data or information for measuring the indicator and/or to review progress against the indicator.

3. JAST Monitoring and Evaluation Process

As stipulated in the JAST Document, the Government and DPs in consultation with non-state actors will review their performance in implementing the JAST on an annual basis, utilizing to the greatest extent possible the existing Government processes as the main avenues for dialogue, analysis and information generation. This will be guided by the joint Government-DP JAST Working Group. The findings from these processes will be consolidated in annual JAST progress reports, which are to be produced in November each year.

During the mid and final term of JAST implementation, the Government and DPs will jointly commission an Independent Monitoring Group (IMG) to undertake a comprehensive assessment of Government and DP performance in implementing the JAST. The IMG’s report will be discussed by the Government, DPs and non-state actors and the way forward agreed upon.
The Government together with DPs will have a high level consultative meeting at mid-term (FY 2008/09) and at the end of the JAST cycle, which will be based on a more comprehensive mid-term and final review respectively as well as findings of the IMG Reports.
4. Immediate actions for JAST implementation

Whereas the JAST Action Plan and Monitoring Framework is a comprehensive tool that spells out actions, monitoring indicators and targets for the implementation of JAST commitments, the following actions are identified as areas for immediate work:

1. Formulate and implement a TA policy
2. Strengthen MTEF projections and integrate all external resources in the Government budget and Exchequer system
3. Establish effective division of labour within Government and among DPs
4. Harmonise and rationalise Government and DP processes in line with national calendar of processes

5. JAST Action Plan and Monitoring Matrix
Objective 1: Strengthening national ownership and Government leadership of the development process
JAST commitments Activities to implement JAST commitments Responsible agencies Activity timeframe Means of verification / monitorable output Outcome indicators for JAST commitments Indicator baseline (2005) Indicator target (2010/11) Indicator review process
1. Develop sustainable national capacity for external resource management, MKUKUTA monitoring, and other processes; DPs provide demand-driven TA, which is increasingly managed by the Government 1.1. Formulate and operationalise TA policy

1.2. Establish pooled funding arrangements for TA1.3. Establish data systems for tracking of TA expenditures
1.4. Establish and maintain databank of national experts

1.5. Integrate aid coordination and external resource management, MKUKUTA and PER process management functions within the core functions of policy and planning departments of MDAs, Regions and LGAs

1.6. Establish aid database in MDAs, Regions and LGAs

1.7. Strengthen the capacity of Policy and Planning Departments in external resource management

1.8. Strengthen Government procurement systems so as to attain international standards

MPEE(Lead), PO-PSM, PO-RC

PO-PSM(Lead), MOF, MOFEA, DPsDPs(Lead), MOF, MOFEA

PO-PSM(M-Lead),
PO-RC(Z-Lead)

MPEE & PO-PSM (M-Lead), MOF, MOFEA(Z-Lead), PO-RC,
MDAs, Regions and LGAs

MOF(M-Lead), MOFEA(Z-Lead), MDAs, Regions, LGAs

MOF(M-Lead), PO-PSM, MPEE, MOFEA(Z-Lead), PO-RC, MDAs, Regions, LGAs

PPRA(M-Lead), PPAA, MOF, MOFEA(Z-Lead), MDAs, Regions and LGAs, DPs

By Jun 2008

By Dec 2008

By Jun 2008

Ongoing

FY 2009/10

TA policy in place and operational

Pooled funding arrangements for TA in place and operational

TA expenditure tracking data systems in place and reports generated
Databank for national experts in place

Integration reports

Number of MDAs, Regions, LGAs with aid database in place

JAST implementation report

PFMRP Review Report
1.1. Percent of TA for capacity development through coordinated programmes managed by the Government (Paris indicator 4)

1.2. Percent of TA (percent of ODA) that is used for capacity development

1.3. Reliable public financial management systems (Paris indicator 2a)

1.4. Reliable procurement system is in place (Paris indicator 2b)

1.5. Procurement system of international standard 50%

4.5 (World Bank score)

Score not yet available 70% (Paris target: 50%)

5.0
(World Bank score)

Target depends on score

OECD Paris survey 2008, 2010

JAST review

OECD Paris survey 2008, 2010

PFMRP

Objective 2: Aligning DP support to Government priorities, systems, structures and procedures
JAST commitments Activities to implement JAST commitments Responsible agencies Activity timeframe Means of verification / monitorable output Outcome indicators for JAST commitments Indicator baseline (2005) Indicator target (2010/11) Indicator review process
1. Align DP support with national and sector development strategies, policies and programmes 1.1. DPs revise their CAS in line with JAST principles

1.2. Review projects/ programmes and identify whether they are aligned with (integrated into) national and sector strategies and programmes DPs(Lead), MOF, MOFEA

MPEE (M-Lead), MOF, MOFEA (Z-Lead), MDAs, DPs

By Dec 2008

By Jun 2008

Number of DPs with revised CAS

List of reviewed projects/ programmes 1.1. ODA recorded in national budget as % of actual ODA disbursements to Government (Paris indicator 3)

1.2. Percent of projects/ programmes that are not aligned with (integrated in) national and sector strategies/ programmes 90%

95%

JAST review (annual);OECD Paris survey (2008, 2010)

JAST review
2. DPs increasingly rely on Government structures, systems and procedures and work towards providing untied aid incl. untied TA 2.1. Mainstream parallel PIUs into Government structures

2.2. DPs review their development cooperation policies and regulations to allow the use of Government procurement/ financial management systems

2.3. Formulate and implement plans of untying aid

MOF (M-Lead), MPEE, MOFEA(Z-Lead), MDAs, Regions, LGAs, DPs

DPsLead), MOF, MOFEA (Follow-up)

DPs(Lead), MOF, MOFEA

Ongoing

By Dec 2008

By Jun 2008

PIU mainstreaming report

Number of DPs with revised development cooperation policies and regulations

Plans in place; implementation report.

