inception report - tzdpg.or.tz report: water sector development programme, tanzania - evaluation of...

1st March 2013

Inception Report

Water Sector Development Programme, Tanzania

Evaluation of Phase I

Inception Report: Water Sector Development Programme, Tanzania - Evaluation of Phase I

This assessment is being carried out by Oxford Policy Management. The project manager is Ian Ross. The remaining team members are Jeremy Colin, Richard Carter, Anne Thomson, Eke Mwaipopo and Ben Taylor. For further information contact Ian Ross at [email protected]

The contact point for the client is Takanori Obayashi at JICA in Tanzania - [email protected]

Oxford Policy Management Limited 6 St Aldates Courtyard Tel +44 (0) 1865 207300

38 St Aldates Fax +44 (0) 1865 207301

Oxford OX1 1BN Email [email protected]

Registered in England: 3122495 United Kingdom Website www.opml.co.uk

© Oxford Policy Management i

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

2 Approach and Methodology

3 Work plan

Annexe A Evaluation matrix

Annexe B Key informants and organisations

Annexe C Schedule of deliverables

Annexe D Updated Terms of Reference


© Oxford Policy Management 2

1 Introduction

The Water Sector Development Programme (WSDP) in Tanzania is a large and complex sector programme with four specialist sub-components and an overarching management structure headed by the Ministry of Water (MOW). It has multi-donor funding totalling USD 1,299 in Phase I and operates as a SWAp whereby the bulk of external support is channelled through government structures, with some additional stand-alone externally-funded projects. OPM has been contracted to undertake a review of WSDP Phase I which began in 2007 and is due to end in June 2014. The overall objective of the assignment is to critically review the performance of Phase I of WSDP implementation in achieving its objective, and to provide an assessment of key areas that will require strengthening or changes and establish inputs for Phase II of the Programme. Overall then, the evaluation is principally forward-looking and formative, rather than focusing primarily on programme outcomes and impacts. The focus of the assignment is to undertake a formative evaluation to answer the following key questions: i. Has the Programme been in line with the upper policies? Is the Programme design including

the rationale for Programme components, outputs, indicators and priorities relevant to the development objective and the revised targets?

ii. How effective is the Programme to achieve its intended goal, objectives, outcomes and impact?

iii. How efficient is the Programme? Is it on track to achieve its intended outcomes? Are the costs of the various activities comparable to similar activities in other countries?

iv. To what extent has the Programme addressed equity and sustainability in service delivery? v. What impact have capacity building initiatives had at various levels? To what extent do

capacity building efforts contribute to Programme efficiency and effectiveness in delivery of results?

vi. From the experience of Phase I of the WSDP implementation, what worked well and what did not work? What are the key lessons learnt and what should change or be done differently going forward?

The programme will be assessed according to the criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, impact and sustainability. Following this introduction, the Inception Report presents in section 2 our approach to the evaluation and methodology. Section 3 contains a workplan which is provisional and subject to the agreement of, and logistical support from, JICA and government partners. We also identify the next steps for the evaluation. The annexes contain the evaluation matrix, a proposed list of key informants based on information received so far, the schedule of deliverables and updated ToR for the review. This report has been written at the start of the assignment and before a desk review has been undertaken. After reviewing programme documentation, key issues and challenges relevant to the review should become clearer and this may necessitate some adjustment to the workplan and/or methodology. Additional documents beyond those listed in the ToR may also be needed and if so, we will contact JICA to request these before the mission begins. The Programme is government-led with systems in place for close government-development partner (DP) co-ordination and progress monitoring including Joint Annual Sector Reviews and regular Joint Supervision Missions. A Sector Management Information System has also been introduced. We are conscious that the programme has already been subject to a range of reviews and assessments, both internal and external, including a Mid-Term Review in 2010 which prompted the re-structuring of the programme in 2011. There is an extensive amount of documentation available and the evaluation will at the outset take note of lessons that have already



been learned, plus issues and challenges that have already been identified and are well known to programme partners, rather than treating the programme as a ‘blank sheet’. This will help to ensure that the review does not only look back but gives sufficient attention to the way forward for WSDP as it approaches the end of its first phase. It would in any case be impossible in the space of a short evaluation to identify from first principles all the achievements and challenges of a programme on this scale.

.



2 Approach and Methodology

In this section, we elaborate on the proposed approach and methodology outlined in our Technical Proposal for the evaluation of WSDP Phase I. We include further details of our proposed approach to the overall evaluation and the review of each Sub-Component.

2.1 Approach

We understand that the purpose of the evaluation is to assess the performance of the Programme in meeting its objectives, to identify any changes or actions needed to improve performance in the remainder of Phase I, and to draw out lessons to inform the design of Phase II. The assignment will evaluate the program in terms of its relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and impact. We note that these evaluation criteria are in line with OECD/DAC criteria for evaluating development assistance.1 Since the evaluation concerns the effectiveness of an ongoing programme, there will be a heavy emphasis on qualitative issues relating to programme structure and processes, but there will also be some quantitative assessments, where relevant data is available. The overall approach will be first to develop an understanding of national programme structure, strategy, financing and operational processes and then assess how, within this framework, each of the four Sub-Components (Water Resources Management; Urban Water Supply and Sewerage; Rural Water Supply and Sanitation; and Capacity Building) has performed with reference to its particular outputs and targets. Investigations of each sub-component will shed light on the key questions set out in the ToR, most of which relate to the programme as whole. The evaluation will comprise a desk review of available documentation, meetings and interviews with key stakeholders at national, regional, district and community level, and field visits to assess ground realities at regional, town, LGA and community level in three regions. A key challenge of the evaluation will be to ensure that the analysis of the different programme components can be aggregated to answer the questions on the overall performance of WSDP. In order to address this challenge, as shown in Table 1 below, we have scheduled the review of overall programme structure and functions at national level to be carried out first, so that initial findings can feed into the reviews of the four components and specific relevant questions can be integrated into these reviews.