2.1. Number of parallel PIUs (Paris indicator 6)

2.2. Percent of ODA disbursements that use national financial reporting procedures (Paris indicator 5a)

2.3. Percent of ODA disbursements that use national auditing procedures (Paris indicator 5a)

2.4. Percent of ODA disbursements that follow national procurement procedures (Paris indicator 5b)

2.5. Percent of ODA that is untied
56

61%

60%

61%

0 (Paris target: 19)

75%

75%(Paris target not yet available)

JAST review (annual); OECD Paris survey (2008, 2010)

JAST review
3. DPs increasingly move to GBS; use basket funds where appropriate; and project funds for large-scale infrastructure investment, piloting and emergency aid 3.1. Strengthen the budget management process

3.2. Establish baseline for each DP on the composition of aid (aid by modalities) and formulate and implement plans for increasing the proportion of GBS

3.3. Train MDAs, Regions and LGAs on GBS

3.4. Develop criteria to determine large-scale infrastructure investments and piloting projects MOF(M-Lead), MPEE, MOFEA(Z-Lead), MDAs

DPs(Lead), MOF, MOFEA

MOF(Lead), MPEE, MDAs, Regions, LGAs

MPEE(Lead), MOF, MOFEA, MDAs Ongoing

By Jun 2008 (ongoing)

By Jun 2008

By Jun 2008
PER report

Baseline available; number of DPs with available plans

Number of MDAs, Regions and LGAs trained

Criteria is available
3.1. Percent of GBS versus basket funds versus project funds in total ODA disbursements (overall and by DP)

3.2. Number of projects that are in conformity with guideline to be used only for piloting, emergency, and large-scale infrastructure support JAST review

JAST review

4. Project and basket funds adhere to JAST principles. 4.1. Review existing basket funds and develop guidelines for mainstreaming those that do not meet JAST principles into GBS

4.2. Review and revise guidelines and processes for basket fund and project approval to be in line with JAST principles MOF(Lead), DPs, MDAs, MOFEA

MOF(Lead), MOFEA, MPEE, MDAs By Jun 2009

By Jun 2008 Guidelines in place; implementation report

Guidelines and processes are revised 4.1. Percent of project and programmes (basket funds) that meet JAST principles JAST review
5. Strengthen MTEF projections and integrate all external resources in the Government budget and Exchequer system 5.1. DPs discuss and agree MTEF external resource projections with MDAs, Regions and LGAs before submitting them to MOF

5.2. Familiarise DPs on the use of the Government budget and Exchequer system

5.3. DPs provide accounting details to MDAs, Regions and LGAs for direct project funds in line with AcGen Note 2001

5.4. Formulate and implement plans to increase the proportion of funds channelled through Exchequer DPs(Lead), MOF, MOFEA, MDAs, Regions, LGAs

MOF(Lead), MOFEA, DPs

DPs(Lead), MDAs, Regions, LGAs

DPs(Lead), MOF, MOFEA Annual (as agreed in the PER process)

Ongoing

Ongoing DP MTEF external resource projections submitted to MOF

Number of DP agencies trained

Accounting details are provided to MDAs, Regions, LGAs

Number of DPs implementing plans for using the Exchequer 5.1. Percent of DPs that provide timely MTEF projections

5.2. Percent of year-to-year variation of MTEF commitments over a rolling three-year MTEF period

5.3. Percent of ODA disbursements to Government (in total and per DP) that are captured in the Exchequer system

76% of total ODA to Government

95% of total ODA to Government PER, JAST review

PER, JAST review

PER JAST review

6. GBS disbursements are frontloaded in the first half of the financial year and are in line with the confirmed GBS schedule of disbursements.

Project and basket fund disbursements are made in accordance with the existing agreements 6.1. Follow up and monitor confirmed GBS disbursement schedule

6.2. Follow up on MDAs, Regions and LGAs project/ programme implementation and DP release of funds in line with commitments.

MOF(Lead), GBS DPs

MOF(M-Lead), MOFEA(Z-Lead), MDAs, Regions, LGAs Ongoing

Ongoing GBS annual review report

Project and basket fund disbursement reports 6.1. Percent of DPs that conform with their GBS disbursement schedule in terms of timing and amount

6.2. Percent of project fund disbursements against commitments to Government

6.3. Percent of basket fund disbursements against commitments to Government

6.4. ODA disbursements in Government accounting (Exchequer) system as % of ODA recorded in national budget

6.5. ODA disbursements recorded in Government accounting system as % of ODA commitments to Government (Paris indicator 7) 71% (timing)/ 79% (amount)

85%

70% 100%

85% GBS review,
JAST review

PER
JAST review

JAST review

JAST review (annual), OECD Paris survey (2008, 2010)

Objective 3: Harmonising Government and Development Partner processes
JAST commitments Activities to implement JAST commitments Responsible agencies Activity timeframe Means of verification / monitorable output Outcome indicators for JAST commitments Indicator baseline (2005) Indicator target (2010/11) Indicator review process
1. Make division of labor within Government and among DPs more effective

1.1. Agree on sector/thematic area classification incl. TOR and specify MDA membership

1.2. DPs restructure their engagement in sectors/thematic areas in line with Government classification of sectors/ thematic areas

1.3. Prepare generic TOR with code of conduct for lead, active and delegating partners MOF(M-Lead), MOFEA(Z-Lead), MDAs

DPs (Lead), JAST WG, MDAs

JAST WG By Sep 2007

By Sep 2007

Sector and thematic area classification with TOR in place

Restructured DP engagement in sectors/thematic areas

TOR with code of conduct in place 1.1. Number of sectors/thematic areas that function appropriately

1.2. Number of active DPs per sector/thematic area

1.3. Number of sectors/thematic areas per active DP

JAST, GBS, sector reviews, MKUKUTA-PER

JAST review

2. Harmonise and rationalise Government and DP processes in line with national calendar of processes

2.1. Review the existing national/sector processes and identify scope for further harmonisation and rationalisation around the national budget and MKUKUTA/ MKUZA processes with effective inter-linkages

2.2. DPs undertake joint financial programming

2.3. Lead DPs coordinate and record missions and analytic works in line with the Government calendar of processes MOF(M-Lead), MPEE, MOFEA(Z-Lead), DPs, MDAs

DPs(Lead), MOF, MOFEA

DPs

Ongoing

Annual

Ongoing

Review report in place

Joint MTEF external resource projections reported to MOF

Harmonised missions and analytic works in line with national calendar

2.1. Revised calendar of processes (where necess.)

2.2. Number of missions (by DP)

2.3. Percent of total missions that are joint/coordinated (Paris indicator 10a)

2.4. Number of analytic works (by DP)

2.5. Percent of country analytic work that is joint/ coordinated (Paris indicator 10b)

541

17%

38%

40%

66%

JAST review

JAST review (annual);
OECD Paris survey (2008, 2010)

Objective 4: Managing resources for achieving development results, in particular on MKUKUTA/MKUZA
JAST commitments Activities to implement JAST commitments Responsible agencies Activity timeframe Means of verification/ monitorable output Outcome indicators for JAST commitments Indicator baseline (2005) Indicator target (2010/11) Indicator review process
1. Strengthen linkage between MKUKUTA/ MKUZA, other national and sector strategies, policies and programmes and the national budget 1.1. Strengthen linkages between MTEF, SBAS/ PlanRep, IFMS and RIMKU

1.2. Roll out O&OD to all LGAs

1.3. Initiate O&OD to all LGAs in Zanzibar MOF(M-Lead), MOFEA(Z-Lead), MPEE, PMO-RALG, MDAs, Regions, LGAs

PMO-RALG (Lead), LGAs

MS-PORASF(Z-Lead), LGAs Ongoing

Ongoing

By Dec 2008
Reports available

Progress report on the use of O&OD

1.1. Percent of national budget allocation to MKUKUTA/ MKUZA

1.2. Percent of national budget spent on MKUKUTA/ MKUZA

1.3. Percent of divergence between approved budget and actual expenditures
MKUKUTA-PER

MKUKUTA-PER
MKUKUTA-PER

Objective 5: Strengthening Domestic and Mutual Accountability
JAST commitments Activities to implement JAST commitments Responsible agencies Activity timeframe Means of verification/ monitorable output Outcome indicators for JAST commitments Indicator baseline (2005) Indicator target (2010/11) Indicator review process
1. Strengthen national/sector dialogue and accountability mechanisms 1.1. Review national/sector dialogue and accountability mechanisms and identify ways of strengthening them MOF(M-Lead), MOFEA(Z-Lead), MDAs, Regions, LGAs, DPs Ongoing Review reports 1.1. Satisfactory national/sector dialogue MKUKUTA-PER, sector reviews, GBS review
2. Provide timely and clear information on outcomes of MKUKUTA/ MKUZA, the national budget and other processes as well as on aid disbursements to relevant stakeholders 2.1. Prepare and disseminate reports in English and Kiswahili on budget execution, PER, GBS annual review, MKUKUTA/ MKUZA implementation, and JAST progress

2.2. DPs report on their aid disbursements made to Government and NSAs on quarterly basis

MOF & MPEE (M-Lead), MOFEA(Z-Lead)

DPs(Lead), MOF, MOFEA

Annual

Quarterly

Relevant reports are available

DPs’ quarterly disbursement reports

2.1. Timely release of relevant reports

2.2. Amount of reported aid disbursements to Government and non-state actors

2.3. Percent of DPs that provide timely quarterly disbursement reports to MOF/MOFEA

MKUKUTA-PER,
MKUZA, GBS, JAST review

JAST review, PER

JAST review
3. Undertake regular JAST monitoring and evaluation 3.1. Government and DPs undertake annual review of their performance in JAST implementation

3.2. Government and DPs commission an IMG to undertake an independent assessment of Government and DP performance in JAST implementation JAST WG(Lead), MDAs, Regions, LGAs, DPs, NSAs

JAST WG

Annual

By Dec 2008 (mid-term)
By Sep 2011(final)

Annual JAST review takes place/ JAST progress report

IMG commissioned / IMG report

3.1. Annual JAST implementation report is produced

3.2. Mid-term and final independent assessment /IMG report JAST review

JAST review
4. NSAs share information on their activities and financial resources with their constituents and the Government 4.1. Develop code of conduct for NSA transparency and accountability

4.2. Establish/maintain database of NSA places of operation, activities and resources to be used for Government planning MCDGC(Lead), MITM, NSAs, TPSF

MCDGC(Lead), MOHA, MDAs, Regions, LGAs, TPSF, Foundation for Civil Society By June 2008

By June 2008

Code of conduct in place

Database with reports in place

4.1. Percent of registered NSAs that adhere to code of conduct for NSA transparency and accountability JAST review

Annex I: Monitoring indicators of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness

Annex II: Tanzania baseline and targets for Paris indicators

Paris indicator Tanzania baseline 2005 Paris target for 2010 JAST target for 2010/11 Review process
Ownership
1. National development strategy is operational with clear strategic priorities linked to a medium-term expenditure framework and reflected in annual budgets B A N/A (not a JAST indicator) Biennial World Bank HQ assessment for OECD-DAC Paris survey 2006, 2008, 2010
Alignment
2. a) Reliable public financial management
systems

2. b) Reliable procurement systems 4.5

score not yet available 5.0

JAST target will be the same as Paris target, once available Biennial World Bank HQ assessment for OECD-DAC Paris survey 2006, 2008, 2010

Biennial assessment by OECD-DAC Joint Venture for Procurement for Paris survey 2006, 2008, 2010
3. Percent of aid flows to government that are reported on national budgets 90% 95% 95% Annual in-country assessment by GOT and DPs for JAST review, reported biennially to OECD-DAC Paris survey
4. Percent of donor capacity development support that are provided through coordinated programmes consistent with national development strategies 50% 50% 70% Annual in-country assessment by GOT and DPs for JAST review, reported biennially to OECD-DAC Paris survey
5. a) Percent of donors and of aid flows that use partner country public financial management systems (i. national budget execution procedures; ii. national financial reporting procedures; iii. national auditing procedures)

5. b) Percept of donors and of aid flows that use partner country procurement systems Aid flows: 66% (average of i.-iii.)
Donors: 95% (donors that use at least one from i.-iii.)

Aid flows: 61%
Donors: 86% Aid flows: 77% (average of i.-iii.)
Donors: 90% (donors that use at least one from i.-iii.)

Aid flows: Target not yet available, depends on score for 2.b)
Donors: Target not yet available, depends on score for 2.b) Aid flows: 75% (for national reporting and auditing procedures; 95% for national budget execution procedures/use of exchequer system)

Aid flows: 75% Annual in-country assessment by GOT and DPs for JAST review, reported biennially to OECD-DAC Paris survey

Annual in-country assessment by GOT and DPs for JAST review, reported biennially to OECD-DAC Paris survey
6. Number of parallel project implementation units 56 19 0 Annual in-country assessment by GOT and DPs for JAST review, reported biennially to OECD-DAC Paris survey
7. Percent of aid disbursements released according to agreed schedules in annual or multi-year frameworks 70% 85% 85% Annual in-country assessment by GOT and DPs for JAST review, reported biennially to OECD-DAC Paris survey
8. Percent of bilateral aid that is untied 95% More than 95% More than 95% Biennial OECD-DAC desk review for Paris survey 2006, 2008, 2010

Harmonisation
9. Percent of aid provided as programme-based approaches 55% 66% N/A (not a JAST indicator) Biennial in-country assessment by GOT and DPs for OECD-DAC Paris survey
10. a) Percent of field missions that are joint

10. b) Percent of country analytic work that is joint 17%

38% 40%

66% 40%

66% Annual in-country assessment by GOT and DPs for JAST review, reported biennially to OECD-DAC Paris survey
Managing for results
11. Transparent and monitorable results-oriented performance assessment frameworks for national development strategies and sector programmes are in place B A N/A (not a JAST indicator) Biennial World Bank HQ assessment for OECD-DAC Paris survey 2006, 2008, 2010
Mutual accountability
12. Mutual assessments of progress in implementing agreed commitments on aid effectiveness including on Paris Declaration are undertaken Yes Yes N/A (not a JAST indicator) Biennial in-country assessment by GOT and DPs for OECD-DAC Paris survey

Annex III: Methodology Note for Measuring JAST Indicators

This methodology note lays out how outcome indicators of the JAST monitoring matrix are to be measured. It outlines data sources and review/data collection mechanisms, and explains terminology, purpose and interpretation of the indicator.