2.2 Methodology

In order to meet the objectives of this assignment, the assignment will include the following key activities: 1 - Review of literature and available documentation 2 - Meetings and interviews with programme stakeholders 3 - Field visits 4 - Quantitative analysis 5 - Analysis of findings and report writing

2.2.1 – Review of literature and available documentation (desk-based)

A desk review will be conducted in the UK prior to the country visit, the first priority being to review the documents listed in the Annex to the ToR. The Mid-Term Review of 2010 is also highly

1 DAC Principles for the Evaluation of Development Assistance, OECD (1991)



relevant since it provided the basis for programme re-structuring in 2011, and it would be useful in addition to receive some information on the sanitation and hygiene component which now functions as part of the National Sanitation Campaign. It is likely, of course, that other relevant documents will come to light during the evaluation mission and these will be reviewed in-country. We now have the MTR but would be grateful if MoW / JICA could forward to us electronic versions of any other key documents listed in the TOR which are not already available on the DPG website.

2.2.2 - Meetings and interviews with programme stakeholders

The team has developed a draft evaluation matrix for this assignment (see Annexe 1), based on the questions set out in the ToR. The questions are grouped into relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability and we have also identified the sources of evidence and some external factors/ assumptions. This matrix will be updated following the desk review, by which time we should know more specifically which documents are relevant to which questions. It will then be adjusted as necessary throughout the assignment and will form the basis for the analytical work of the evaluation team. In practical terms, we propose that in the first week the mission begins with a briefing presentation from GOT (and perhaps key DPs) on the overall structure of the programme; strategy and priorities; financing arrangements; achievements to date; key issues and challenges for the programme; and expectations from the evaluation. While some of this information will be gleaned from the desk review, it will be important to get the most recent update from the people involved. This session would include time for questions and plenary discussion and would be followed up with separate focussed interviews with key respondents. A series of smaller meetings could then be held during the week with key players from each of the four Sub-Components, again in the format of a briefing presentation plus a question and answer session, with separate interviews to follow as necessary. Dates and timings for this initial briefing and-subcomponent briefings should be arranged by MoW/JICA as soon as possible, before we arrive in Tanzania, so that all required attendees are available. It is important that these meetings and interviews encompass not only government partners and DPs and NGOs from the relevant Technical Working Group plus (where relevant) NGO/CSO WASH networks, consultants (for example the Programme Management Consultant supporting the rural component) and private sector representatives. We have produced a provisional list of key stakeholders and institutions to interview (see Annex 2) but would appreciate any further suggestions on key persons or organisations that we should meet, so that we can finalise the list. The team will then use the evaluation matrix to develop semi-structured questionnaires for each of the main stakeholder groups to be consulted at national, regional and local level.

2.2.3 - Field visits

The challenge for the field work will be to gain sufficient insights into all four programme components in the limited time available. We propose visiting three regions and within each, meeting the support teams operating under the Regional Secretariat; the BWO; the Urban WSS utility and two LGAs. In addition we would aim to make field visits to both urban and rural project sites. Since Tanzania is a large and diverse country, we feel that visits to three locations is appropriate, as any less would not provide an adequate reflection of different regional contexts. We very much hope that for each region visited, a representative from central government will accompany the team to help us to put local findings in the context of programme operations overall. We would welcome the identification of these people at the earliest possible opportunity, to ensure their availability.



We would welcome further guidance from GOT and/or JICA on suitable locations for the field visits, and would also request GOT assistance in contacting the relevant parties at regional and LGA level to ensure that we are able to meet the appropriate people, and have useful and relevant field visits, in each location. We will then make the necessary arrangements in terms of transport and accommodation.

2.2.4 - Quantitative analysis

As discussed above, this is a formative evaluation only part-way through phase 1 of the WSDP,

and there is limited time available. Therefore, much more weight will be placed on reviewing

processes and outputs, rather than outcomes. There are several areas of this evaluation which will

need quantitative approaches.

The quality of these analyses will be dependent on the availability and reliability of the data on which they are based. Some data sources will become apparent during the desk review, but we also propose an early in-country meeting between the team economist (Ian Ross) and a data specialist nominated by MoW/JICA (who might be from any government institution or DP), to discuss data needs for carrying out the quantitative analysis effectively.

It will be necessary to gauge the quality of different data sources, and identify ways of getting hold of the data in soft copy at the earliest possible opportunity. It is sometimes the case that data originally thought to be useful turns out to be lower quality than expected. In order to make best use of time and avoid preparing unworkable methodologies, the full methodology for quantitative approaches will not be decided until relevant data are secured. However, it will of course be based on the analytical tools outlined in our technical proposal. More data is also likely to become available during fieldwork. Therefore, much of the quantitative analysis will take place after the team has returned to the UK.

2.2.5 - Analysis of findings and report writing

An interim report will be submitted at the beginning of week 6 as required by the ToR. Since field visits will still be ongoing at this time, the report will cover only the findings of the desk review and meetings and interviews in Dar. On returning to Dar we will review and organise the results of the desk-based review, meetings and interviews in Dar. This will enable us to draw out key findings and recommendations that will provide the ‘headlines’ for the final report and for a powerpoint presentation to WSDP stakeholders on the last working day of the mission. This will also constitute the first step towards synthesising the findings from the overall programme review and that of the individual components. A draft final report will be submitted in week 8 and presented to government and partners via a skype conference, yet to be arranged.

A period of 12 days has been scheduled for the receipt of comments from government and sector

stakeholders. We will then amend the report as appropriate and submit a final version by the end

of week 10.



3 Workplan

3.1 Outputs

Regarding the outputs, we will submit an interim report in-country as requested, but it is important

to highlight that the delivery date for this falls during the field visits. As a result the interim report

will cover only the preliminary findings of the desk review and interaction in Dar, not the overall

findings and recommendations, which will be in the final report.

3.2 Provisional programme

A provisional programme for the country visit is set out in Table 1 below. This is very provisional at this stage and we will amend and refine it on receipt of further advice from JICA and GOT following the proposed skype conference in week 3. Four consultants will undertake fieldwork, but Richard Carter will only be in Tanzania from 17th-22nd March. Therefore, the key interviews on WRM will be scheduled while he is in Dar on 18th-19th March. Richard will accompany the rest of the team to the first fieldwork site. With 3 or 4 consultants available, we will split into two groups in order to cover all the interviews, with groupings to be decided based on specialisms. In the red cells below where two interviewees are indicated, each will be interviewed by one of the two groups of consultants. Some time could be made available on 28th-29th March for any interviews which were unable to be scheduled earlier. Current interviews times are indicative and interviewees are inserted in order to demonstrate that enough time is available to identify all relevant people as long as their schedules permit. Actual interview times shall be arranged in collaboration with MoW / JICA. The key for interpreting the colour-coding is below:

group briefings all consultants attend - preferable if all listed in brackets attend

individual interviews consultants split into two groups to cover more ground

Free currently free for some consultants, available for missed interviews

fieldwork interviews exact interviewees TBC

Table 1 – work plan and schedule

c.08:30 c.10:30 c.14:00 c.16:00

Sun 10 JC / IR arrive

Mon 11 08:30 - consultant

team meeting, 09:30 - Meet JICA, MOW

10:30 - WSDP General Briefing

(MOWI-PMU, PMO-RALG, MOH, DPs,

NGOs)

Head of DRWS

Head of DAHR

Head of DUWS

DPP

Tue 12 DPMU

DPCU

10:00 Component 2 Briefing (a): RWS

(MOW, PMO-RALG, Programme

Management Consultant, TWG)

14:00 Component 2 Briefing (b):

Sanitation and Hygiene (MOH,

TWG).

HICTU

CIA

Wed 13

MOF (Mr Mpanda),

Director of Sector Coordination (PMO-

RALG)

10.00 Component 3 Briefing: Urban WSS

(MOW, TWG)

14.00 Component 4 Briefing: Capacity

Building (host TBA)

Permanent Secretary,

Deputy Permanent

Secretary



Thur 14

Programme Management Consultant

FREE

DAWASA CEO,

DAWASA Technical Services

WaterAid,

ADME (the former HPCT)

World Bank-WSP

DAWASCO

Fri 15

Mr. Pascal Karomba (former WSDP-PCU

Accountant),

Hon. Deputy Minister of Water

10:00 DPG

TAWASANET,

Hon. Minister of Water

Private sector (Service providers,

contractors, consultants),

Director of Water

Supply and Sewerage – EWURA

Sat 16 Collate findings /

prepare for fieldwork Collate findings /



prepare for fieldwork

Sun 17 RC arrives in Dar Begin interim report Begin interim report Begin interim report

Mon 18

School WASH Coordinator (Ministry of Education)

FREE

10.00 Component 1 briefing: WRM (MOW, TWG)

Head of DWR

Assistant Director- Preventive Services

(MOH)

Deputy Permanent Secretary (Ministry

of Agriculture)

FREE

Tue 19

Director of Irrigation, Ministry of Agriculture

FREE

Fly Dar - Mbeya 11:20 – 13:10

Mbeya interviews Mbeya interviews

Wed 20 Mbeya interviews Mbeya interviews Mbeya interviews Mbeya interviews

Thur 21 Mbeya interviews Mbeya interviews Fly Mbeya - Dar

13:40 - 15:30 Collate findings

Fri 22 RC leaves, others fly Dar - Dodoma 07:00

– 08:30 Dodoma interviews Dodoma interviews Dodoma interviews

Sat 23 Dodoma interviews Dodoma interviews Dodoma interviews Dodoma interviews

Sun 24 Drive to Tabora Drive to Tabora finalise interim

report finalise interim report

Mon 25 Tabora interviews Tabora interviews Tabora interviews Tabora interviews

Tue 26 Tabora interviews Tabora interviews Tabora interviews Tabora interviews

Wed 27 Drive back to

Dodoma Drive back to

Dodoma Dodoma interviews Dodoma interviews

Thur 28 Collate findings Fly Dodoma – Dar

11:05 – 12:35

Prepare wrap-up presentation or any missed interviews

Prepare wrap-up presentation or any missed interviews



Fri 29

09:00 - Present preliminary fieldwork findings to MoWI /

JICA

Discussion on fieldwork

presentation

Collate findings,or any missed interviews

Collate findings,or any missed interviews

Sat 30 IR/JC depart

3.3 Support requested from GOT / JICA

Give the size and scope of the programme and the range of questions to be addressed, it is vital that the available time in-country is used efficiently. We believe that the proposed presentations from government and partners are the best way to achieve this in Dar as they will not only bring the team up to speed on progress and facilitate interaction with a range of stakeholders, but also enable us to appreciate at an early stage the key concerns of government and other stakeholders in preparing for WSDP Phase II. We very much hope, therefore, that GOT could prioritise these briefing sessions and make preparations accordingly. We also request that JICA take responsibility to collect comments from government and other stakeholders on the interim and draft final reports and submit them to the consultants as single packages. This will enable us to respond to comments efficiently and ensure the final report is delivered on time. To summarise, we would be grateful if JICA and GOT could assist with the following before the country visit: 1. Provide soft copies of key documents mentioned in TOR but not available on the DPG website. 2. Propose locations for the field visits, based on the outline programme, and make appointments

with the parties concerned. 3. Propose key individuals and departments / organisations that we should meet, beyond those

already listed in the draft programme. 4. Organise the proposed briefing sessions (we hope that each of these will include presentations

from government on the status of the sub-component) and meetings outlined in the draft programme.

At the time of writing we are already in touch with Mr. Obayashi regarding the field work and hope that we can finalise an itinerary during the proposed skype conference on 7th March, if not before.

3.4 Next steps

Ahead of the skype conference on March 7th we will work on the desk review and logistical

arrangements in consultation with Mr. Obayashi and others.



Annexe A Evaluation matrix

Main evaluation question Detailed questions Sources of information and analytical approach

2

External factors / Assumptions

Overall questions

A. Has the Programme been in line with the upper policies?

A1. Is the Programme design including the rationale for Programme components, outputs, indicators and priorities relevant to the development objective and the revised targets?

Desk review of national development policy, NAWAPO, WSDP Programme Document and Re-structuring Plan

All relevant documentation will be shared with us, or is otherwise accessible.

B. How effective is the Programme to achieve its intended goal, objectives, outcomes and impact?

See G below

C. How efficient is the Programme?

C1. Is it on track to achieve its intended outcomes? C2. Are the costs of the various activities comparable to similar activities in other countries?

Desk review of relevant documentation and information from MOW and others Briefings from , and in-depth interviews discussions with, key actors and stakeholders Review of available data from MIS, EPICOR and other reporting systems Field visits to confirm real situation on the ground Comparison with relevant programmes in the region

All relevant documentation will be shared with us, or is otherwise accessible. Component managers and/or TWG members make detailed briefing presentations to the team Key stakeholders are willing to be open, realistic and transparent. Field visits provide a fair representation of progress across different components and regions Sufficient relevant and reliable financial data is available for assessing and comparing costs

D. To what extent has the Programme addressed equity and sustainability in service delivery?

On sustainability – see K below

E. What impact have capacity building initiatives had at various levels?

E1. To what extent do capacity building efforts contribute to Programme efficiency and effectiveness in delivery of results?