Objective 1: Strengthening national ownership and Government leadership of the development process

Commitment 1: National capacity development for external resource management and demand-driven technical assistance

Indicator 1.1.: Percent of TA for capacity development through coordinated programmes managed by the Government (Paris indicator 4)

This quantitative indicator (Paris indicator 4) measures the percentage of technical assistance that is provided for capacity development in coordinated Government-led programmes in support of capacity development.

Government-led programmes in support of capacity development are either (1) primarily capacity development oriented programmes, such as the core reforms in Tanzania PFMRP, PSRP, LGRP, LSRP, as well as programmes to support capacity development in other areas, such as the Poverty Monitoring Master Plan and BEST, or (2) sector programmes with capacity development components, e.g. PEDP, SEDP, ASDP, health basket, HIV/AIDS.

Coordinated programmes are programmes for which there is a common framework for dialogue between the Government and DPs around the programme and coordinated planning of their activities, whereby all DPs’ assistance is integrated in the Government programme and its strategic plan.

Technical assistance includes financial or in-kind contributions to:
a) activities for capacity development (including knowledge, skills, technical know-how or productive aptitudes of people), e.g. training, advice, research
b) services such as consultancies, technical support or the provision of know-how for the execution of capital investment or service delivery projects, i.e. the provision of expert services that aim to facilitate successful project implementation rather than general capacity development of beneficiaries

Ideally, TA data should comprise of the following four components:

1) amount of ODA that is spent on training, consultants/advisors, studies/research, technical equipment and associated costs for capacity development projects/programmes (i.e. projects/programmes that primarily focus on capacity development);
2) amount of ODA that is spent on training, consultants/advisors, studies/research, technical equipment and associated costs for capacity development components of projects/programmes that do not primarily focus on capacity development;
3) amount of ODA that is spent on training, consultants/experts or other services for project/programme management or execution (including capital investment and service delivery projects/ programmes)

Since it may be difficult to separate TA components from their overall support to individual projects/programmes, TA may alternatively consists of:

4) the full amount of ODA to projects/programmes that focus primarily on capacity development (both coordinated and non-coordinated projects/programmes)
5) the amount of ODA for capacity development components of sector programmes that do not only focus on capacity development (e.g. PEDP and the health basket) – the percentage of total ODA that is spent on capacity development within the programme will be applied across all DPs that support the programme.
6) the amount of ODA spent on consultants/experts/training for project/programme management or execution (including for capital investment or service delivery projects/programmes) – this could be estimated by taking the percentage of such TA components for an entire project/programme (as stated in the project/programme document) and apply the percentage to disbursements in each financial year and/or across all supporting DPs.

TA for capacity development to coordinated programmes in support of capacity development should ideally consist of the following:

7) amount of ODA that is spent on training, consultants/advisors, studies/research, technical equipment and associated costs for coordinated Government-led capacity development projects/programmes (e.g. LGRP, PSRP, PFMRP etc. and coordinated projects in support of these broader reforms);
8) amount of ODA that is spent on training, consultants/advisors, studies/research, technical equipment and associated costs for capacity development components of coordinated Government-led projects/programmes (e.g. PEDP, health sector basket fund).

As disaggregated data on the above may be difficult to obtain, the indicator may be measured by taking the sum of coordinated projects/programmes from component (4) and (5) above as a percentage of the total amount of TA, which is the sum of components (4), (5) and (6).

Data on this indicator is reported by DPs to MOF/MOFEA on quarterly basis as part of their quarterly disbursement reports. MOF/MOFEA monitors and records the data and provides information for the JAST annual review report.

Indicator 1.2.: Percent of TA (percent of ODA) that is used for capacity development

This quantitative indicator measures the percentage of technical assistance that is used for capacity development in order to see whether TA is indeed primarily used for capacity development or for other purposes, e.g. project management/execution, capital investment related services. It may be disaggregated by DP. The indicator the sum of components (1) and (2), or (4) and (5) above (indicator 1.1.) as the percentage of total TA (components 1-3, or 4-6 as defined under indicator 1.1.).

In addition, the indicator measures the percentage of total ODA that is used for capacity development. This is calculated by taking component (1) and (2) or (4) and (5) from indicator 1.1. as the percentage of total ODA.

Indicator 1.3.: Reliable public financial management systems (Paris indicator 2a)

Progress on this qualitative indicator is measured every two years (2006, 2008, 2010) for the OECD-DAC Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration. The assessment is undertaken by the World Bank at their head office. It is based on four assessment criteria drawn from the World Bank Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) analysis:
1. A comprehensive and credible budget linked to policy priorities.
2. Effective financial management systems of budget expenditure & budget revenues.
3. Timely and accurate fiscal reporting.
4. Clear and balanced assignment of expenditures and revenues to each level of government.

The World Bank allocates a score between 1 (very weak PFM systems) to 6 (very strong) in half point (0.5) measures against the scale of performance of the public financial management system. In the first OECD-DAC Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration, conducted in 2006, Tanzania obtained a score of 4.5. In line with the Paris target of moving up at least one measure (i.e. 0.5 points) on the scale of performance, Tanzania aims to improve its score on the reliability of its public financial management systems to 5.0 by 2010/11.

Indicator 1.4.: Reliable procurement system is in place (Paris indicator 2b)

Progress on this qualitative indicator is measured every two years (2006, 2008, 2010) for the OECD-DAC Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration. The assessment is undertaken by the OECD-DAC Joint Venture for Procurement. It is based on four assessment criteria drawn from the Roundtable on Procurement analysis:
1. Legislative and regulatory framework.
2. Institutional framework & management capacity.
3. Procurement operations and market practice.
4. Transparency and integrity of public procurement systems.

The Procurement scale of performance is ranked from ‘A’ (systems fully achieve good practice) to ‘D’ (systems do not achieve good practice). Results of the first assessment undertaken for the 2006 OECD-DAC Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration are not yet available.

Indicator 1.5.: Procurement system of international standard This indicator should be replaced by the new PAF indicator on procurement.

Objective 2: Aligning DP support to Government priorities, systems, structures and procedures

Commitment 1: Align DP support with national and sector development strategies, policies and programmes

Indicator 1.1.: ODA recorded in national budget as % of actual ODA disbursements to Government (Paris indicator 3)

This quantitative indicator (Paris indicator 3) is a proxy for measuring alignment of aid flows with national development priorities, as recording ODA in the national budget (mainland and RGOZ budget) is a first step towards ensuring alignment of aid with national priorities. It measures the gap between actual ODA disbursements to the Government and ODA recorded in the national budget of the Government.

If actual disbursements exceed ODA recorded in the national budget, this does not mean that all ODA in the national budget was actually disbursed, as actual disbursements may have gone to projects/programmes that were not included in the national budget.