Desk review of capacity building component strategy and activity reports, any independent reviews and other related documentation Review of data and other information from MIS, EPICOR and other programme monitoring systems

All relevant documentation will be shared with us, or is otherwise accessible. Component managers and/or TWG members make detailed briefing presentations to the team Key stakeholders are willing

2 Specific information sources will be added following the desk review



In-depth interviews and discussions with key actors and stakeholders at national, regional and local levels

to be open, realistic and transparent. Field visits provide a fair representation of progress across different components and regions

F. From the experience of Phase I of the WSDP implementation, what worked well and what did not work?

F1. What are the key lessons learnt and what should change or be done differently going forward?

Findings of evaluation and of Joint Annual reviews

Effectiveness

G. To what extent have programme objectives been achieved by the outputs, in both qualitative and quantitative terms?

G1. Is there a causal relationship between the output of implemented activities and the achievement of programme objectives? G2. How effective are current institutional arrangements for Programme management? G3. How effective are programme funding mechanisms and fund utilisation? G4. To what extent do programme systems including the MIS, accounting system (EPICOR) and LGA Planning / Reporting System (Plan-rep) support implementation, and how could they be used more effectively? G5. How effective are monitoring, reporting and feedback mechanisms across sector levels including the client service charters? G6. How effective are technical and administrative monitoring and audits (internal and external) in improving the quality of water services, internal controls, public expenditure, vfm and accountability to beneficiaries? G7. To what extent have participatory monitoring instruments including scorecards been used to measure beneficiary satisfaction, enhance social accountability and include users in decision-making and sustaining services? G8. How effective are institutional arrangements at regional level for technical support and backstopping to LGAs, BWOs, Small Towns and UWSSAs. (To include a specific review of institutional arrangements for rural water supply)

Analysis of underlying logic of programme Institutional analysis based on organorgams, desk review of relevant documentation, stakeholder interviews Stakeholder interviews, budgets, financial and other Programme reports Stakeholder interviews, relevant documentation. Review of data and other information from MIS, EPICOR and other programme monitoring systems M&E reports, stakeholder interviews, field visits to confirm real situation on the ground Desk review of relevant documentation and information from MOW and others, including audit reports. Stakeholder interviews, field visits Desk reviews of relevant documentation, Briefings from, and in-depth interviews and discussions with, key actors and stakeholders. Field visits to confirm real situation on the ground. Institutional analysis, desk reviews of relevant documentation, field visits to confirm real situation on the ground

All relevant documentation will be shared with us, or is otherwise accessible. M&E systems in place and operating Component managers and/or TWG members make detailed briefing presentations to the team Key stakeholders are willing to be open, realistic and transparent. Field visits provide a fair representation of progress across different components and regions



G9. Considering what worked/did not work, and why, what key changes/improvements are required (policy incentives, institutional and operational arrangements, funding mechanism, other incentives for those involved in running or executing Programme interventions etc.) a) to increase potential for achieving the Programme development objective in the next 5 years? b) to improve implementation processes in Phase II?

Based on previous analysis

G. To what extent have programme objectives been achieved by the outputs, in both qualitative and quantitative terms?

G1. Is there a causal relationship between the output of implemented activities and the achievement of programme objectives? G2. How effective are current institutional arrangements for Programme management? G3. How effective are programme funding mechanisms and fund utilisation? G4. To what extent do programme systems including the MIS, accounting system (EPICOR) and LGA Planning / Reporting System (Plan-rep) support implementation, and how could they be used more effectively? G5. How effective are monitoring, reporting and feedback mechanisms across sector levels including the client service charters? G6. How effective are technical and administrative monitoring and audits (internal and external) in improving the quality of water services, internal controls, public expenditure, vfm and accountability to beneficiaries? G7. To what extent have participatory monitoring instruments including scorecards been used to measure beneficiary satisfaction, enhance social accountability and include users in decision-making and sustaining services? G8. How effective are institutional arrangements at regional level for technical support and backstopping to LGAs, BWOs, Small Towns and UWSSAs. (To include a specific review of institutional arrangements for rural water supply) G9. Considering what worked/did not work, and why,

Analysis of underlying logic of programme Institutional analysis based on organorgams, desk review of relevant documentation, stakeholder interviews Stakeholder interviews, budgets Stakeholder interviews, relevant documentation. Review of data and other information from MIS, EPICOR and other programme monitoring systems M&E reports, stakeholder interviews, field visits to confirm real situation on the ground Desk review of relevant documentation and information from MOW and others, including audit reports. Stakeholder interviews, field visits Desk reviews of relevant documentation, Briefings from , and in-depth interviews discussions with, key actors and stakeholders. Field visits to confirm real situation on the ground. Institutional analysis, desk reviews of relevant documentation, field visits to confirm real situation on the ground Based on previous analysis

All relevant documentation will be shared with us, or is otherwise accessible. M&E systems in place and operating Component managers and/or TWG members make detailed briefing presentations to the team Key stakeholders are willing to be open, realistic and transparent. Field visits provide a fair representation of progress across different components and regions



what key changes/improvements are required (policy incentives, institutional and operational arrangements, funding mechanism, other incentives for those involved in running or executing Programme interventions etc.) a) to increase potential for achieving the Programme development objective in the next 5 years? b) to improve implementation processes in Phase II?

Efficiency

H. How productive has the implementation process been in converting Programme inputs into outputs?

H1. What is the cost of the Programme per achieved change in output

3 across the various components?

H2. a) How effective has the capacity building component been in supporting achievement of the intended outcome? b) Should an alternative arrangement be considered on the basis of good value for money?

MIS data, sector reports, budget data, financial reports for Programme components and individual projects Interviews with providers and recipients of capacity building support Annual sector reports an d MIS data Review of Capacity Building Strategy and Action Plan, and other related documents Field visits to confirm real situation on the ground

Appropriate output data and sufficiently detailed budget data are available Vfm analysis can be carried out Key stakeholders are willing to be open, realistic and transparent. Field visits provide a fair representation of progress across different components and regions

Relevance

I. Are Programme objectives consistent with overall Programme goals? (Considering policy direction / stability, stakeholder demand and resources, economic context, etc.)