MOF/MOFEA will maintain data on this indicator and provides information for the JAST annual review report. The indicator will be measured on an annual basis.

Indicator 1.2.: Percent of projects/ programmes that are not aligned with (integrated in) national and sector strategies/ programmes It is proposed to delete this indicator, as it is difficult to measure.

This quantitative indicator measures the percentage of projects/programmes funded by DPs that are not part of broader national or sector strategies or programmes against those that are integrated in such strategies or programmes (e.g. DP projects that support PFMRP outside the basket fund). In order to be integrated, the relevant strategies, programme or project documents need to explicitly state such a belonging.

MOF will monitor this indicator and provide information for the JAST annual review report. The indicator will be measured on an annual basis.

Commitment 2: DPs increasingly rely on Government structures, systems and procedures and work towards providing untied aid incl. untied TA

Indicator 2.1.: Number of parallel PIUs (Paris indicator 6)

This quantitative indicator measures the number of parallel Project Implementation Units (PIUs) in Tanzania. It can also be disaggregated by DP. The indicator shows to what extent DPs integrate project management into Government structures as part of their commitment towards greater alignment of their support to Government priorities, structures and systems.

According to the OECD, PIUs are defined as dedicated structures/units for the day-to-day management and implementation of aid financed projects and programmes. This includes monitoring and reporting on technical and/or financial progress, accounting, procurement, contract supervision, etc. They are often established at the request of a DP following the inception of a project or programme. Staff size can be any number from 1 upwards.

A parallel PIU is created outside existing Government institutional structures. It is accountable to the DP agency rather than the Government implementing agency. Most staff are externally appointed by the DP with TOR determined by the DP rather than the Government. The salary structure exceeds those of civil service personnel.

An integrated PIU is part of the existing Government institutional structures and is established by the Government to handle the management of a major project or programme.

MOF/MOFEA will monitor this indicator and will provide information for the JAST annual review report. It is measured on an annual basis.

Indicator 2.2.: Percent of ODA disbursements that use national financial reporting procedures (Paris indicator 5a)

The quantitative indicator (Paris indicator 5a) provides an indication of the extent of alignment of DP support to national financial reporting procedures as part of Government public financial management systems. The indicator measures the percentage of actual ODA disbursements to the Government that use national financial reporting procedures. This means that DPs rely on regular Government financial reports rather than demanding separate reports in different formats or that a single report suffices the needs of both the Government and DPs.

MOF/MOFEA will monitor this indicator and will provide information for the JAST annual review report. DPs will make all necessary information available to MOF for this purpose. The indicator is measured on an annual basis.

Indicator 2.3.: Percent of ODA disbursements that use national auditing procedures (Paris indicator 5a)

The quantitative indicator (Paris indicator 5a) provides an indication of the extent of alignment of DP support to national auditing procedures as part of Government public financial management systems. It measures the percentage of actual ODA disbursements to the Government that use national auditing procedures in a given financial year. This means that regular external audits are done by the National Audit Office (NAO) or by a private firm that has been commissioned by the NAO.

MOF/MOFEA will monitor this indicator and will provide information for the JAST annual review report. DPs will make all necessary information available to MOF/MOFEA for this purpose. The indicator is measured on an annual basis.

Indicator 2.4.: Percent of ODA disbursements that follow national procurement procedures (Paris indicator 5b)

This quantitative indicator (Paris indicator 5b) provides an indication of the extent of alignment of DP support to national procurement procedures as part of Government public financial management systems. It measures the percentage of actual ODA disbursements to the Government that use national procurement systems/procedures, i.e. that follow national procurement procedures in line with the Public Procurement Act 2004 (URT)/Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2005 (Zanzibar). ODA for which the Government undertakes procurement using DP procedures/guidelines does not qualify as ODA that uses national procurement systems.

Indicator 2.5.: Percent of ODA that is untied

This quantitative indicator measures the percentage of ODA disbursements to Government that is untied from the source of funding. It captures one aspect of Government ownership of aid. Where exact data is unavailable, estimated values can be applied across a project/programme by calculating the overall amount of tied aid as a percentage of the total amount of support to a particular project / programme (for its entire implementation period) based on what is stated in a given project / programme document and applying this percentage to every quarterly disbursement information. MOF/MOFEA will monitor this indicator and will provide information for the JAST annual review report. The indicator is measured on an annual basis.

In addition, OECD-DAC provides information on the percentage of bilateral aid that is untied, on a biennial basis in the context of the monitoring survey on the Paris Declaration.

Commitment 3: DPs increasingly move to GBS; use basket funds where appropriate; and project funds for large-scale infrastructure investment, piloting and emergency aid

Indicator 3.1.: Percent of GBS versus basket funds versus project funds in total ODA disbursements (overall and by DP)

This quantitative indicator measures the composition of ODA disbursements to the Government by aid modality, distinguishing between GBS, basket funds and project funds. The mix of aid modalities is measured (i) as a total amount of ODA, and (ii) separately for each DP. It shows how much DPs are moving towards GBS, which is the Government’s preferred aid modality, as stipulated in the JAST document.

MOF will monitor this indicator and will provide information for the JAST annual review report. DPs will provide all necessary information to MOF as part of their quarterly disbursement reports. The indicator is measured on an annual basis.

Indicator 3.2.: Number of projects that are in conformity with guideline to be used only for piloting, emergency, and large-scale infrastructure support

This quantitative indicator measures the number of projects that are used for piloting, emergency, and large-scale infrastructure support, which is the specified purpose of using project funds to the Government as stipulated in the JAST document. The indicator will be applied to new projects once the criteria of what constitutes piloting, emergency and large-scale infrastructure projects is clearly defined.

MOF/MOFEA will monitor this indicator and provide information for the JAST annual review report.

Commitment 4: Project and basket funds adhere to JAST principles

Indicator 4.1.: Percent of project and programmes (basket funds) that meet JAST principles

This quantitative indicator measures the percentage of DP funded projects and programmes (including basket funds) that adhere to JAST principles, as outlined in the JAST document. These principles are: (1) supporting national, sector and local priorities, strategies, programmes and plans; (2) integration in national budget process; (3) integration in Government structures, systems, regulations and procedures; (4) following proper Government process for project/programme approval.

No provision is made for differentiating between different degrees of compliance with these principles, so that only projects or programmes that meet all criteria will be counted under this indicator as being in line with JAST principles.

The JAST Secretariat will monitor and report on this indicator on an annual basis for the JAST annual review report.

Commitment 5: Strengthen MTEF projections and integrate all external resources in the Government budget and Exchequer system

Indicator 5.1.: Percent of DPs that provide timely MTEF projections

This quantitative indicator measures the percentage of DPs that provide external resource projections for the next three-year MTEF period to MOF/MOFEA according to the specified deadline (around September each financial year). It does not allow for differentiating between different levels of completeness of data by different DPs. It measures one aspect of aid predictability – the provision of timely aid projections by DPs to be used in the national planning and budgeting process.