I1. How relevant is Programme design in terms of the rationale for each component, development objective, outputs, outcomes, targets, indicators and priorities and how could it be optimised? I2. How relevant are the structural and technical arrangements for Programme implementation and what opportunities are there for further improvement? I3. a) To what extent has formula-based allocation for RWS been applied, particularly as the basis for fund transfers to LGAs? If it was not used, what was the barrier? b) Should it be considered for Phase II, and what could be the associated policy incentives? I4. What key internal and external factors have facilitated or impeded progress, including policy and institutional aspects, and how have they influenced implementation?

Desk review of relevant documentation and information from MOW and others Analysis of underlying logic of programme Desk review of documentation Briefings from , and in-depth interviews discussions with, key actors and stakeholders Stakeholder interviews. Review of data and other information from MIS, EPICOR and other programme monitoring systems. Interviews in the field with LGAs Desk review of documentation, stakeholder interviews

All relevant documentation will be shared with us, or is otherwise accessible. Component managers and/or TWG members make detailed briefing presentations to the team Key stakeholders are willing to be open, realistic and transparent. Field visits provide a fair representation of progress across different components and regions

Impacts

J. What have been the impacts of J1 a) What clues on Programme impact on morbidity Desk review of relevant All relevant documentation

3 It would not be possible to assess costs per outcome at this stage of the programme, but it may be possible to assess costs per output



the Programme (positive and negative, direct and indirect) and what unforeseen influences and effects have there been?

and water collection time can be found in national data sources including the Household Budget Survey 2007; DHS 2010, National Panel Surveys 2009 and 2011; Census of 2012? J1 b) What has been the impact on the health, education and environment sectors? J2. What has been the impact of routine monitoring (water quality, financial management) and service delivery/client satisfaction surveys in improving delivery of WSS services, vfm and service provider accountability to customers?

documentation and information from MOW and others. Quantitative analysis where possible Briefings from , and in-depth interviews discussions with, key actors and stakeholders Review of data and other information from MIS, EPICOR and other programme monitoring systems. Analysis of M&E systems as indicated above. Field visits to confirm real situation on the ground

will be shared with us, or is otherwise accessible. Disaggregated data exist in appropriate format. Sufficient time has passed since activities for impact to show Key stakeholders are willing to be open, realistic and transparent. Field visits provide a fair representation of progress across different components and regions

Sustainability

K. What are the prospects for the sustainability of Programme benefits in the widest sense, taking into account policy, institutional, economic , financial, social and environmental impacts, etc. ?

K1. To what extent was sustainability taken into account in the design and implementation of all Programme components, and how could this aspect be improved in future? K2. What risks are there to the sustainability of Phase 1 achievements and what mitigation measures are recommended? (including behaviour change amongst target groups) K3. To what extent are advocacy (software) processes helping to ensure the sustainability of benefits, and how could they be improved? K4. What lessons can be learned from Programme design and implementation, and from other similar programmes in developing countries, to enhance sustainability in WSDP?

Desk review of relevant documentation and information from MOW and others. Stakeholder interviews Briefings from , and in-depth interviews discussions with, key actors and stakeholders Stakeholder interviews. Field visits to confirm real situation on the ground. Based on previous analysis

All relevant documentation will be shared with us, or is otherwise accessible. Component managers and/or TWG members make detailed briefing presentations to the team Key stakeholders are willing to be open, realistic and transparent. Field visits provide a fair representation of progress across different components and regions



Annexe B Key informants and organisations (TBC)

Organisation Designation Name

National level

Government

Ministry of Water and Irrigation

Honorable Minister (and Deputy)

Permanent Secretary (and Deputy)

Director Water Resources (DWR)

Director Rural Water Supply (DWRS)

Director Urban Water Supply and Sewerage (DUWSS)

Director Administration and Human Resources (DAHR)

Asst. Director M+E (ADME, former Head PCT)

Head Information Communication Technology Unit (HICTU)

Chief Internal Auditor (CIA)

Head, Division of Policy and Planning (DPP)

Head, Division of Procurement Management Unit (DPMU)

MOW-PCU Head

Accountant

Former Accountant Mr. Pascal Karomba

WRM Specialists

Urban WSS Specialists

Rural WSS Specialists

Capacity Building Specialists

M&E Specialist

Communications Specialist

Programme Management Consultant (RWSS)

Working Groups Chair and Co-Chairs, Water Sector Working Group

Chair and Co-Chairs, WRM TWG

Chair and Co-Chairs RWSS TWG

Chair and Co-chairs, UWSS TWG

Chair and Co-Chairs, Capacity Building TWG

EWURA (Regulator) Director of Water Supply and Sewerage

Ministry of Health Assistant Director- Preventive Services Mr. E. Chinamo

Members of Sanitation and Hygiene team

PMO-RALG Director of Sector Co-ordination

Ministry of Finance and Econ. Aff.

Budget Officer for Water Sector Mr. Mpanda

Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives

Deputy Permanent Secretary Eng. Mbogo Futakamba

Director of Irrigation

Development Partners

DPG Water Members

AfDB

DFID

JICA

World Bank

World Bank-WSP

Other

Other

Other



NGOs

WaterAid

TAWASNET

Other

Other

Regional level Regional Secretariat Technical support teams

Urban WSS Authority [Incl. CEO, Director Technical Services, DAWASA]

Urban WSS Utility [Including CEO-DAWASCO]

Basin Water Office

District level LGA Chief Officer

Treasurer.