MOF/MOFEA will maintain data on this indicator and will provide information for the JAST annual review report.

Indicator 5.2.: Percent of year-to-year variation of MTEF commitments over a rolling three-year MTEF period

This quantitative indicator measures the percentage difference between ODA commitments for a given financial year that were made in two to three different years of the MTEF period (e.g. projections provided by DPs in FY 2007/08 for FY 2009/10 compared to projections provided in FY 2008/09 for the same FY 2009/10). This is to show the reliability of ODA projections over a three-year MTEF period.

MOF/MOFEA will maintain data on this indicator and will provide information for the JAST annual review report.

Indicator 5.3.: Percent of ODA disbursements to Government (in total and per DP) that are captured in the Exchequer system

This quantitative indicator measures the percentage of ODA disbursements to the Government (i) in total, and (ii) by DP that is captured in the Exchequer system and thus accounted for in the Government system. It provides an indication of funds that are unaccounted for and bypass the Exchequer.

ODA disbursements that are captured in the Exchequer system can be either (i) a priori cash disbursements through GBS, basket funding or project funding modalities that are made through the Exchequer to the Government (MDAs, Regions, LGAs), or (ii) ex post through disbursements that are made directly to the implementing agency’s project/programme accounts (so called D-funds) but are captured in the Exchequer by the method of dummy voucher.

MOF/MOFEA will maintain data on this indicator and will provide information for the JAST annual review report.

Commitment 6: GBS disbursements are frontloaded in the first half of the financial year and are in line with the confirmed GBS schedule of disbursements. Project and basket fund disbursements are made in accordance with the existing agreements.

Indicator 6.1.: Percent of DPs that conform with their GBS disbursement schedule in terms of timing and amount

This quantitative indicator measures for a given financial year the percentage of GBS Partners that adhere to their GBS disbursement schedule (which specifies the amount and month of disbursement) that they indicate to MOF in the previous financial year. The indicator provides an indication of the extent of predictability of GBS funds by DP, both in terms of timing and amount.

The indicator does not provide for differentiating between different degrees of non-conformance, e.g. differentiating between DPs that disburse only one month late and DPs that disburse 6 months late or not at all, or DPs that disburse 10% less than committed versus DPs that disburse 50% less than committed.

MOF will maintain data on this indicator and will provide information for the JAST annual review report.

Indicator 6.2.: Percent of project fund disbursements against commitments to Government

This quantitative indicator measures the percentage of the total amount of project fund disbursements to the Government against commitments in a given financial year. It provides an indication of the extent of predictability of project funds.

Project fund commitments are the commitments by DPs that have been officially submitted to MOF/MOFEA as inputs to the budget preparation during the submission of MTEF projections around September in each financial year.

MOF/MOFEA will maintain data on this indicator and will provide information for the JAST annual review report.

Indicator 6.3.: Percent of basket fund disbursements against commitments to Government

This quantitative indicator measures the percentage of the total amount of basket fund disbursements to the Government against commitments in a given financial year. It provides an indication of the extent of predictability of basket funds.

Basket fund commitments are the commitments by DPs that have been officially submitted to MOF as inputs to the budget preparation during the submission of MTEF projections around September in each financial year.

MOF will maintain data on this indicator and will provide information for the JAST annual review report.

Indicator 6.4.: ODA disbursements in Government accounting (Exchequer) system as % of ODA recorded in national budget

This quantitative indicator measures ODA disbursements that are captured in the Government Exchequer system (accounting system) as a percentage of ODA recorded in the national budget (mainland) as well as in the budget of the RGOZ. It is measured on an annual basis. It shows how much of the ODA that is included in the national budget is actually disbursed and also accounted for in the Government (Exchequer) system, and thus provides an indicator of DP adherence to its funding commitments and disclosure of information to the Government on accounting details that are required to account for D-funds, as well as Government ability to meet funding requirements and to account for received funds.

MOF/MOFEA will maintain data on this indicator and will provide information for the JAST annual review report.

Indicator 6.5.: ODA disbursements recorded in Government accounting system as % of ODA commitments to Government (Paris indicator 7)

This quantitative indicator (Paris indicator 7) measures ODA disbursements that are captured in the Government Exchequer (accounting) system as a percentage of ODA commitments by DPs to the Government in a given financial year. It shows the gap between ODA commitments and actual disbursements recorded in the Government accounting system and is used by the OECD as a measure of aid predictability. It captures both Government and DP responsibility in aid predictablity – (1) DP responsibility to provide reliable information on the conditions and timing of disbursements, to disburse funds on the agreed schedule, and to make all relevant accounting information available to the Government; and (2) Government responsibility to meet disbursement requirements and to accurately record them in the Government accounting system.

ODA commitments are the commitments by DPs that have been officially submitted to MOF/MOFEA as inputs to the budget preparation during the submission of MTEF projections around September in each financial year. This is not necessarily equal to the amount of ODA recorded in the national budget.

ODA disbursements in the Government accounting (Exchequer) system are (i) a priori cash disbursements through GBS, basket funding or project funding modalities that are made through the Exchequer to the Government (MDAs, Regions, LGAs), or (ii) disbursements that are made directly to the implementing agency’s project/programme accounts (so called D-funds) but are captured in the Exchequer ex post by the method of dummy voucher.

Please note that only ODA disbursements to projects/programmes that have been included in the national budget are contained in this indicator, as only disbursements to projects/programmes that are recorded in the national budget can also be accounted for in the Exchequer system.

MOF/MOFEA maintains data on this indicator and provides information for the JAST annual review report.

Objective 3: Harmonising Government and Development Partner processes

Commitment 1: Make division of labor within Government and among DPs more effective.

Indicator 1.1.: Number of sectors/thematic areas that function appropriately

This quantitative indicator captures the number of sectors/thematic areas that have been clearly classified (in line with the proposed new dialogue structure) with agreed TOR and agreed Government and DP membership. MOF monitors and reports on this indicator.

Sectors and thematic areas are defined as in the proposed new dialogue structure.

Indicator 1.2.: Number of active DPs per sector/thematic area

This quantitative indicator measures the number of active DPs in a given sector or thematic area. It captures the first dimension of the concept of division of labour – rationalisation of the number of DPs active in sector/thematic area dialogue. It provides an indication of the transaction costs that are incurred by the Government in a sector/thematic area in engaging in dialogue with several DPs. The JAST Working Group monitors and reports on this indicator.

Active DPs are defined in line with the agreed definition of ‘active’, ‘delegating’ and ‘lead’ Partners in the context of a new division of labour arrangement among DPs.