District Programme Management Unit

District Project Co-ordination Unit

Service Provider

Community level COWSO / WSS Committee

Members



Annexe C Schedule of deliverables

Deliverable Description Date

1 Inception report and work plan “within one week after signing the contract”

2 Draft interim report “before the last day of the 5th week from commencement of the assignment”

3 Draft final report “not later than 49 days from commencement of assignment”

4 Final report “not later than 65 days from commencement of the assignment”



Annexe D Updated Terms of Reference

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

MINISTRY OF WATER

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE EVALUATION OF WSDP PHASE 1 (2007-2013)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Information

The Government of Tanzania, through the Ministry of Water is implementing the Water Sector

Development Programme (WSDP), for the period 2006–2025. The Programme has four

components, namely: (i) Water Resources Management; (ii) Rural Water Supply and Sanitation;

(iii) Urban Water Supply and Sewerage; and (iv) Institutional Development and Capacity Building,

the later component for strengthening and building capacity of sector institutions to effectively

support implementation of the WSDP. The WSDP follows a Sector Wide Approach to Planning

(SWAP), with an intention to eliminate overlaps and duplication of efforts in water resources

management and in the delivery of water supply and sanitation services. Unlike the past, where

water sector activities were implemented through discrete projects and sub-programmes in selected

areas, the new Programme is simultaneously implemented in Local Government Authorities

(LGAs), Basin Water Offices (BWOs), and Water Supply and Sanitation Authorities

(UWSAs/DUWSSs) throughout the country.

The Programme development objective is to strengthen sector institutions for integrated water

resources management and improve access to water supply and sanitation services. By the end of

the project, the GoT would have met its MKUKUTA sector targets and be well on the way to

meeting the MDGs for improved water supply and sanitation coverage across all segments of the

population, as well as have in place a sustainable regulatory framework for comprehensive water

resources management and development. Within the MKUKUTA framework, specific targets that

were to be achieved by 2010 include:

i) 6 out of 9 water basin institutions strengthened and fully operational and have integrated basin

plans approved by basin stakeholders;

ii) Increased proportion of rural population with access to clean and safe water from 54% in 2003

to 65% in 2010;

http://www.google.co.tz/imgres?imgurl=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4gwYHSw3rpA/UBmrvdlJDTI/AAAAAAABlRs/nDweUXAQygM/s1600/251px-Coat_of_arms_of_Tanzania.svg.png&imgrefurl=http://www.hakingowi.com/&h=291&w=251&sz=85&tbnid=E13SS3r7py4dwM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=78&prev=/search?q=Karolina+Albert+Mthapula&tbm=isch&tbo=u&zoom=1&q=Karolina+Albert+Mthapula&usg=__r1LL_ichRBMVwSK9ZuLS8zKoVAw=&docid=eXbGd8rSzM24HM&itg=1&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SG4aUN-MKPH24QSFgIHADQ&ved=0CFMQ9QEwBjgK&dur=1079



iii) Increased proportion of urban population with access to clean and safe water from 73% in 2003

to 90% and access to improved sewerage facilities from 17% in 2003 to 30% in 2010; and

iv) 95% of people with access to basic sanitation by 2010 and 100% of schools to have adequate

sanitary facilities by 2010.

The first phase of WSDP started in July 2007 and was to be accomplished in June 2012. However,

the Mid Term Review (MTR) of April 2010 noted that a number of important consultancies and

schemes under construction needed more time to completion and that the Programme was not on

track in relation to its targets due to several challenges including: insufficient systemic planning,

monitoring and reporting; inadequate capacity at all levels; delays in flow of funds; delays in

procurement processing; higher unit costs per capita that affected outputs; delayed completion of

designs and use of the sector MIS that were causing several challenges in ensuring effective

financial management and reporting. . Consequently, at mid-term, it was agreed to restructure the

WSDP, adjust targets and extend Phase I completion date to June 2014.

The restructuring plan with realistic revised targets, financing plan, work plan, procurement plan,

and disbursement projections was approved in June 2011. Also, the results-framework and

performance indicators were revised based on re-prioritized interventions and activities within the

available financial envelope. As a result of this review, implementation arrangement, including the

dialogue mechanisms, as well as the Programme Implementation Manual (PIM), also were revised.

The restructured plan also separated out the sanitation sub-component, for coordination by the

Ministry of Health and Social Welfare under the National Sanitation Campaign (NSCs). The revised

targets included the following:

i) The National Water Board and all Basin Water Boards launched and other basin institutions

strengthened and fully operational by 2012;

ii) Increased proportion of rural population with access to clean and safe water from 55.7 % in

2006 to 60.5% in 2012;

iii) Increased proportion of urban population with access to clean and safe water from 78% in 2006

to 88% in 2012; and access to improved sewerage facilities from 18% in 2006 to 22% in 2012;

iv) Water Quality Management and pollution control mechanism in place by 2012; and

v) 95% of the population with access to basic sanitation and 60% of the population with access to

improved sanitation facilities in program areas by 2012.

Major aims of the restructured WSDP were to address capacity constraints of the implementing

entities; strengthening the planning, budgeting and procurement processes; and addressing quality,

timeliness and accuracy of Programme reporting. The progress in addressing the challenges include

installation of the Sector Management Information System (MIS) which became operational in

2011, the urban water supply database (MajIs) have been improved, Water Point Mapping is being

finalized, purchase and distribution of working tools for improvement of work environment,

strengthening the basin boards operational capacity, functioning of the national water board,

establishment of Community owned Water Supply and Sanitation Organizations (COWSOs) and

Water User Associations (WUAs), enactment of the Water Resources Management Act (WRMA)

and the Water Supply and Sanitation Act (WSSA) in 2009, and preparation of regulations, which is

still in progress.

1.2 Financing



The collaborative efforts between the Government and the DPs have by June 2012, attracted to the

water sector total commitments of about USD 1,299 million, an increase of USD 348 million,

equivalent to 36% of the initial planned investment portfolio of the Phase I Programme of USD 951

million. In the same period, the actual disbursements have reached USD 789 million, which is

equivalent to financial performance of about 61%. The Programme is being implemented using

pooled (basket) financing arrangements which are guided by the Memorandum of Understanding

(MoU) that clarifies areas of compliance to both DPs and the Government as well as earmarked

financing of specific projects governed by specific bilateral financing agreements..

1.3 Justification for the Evaluation

So far six Annual Joint Water Sector Reviews (JWSRs) have been held to assess WSDP

implementation progress and performance in generating relevant outputs/outcomes towards

realization of the Programme objectives. The annual JWSRs have been comprehensive in reviewing

sector performance and has been providing guidance for further improvements through annual

agreed undertakings. Through the annual JWSRs, it has been possible to address outstanding

challenges, making re-prioritizations including documentation of good practices.