Indicator 1.3.: Number of sectors/thematic areas per active DP

This quantitative indicator measures the number of sectors/thematic areas that a particular DP is ‘active’ in. It captures the second dimension of the concept of division of labour, which is a rationalisation of the number of sectors/thematic areas per DP, so that each agency focuses only on a few sectors/thematic areas in which it has a comparative or competitive advantage. It provides an indication of the transaction costs that are incurred within a DP agency from engaging in dialogue in different sectors/thematic areas. The JAST Working Group monitors and reports on this indicator.

Commitment 2: Harmonise and rationalise Government and DP processes in line with national calendar of processes

Indicator 2.1.: Revised calendar of processes (where necessary)

This indicator provides qualitative information on whether the existing national/sector processes have been revised to attain further harmonisation and rationalisation around the national budget and MKUKUTA/ MKUZA processes with effective inter-linkages. The JAST Working Group will monitor the indicator and report on it in the annual JAST review report.

Indicator 2.2.: (i) Total number of missions; (ii) number of missions by DP

In line with the definition of missions provided by the OECD-DAC, missions are defined as external visits to Tanzania by or on behalf of a DP, including by a consultant commissioned by a DP. They must involve meetings with Government officials. Visits to Tanzania that only involve meetings with DP agencies, or attendance of events (e.g. conferences, workshops) without a separate request to meet Government officials are not considered as missions.

The quantitative indicator (i) measures the total number of missions that are undertaken in a given financial year in Tanzania. Indicator (ii) measures the number of missions undertaken by each DP per financial year. The aggregated indicator (i) provides an indication of the total transaction costs that are incurred by the Government from the respective visits. The disaggregated indicator by DP (ii) provides an indication of DP efforts to reduce their total number of missions.

The total number of missions (recorded in indicator i) is not equal to the sum of missions by DP (recorded in indicator ii) if missions are undertaken jointly by two or more DPs together. Joint missions are counted only once in the aggregate indicator (i), whereas they will show up separately under each DP for the indicator that is disaggregated by DP (ii). Missions that are carried out by one DP on behalf of another will only be recorded under the DP that actually undertakes the mission (however with an additional remark that these are coordinated missions, which will also be captured under indicator 2.3.).

Information on the indicator (including information on the title, purpose and date of each mission and whether the mission is joint or coordinated) is to be reported by each DP to MOF/MOFEA on a quarterly basis. MOF/MOFEA as well as MDAs, Regions and LGAs will maintain a mission calendar. In addition, the DPG Secretariat records information on DP missions.

Indicator 2.3.: (i) Percent of total missions that are joint/coordinated (Paris indicator 10a); (ii) Percent of missions that are joint/coordinated for each DP

Joint missions are defined as missions that are undertaken jointly by two or more DPs. Coordinated missions are defined as missions that are undertaken by one DP on behalf of another through an arrangement of delegated cooperation.

The quantitative indicator (i) measures the percentage of the total number of missions (which is captured in indicator 2.2. (i)) that are undertaken by (a) two or more DPs jointly (= joint missions), or (b) by one DP on behalf of one or several other DPs (= coordinated missions in the context of delegated cooperation) in a given financial year.

Indicator (ii) measures how many joint/coordinated missions an individual DP undertakes as a percentage of the DP’s total number of missions per financial year (which is captured in indicator 2.2. (ii)).

The indicators provide an indication of efforts (overall and by DP) to harmonise and rationalise processes by carrying out joint missions or delegating missions by one DP to another and thereby reduce transaction costs that are associated with the respective visits.

The total number of joint/coordinated missions is not equal to the sum of joint/coordinated missions by DP, as joint missions will show up separately for each DP under the disaggregated indicator (ii), but will only be recorded once under the aggregated indicator (i). Missions that are carried out by one DP on behalf of another will only be recorded under the DP that actually carries out the mission, not under the delegating Partner in the disaggregated indicator (ii) (however with an additional remark that these are coordinated missions). They will be counted once in the aggregated indicator (i).

Information on the indicator (like for indicator 2.2.) is to be reported by each DP to MOF/MOFEA on a quarterly basis. MOF/MOFEA (as well as respective MDAs, Regions and LGAs) will maintain a mission calendar. In addition, the DPG Secretariat records information on DP missions.

Proposed additional indicator: Indicator 2.4.: (i) Percentage of missions in total (and (ii) by DP) that are conducted during the Government quiet time

This quantitative indicator measures the percentage of total missions (i) and the percentage of missions by DP (ii) that are undertaken during the specified Government ‘quiet time’, which is the time allocated for budget preparation and approval by the Parliament from April to August in a given financial year. MOF/MOFEA will monitor this indicator and provide information for the JAST annual review report.

Indicator 2.4.: (i) Total number of analytic works; (ii) number of analytic works by DP

Drawing on the definition of analytic works by the OECD-DAC, analytic works are defined as country or sector analysis commissioned by DPs (in the form of reports, diagnostic reviews, studies, evaluations, discussion papers etc., such as Country Procurement Assessment Report, gender assessments etc. or PEFAR in Tanzania) to strengthen their policy dialogue, develop and implement DP country assistance strategies in support of sound development assistance etc.

The quantitative indicator (i) measures the total number of country or sector analytic works (reports, studies, reviews) that are undertaken by DPs in a given financial year in Tanzania. Indicator (ii) measures the number of country or sector analytic works undertaken by each DP per financial year. The aggregated indicator (i) provides an indication of the total transaction costs for the Government that are associated with these works, whereas the disaggregated indicator by DP (ii) provides an indication of DP efforts to reduce their total number of analytic works.

The total number of analytic works (recorded in indicator i) is not equal to the sum of analytic works by DP (recorded in indicator ii) if analytic works are undertaken jointly by two or more DPs together. Joint analytic works are counted only once in the aggregate indicator (i), whereas they will show up separately under each DP for the indicator that is disaggregated by DP (ii). Analytic works that are carried out by one DP on behalf of another will only be recorded under the DP that actually undertakes the work (however with an additional remark that these are coordinated works, which will also be captured under indicator 2.5.).

Information on the indicator (including information on the purpose, title and date of the works) is to be reported by each DP to MOF/MOFEA on a quarterly basis. MOF/MOFEA as well as respective MDAs, Regions and LGAs will maintain a calendar of analytic works. In addition, the DPG Secretariat will maintain information on DP analytic works.

Indicator 2.5.: (i) Percent of total analytic work that is joint/ coordinated (Paris indicator 10b); (ii) percent of analytic work by DP that is joint/coordinated

Drawing on the definition of the OECD-DAC, joint analytic work is undertaken by two or more DPs together. Coordinated analytic work is undertaken by one DP on behalf of another (including work undertaken by one and used by another when it is co-financed by the other DP and formally acknowledged in official documentation).