In addition to the six JWSRs, nine Joint Supervision Missions (JSMs) have been conducted to

review and monitor Programme implementation. Agreed actions formulated out of these joint

missions have been helpful in addressing the operational challenges observed during field visits and

through review of key documents from IAs.. Findings of the nine JSMs have been summarized in

aide memoires, which provide a trend of what has been happening in the field, in terms of

achievements, challenges and actions for improving implementation performance.

Several capacity enhancement activities have been undertaken to address specific challenges and

enhance staff skills in areas such as planning, budgeting, financial management, procurement,

reporting, use of MIS and specific expert skills to some technical staff. These have led to

improvements in financial management and the quality of reports produced such as the IFRs and

physical progress reports.

Over the period of implementation, annual reviews, technical audit, special audit and financial

audits have been undertaken and these have provided information on the performance of WSDP

over the past six years. As we approach the end of Phase I and start planning for Phase II, a

thorough evaluation of Phase I is required to provide a comprehensive understanding of the

Programme challenges and achievements in terms of implementation performance to achieve

development objectives.

The assignment will therefore focus on undertaking an in-depth evaluation of WSDP Phase I

performance since its inception specifically assessing the extent to which the Programme has

succeeded in achieving the targets during the six years of implementation. The evaluation will

provide to WSDP stakeholders, an indication of the extent to which progress has been made

towards achieving the Programme objectives and the findings of the evaluation will inform the

design of WSDP Phase II (2014/2015-2018/2019).

2. OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSIGNMENT

The overall objective of the assignment is to critically review the performance of Phase I of WSDP

implementation in achieving its objective, and to provide an assessment of key areas that will

require strengthening or changes and establish inputs for phase II of the Programme.



The focus of the assignment would therefore be to undertake a formative evaluation to answer the

following key questions:

i. Has the Programme been in line with the upper policies? Is the Programme design including

the rationale for Programme components, outputs, indicators and priorities relevant to the

development objective and the revised targets?

ii. How effective is the Programme to achieve its intended goal, objectives, outcomes and

impact?

iii. How efficient is the Programme? Is it on track to achieve its intended outcomes? Are the

costs of the various activities comparable to similar activities in other countries?

iv. To what extent has the Programme addressed equity and sustainability in service delivery?

v. What impact have capacity building initiatives had at various levels? To what extent do

capacity building efforts contribute to Programme efficiency and effectiveness in delivery of

results?

vi. From the experience of Phase I of the WSDP implementation, what worked well and what

did not work? What are the key lessons learnt and what should change or be done differently

going forward?

2.1 Tasks of the Consultants

The consultant will perform the following tasks:

(a) Effectiveness

Assessing “Effectiveness” will entail ascertainment of the extent to which the Programme objectives

have been achieved by Programme outputs. This will involve analyzing the relationship between

outputs from implemented activities and the level of accomplishment for the Programme objectives.

i) Review institutional arrangements for the implementation of the WSDP, paying attention to

effectiveness and efficiency of the overall Programme management such as the role of the

Steering Committee in providing strategic guidance and accountability; the role of Technical

Working Groups in guiding day to day Programme implementation, and the role of

Implementing Agencies in effective implementation of planned activities. This will also

entail reviewing the dialogue mechanism as a whole and effectiveness of agreed actions (in

JSMs), undertakings (in JWSRs) and compliance to the WSDP MoU;

ii) Assess the effectiveness of the funding mechanism, financial resource flow and its

utilization as agreed in the in the Programme Appraisal Document (PAD) , including in-

depth analysis of economic returns and value for money of the WSDP investments;

iii) Assess the effectiveness of the Programme supporting systems (Water Sector MIS, the

Governments Financial Accounting System (EPICOR), the Planning and Reporting System

for Local Governments (Plan-rep), etc) to determine the extent at which they supported

Programme implementation, what are the bottlenecks for their effective utilization; what

were the results and draw up feasible recommendations;

iv) Assess effectiveness of the monitoring, reporting and the overall WSDP feedback

mechanism across sector levels including the client service charters;

v) Assess effectiveness of water quality monitoring, technical audits, external audits, internal

audits and regular and ad-hoc monitoring activities in improving the quality of water

services, internal controls, public expenditure, value for money and improvements in

accountability to beneficiaries.



vi) Review the extent to which the planned community participatory monitoring instruments

including the use of scorecards were used to measure beneficiary satisfaction, enhance

social accountability and governance; and as a means to include the voice of people in

decision-making and sustainability of services;

vii) Review the effectiveness of the sector technical capacity and mandate at regional level in

supporting the supervision, monitoring and technical backstopping to LGAs (especially

reviewing the adequacy of the institutional arrangement for component two), BWOs, Small

Towns and Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Authorities (UWSSAs). This will also entail

reviewing the institutional arrangements for all WSDP components, which cuts across

several line ministries and involves various implementing entities. Specifically review the

adequacy of institutional arrangements for rural water supply delivery and its supporting

structures;

viii) Carry out both quantitative and qualitative assessment of the achievements of WSDP

objectives and provide specific recommendations – indicating clearly (i) what worked and

what did not work and why; (ii) key implementation lessons towards achievement of the

Programme development objective; and (iii) changes required to improve implementation

processes so as to achieve Programme objectives and targets of WSDP phase II;

ix) Propose key practical changes/improvements required (policy incentives, institutional and

operational arrangements, funding mechanism, other incentives for those involved in

running or executing Programme interventions etc) to increase potential for achieving the

Programme objective in the next 5 years.

(b) Efficiency

Analysis of “Efficiency” will entail assessing the level of productivity in the Programme

implementation process. This will involve a thorough study of the ration of inputs (implemented

activities) converted into outputs.

i) Assess the cost of the Programmeme per achieved change in outcome across the various

components;

ii) Review the efficacy of the capacity building support component in achieving the intended

outcome. Determine if an alternative arrangement should be considered on the basis of good

value for money.

(c) Relevance

Assessment of “Relevance” entails reviewing the consistency of the Programme objectives with

overall Programme goals. This requires the consultant to look into the stability of the policy

direction, the demand, resources, economic conditions, etc. of stakeholders involved in WSDP.

i) Review the relevance of the structural and technical arrangements for Programme

implementation to determine further opportunities for improvements;

ii) Review the relevance of the overall Programme design including the rationale for

Programme components, the Programme development objective, outputs, outcomes, targets,

indicators and priorities to determine and recommend optimal Programme design solutions;

iii) Examine the extent to which formula based allocation for rural water supply has been applied.