The quantitative indicator (i) measures the percentage of the total number of analytic works (which is captured in indicator 2.4. (i)) that are undertaken by (a) two or more DPs jointly, or (b) by one DP on behalf of one or several other DPs (i.e. coordinated in the context of delegated cooperation) in a given financial year.

Indicator (ii) measures how many joint/coordinated analytic works an individual DP undertakes as a percentage of the DP’s total number of analytic works per financial year (which is captured in indicator 2.4. (ii)).

The indicators provide an indication of efforts (overall and by DP) to harmonise and rationalise processes by carrying out joint analytic works or delegating analytic works by one DP to another and thereby reduce transaction costs that are associated with the respective works.

The total number of joint/coordinated analytic works is not equal to the sum of joint/coordinated analytic works by DP, as joint works will show up separately for each DP under the disaggregated indicator (ii), but will only be recorded once under the aggregated indicator (i). Analytic works that are carried out by one DP on behalf of another will only be recorded under the DP that actually carries out the analytic work, not under the delegating Partner in the disaggregated indicator (ii) (however with an additional remark that these are coordinated works). They will be counted once in the aggregated indicator (i).

Information on the indicator (like for indicator 2.4.) is to be reported by each DP to MOF/MOFEA on a quarterly basis. MOF/MOFEA as well as respective MDAs, Regions and LGAs will maintain a calendar of analytic works. In addition, the DPG Secretariat will maintain information on DP analytic works.

Objective 4: Managing resources for achieving development results, in particular on MKUKUTA/MKUZA

Commitment 1: Strengthen linkage between MKUKUTA/ MKUZA, other national and sector strategies, policies and programmes and the national budget

Indicator 1.1.: Percent of national budget allocation to MKUKUTA/ MKUZA

This quantitative indicator measures the percentage of the national budget that is allocated to MKUKUTA overall and to the three MKUKUTA clusters, and the percentage of the budget of the RGOZ that is allocated for MKUZA implementation. Information on this indicator is provided by MOF and MOFEA respectively.

Indicator 1.2.: Percent of national budget spent on MKUKUTA/ MKUZA

This quantitative indicator measures the percentage of the national budget (captured in indicator 1.1.) that is actually spent on MKUKUTA overall and the three MKUKUTA clusters, as well as and the percentage of the budget of the RGOZ that is spent on MKUZA implementation (also by cluster). Information on this indicator is provided by MOF and MOFEA respectively.

Indicator 1.3.: Percent of divergence between approved budget and actual expenditures

This quantitative indicator measures the percentage deviation between expenditure outturn and the approved national budget. It is calculated on an annual basis in the PER and the GBS processes. Indicator results for the JAST review will therefore be taken from these processes.

Objective 5: Strengthening Domestic and Mutual Accountability

Commitment 1: Strengthen national/sector dialogue and accountability mechanisms

Indicator 1.1.: Satisfactory national/sector dialogue

This qualitative indicator measures to what extent national and sector dialogue processes have been satisfactory in terms of being in line with the new dialogue structure. For this purpose, each sector / thematic area working group should assess themselves at the end of each financial year or after a sector review. For sector and programme reviews, the criteria provided by the Guidance Note on Satisfactory Sector/Programme Reviews will also apply.

Commitment 2: Provide timely and clear information on outcomes of MKUKUTA/ MKUZA, the national budget and other processes as well as on ODA disbursements to relevant stakeholders

Indicator 2.1.: Timely release of relevant reports

This qualitative indicator measures whether reports on progress against MKUKUTA and MKUZA (e.g. MKUKUTA Annual Implementation Report, MKUKUTA Status Report), on the national budget (i.e. Quarterly Budget Execution Reports, PER-MKUKUTA Annual Consultative Meeting Report), on GBS (GBS Annual Review Report) and on JAST (JAST annual review report) are produced on time and made publicly available. The JAST Working Group monitors this indicator, based on information received by the relevant agencies that are responsible for producing the listed reports (i.e. MPEE for MKUKUTA reports, MOFEA Zanzibar for MKUZA reports, MOF for Quarterly Budget Execution Reports and PER-MKUKUTA Annual Consultative Meeting Report, GBS Secretariat/MOF for GBS Annual Review Report; the JAST Working Group for the JAST annual review report).

Indicator 2.2.: Amount of reported aid disbursements to Government and non-state actors

This quantitative indicator shows the total amount of aid disbursements per financial year to the Government of Tanzania and to non-state actors, as reported by DPs to MOF (and MOFEA for aid to Zanzibar). The indicator may also be disaggregated by DP. MOF/MOFEA monitors and reports on this indicator, based on the data reports that it receives from DPs.

Indicator 2.3.: Percent of DPs that provide timely quarterly disbursement reports to MOF/MOFEA

This quantitative indicator measures the percentage of DPs that report on a quarterly basis to MOF (and to MOFEA for aid to Zanzibar) the full amount of their disbursements to the Government and to non-state actors. MOF and MOFEA monitor and report on this indicator based on the data reports that they receive from DPs and record in their aid flows database. ‘Timely’ means that disbursement data is to be submitted by DPs to MOF / MOFEA within one month after the end of each quarter of the financial year. The indicator is measured on a quarterly basis, i.e. MOF / MOFEA reports every quarter how many DPs adhere to the specified reporting requirements. At the end of the year, the average of the four quarters will be calculated to get an overall result for the indicator. There will be two separate results for MOF and MOFEA. If a DP reports on time, however not on all aid to Government and non-state actors, this should be stated as an additional remark, as it cannot be captured in the quantitative indicator.

Commitment 3: Undertake regular JAST monitoring and evaluation

Indicator 3.1.: Annual JAST implementation report is produced

This qualitative indicator provides a yes/no answer as to whether the annual JAST implementation report is produced. The indicator is monitored by the JAST Working Group.

Indicator 3.2.: Mid-term and final independent assessment /IMG report

This qualitative indicator provides a yes/no answer as to whether mid-term and final independent assessments are undertaken and the IMG report is produced. The indicator is monitored by the JAST Working Group.

Commitment 4: NSAs share information on their activities and financial resources with their constituents and the Government

Indicator 4.1.: Percent of registered NSAs that adhere to code of conduct for NSA transparency and accountability

Progress against this quantitative indicator will be measured and reported to MOF by MCDGC once a NSA database and a code of conduct for NSA transparency and accountability are in place.

NSAs are defined as local communities; civil society organisations (which include non-governmental organisations, community-based organisations, and faith-based organisations); private academic and research institutions; the private sector and the media.

The focus of this indicator is primarily on registered civil society organisations.

Search

Upcoming Events

Tags

Matukio Yajayo

Mapitio ya Katiba ya Tanzania

Mapitio ya Mkukuta

Uwajibikaji kwa Jamii (SAM)

Kutoka Twitter

Wasiliana Nasi

Jisajili Kwenye Mdahalo wa Asubuhi

Saa za Kazi

Tafuta

Search

Upcoming Events