In particular, review whether performance based funding allocation was used as the basis for



funds transfer to LGAs. If not used, what was the barrier? Assess whether this should be

considered for Phase II and establish its associated policy incentives.

iv) Identify key internal and external factors that have facilitated or impeded progress towards

achieving Programme objectives, including policy and institutional setup that have taken

place in the sector and analyze their influence on the implementation of the Programme;

(d) Impacts

Analysis of “Impacts” includes assessing direct and indirect, positive and negative effects of the

Programme implementation and influences and effects not foreseen during Programme design.

i) Review various available documentation including the Household Budget Survey (2007),

the Tanzania Demographic and Health Survey (2010), the National Panel Surveys (2009 and

2011), and the National Housing and Population Census of 2012 to determine clues of

Programme impacts on reduction of water related and water borne diseases, reduction of

time taken to fetch water and its impacts in improving the health, education and

environment sectors;

ii) Assess the impacts of routine monitoring (water quality, financial management) and regular

service delivery/client satisfaction surveys in improving delivery of water and sanitation

services, improving value for money and holding water supply and sanitation services

providers accountable to beneficiaries.

(e) Sustainability

Whether or not the benefits from the implementation of the Programme will continue accruing after

this current phase of WSDP ends is examined as “Sustainability” with wider viewpoints such as

policies, technologies, environment, society & culture, organization & institutions, economy &

finance, etc.

i) Assess the extent to which the Programme design and implementation have taken issues of

sustainability into account across all components water -resources management, urban and

rural water supply and sanitation and propose improvements for future;

ii) For the rural water component in particular examine whether the LGAs have capacity in

place to support maintenance of the schemes going forward in terms of financial capacity,

human resources and technical knowledge. What support should be considered in the future

to keep results sustainable?

iii) Identify and assess any risks to the sustainability of achievements gained under phase 1 and

propose mitigation measures for any identified risks (including behavior changes amongst

target groups);

iv) Review software advocacy processes for the sector, identify measures for ensuring their

sustainability in relation to sustainability of outcomes;

v) Review lessons learned from all aspects of the Programme including formulation,

implementation, management, coordination, fiduciary arrangements, dialogue mechanism

etc, including drawing up lessons from other similar Programmes in developing countries

that can inform sustainable and more feasible way forward for WSDP.



3. SCOPE OF THE ASSIGNMENT

For the purpose of this evaluation, scope of work will hinge mainly on assessing the effectiveness

and efficiency of the structures and interventions of WSDP phase I since its commencement so far

(2007/08 – 2011/12); and to determine the relevance of Programme execution processes towards

achieving the intended Programme objectives, impacts and sustainability. The assignment will also

review and analyze sustainability of outputs during WSDP phase I so as to inform any possible

changes for next phases of Programme implementation. The assignment will propose what needs to

be changed or strengthened in moving forward to the WSDP phase II. The deskwork and outreach

scope will involve the following:

i) The evaluation will use combination of approaches including (a) desk review of

available information/reports such as JSM Aide Memoires; JWSR proceedings; WSDP

quarterly, semiannual and annual progress reports, technical studies done in WSDP

components, WSDP performance assessments reports, Monitoring reports, MTEFs,

budget performance and expenditure reports, Public Expenditure Review reports etc and

(b) structured and unstructured interviews of key stakeholders in the sector at national

(Government Ministries, Development Partners, Private Sector, Civil Societies, etc) and

local level (LGA; COWSOs, UWSAs, Basin Water Offices; private service providers

and others). This will entail extensive field visits to selected areas.

ii) The Consultant(s) should devote ample time to collect/consolidate and analyze available

information, as well as findings from stakeholders’ interviews. The evaluation should

include both qualitative and quantitative analysis of Programme performance based on

outcome and impact indicators.

iii) The Consultant(s) will interact with the Ministries responsible for WSDP

implementation (MoW, PMO-RALG, MoF, MoHSW and MoEVT), WSDP component

directorates, Local Government Authorities (LGAs), UWSAs, Basin Water Boards and

other stakeholders.

4. QUALIFICATIONS OF THE CONSULTANT

A consulting firm that will field a team of not less than 3 consultants, including the team leader who

must have international experience in water sector, will carry out the assignment. The idea of 3

consultants lies mainly in comprehensively covering water resources, water supply and sanitation

technical areas. The skill mix for at least two (2) consultants is Masters Degree level in Water

Resources (Hydrology, Hydrogeology or Engineering), Water Supply (Civil or Water Engineering)

and Sanitation (Sanitary or Environmental Engineering); and for other consultant(s) is Masters

Degree in economics, institutional/organizational management and financial analysis.

While emphasis is at Master Degree level, PhD in the relevant field will be added advantage. The

Team Leader will be responsible for providing strategic guidance to the evaluation team and overall

coordination of the assignment and its outputs The Team Leader must have experience of at least

ten (10) years in execution of similar assignments in developing countries; and other consultants

must have the experience of not less than 5 years in conducting similar assignments.

Time Schedule

It is anticipated that this assignment will be undertaken during the period of mid February 2013 –

mid April 2013; and will require a total Consultants’ input of about 200 staff-days. . A detailed

time schedule/work plan will be developed by the consultants and discussed with the client.

5. EXPECTED OUTPUT



5.1 The main output

The main output is a comprehensive evaluation report addressing the TORs. The final report should

not exceed 50 pages excluding annexes, with an informative executive summary of not more than

10 pages. The deliverables will be as follows:

(i) An inception report will be presented to the joint management of MoW and DPs within

one week after signing the contract. It will specify detailed approach and methodology to

the used in the evaluation as well as proposed work plan and time schedule;

(ii) Desk study – 1.5 weeks

(iii) Interviews – 1.5 weeks

(iv) Field study – two weeks

(v) Drafting of the report – 4 days

(vi) The Draft Interim Report will be presented to Technical Working Group 4 (TWG 4)

before the last day of the 5th

week since commencement of the assignment.

(vii) The Draft Final Report will be presented to the Water Sector Working Group

(stakeholder forum) meeting for comments before finalization not later than 49 days

from commencement of assignment; and

(viii) The final report will be submitted to the PS MoW not later than 65 days from

commencement of the assignment.

All deliverables should be submitted in both hard (15 copies) and softcopy in MS-word and

tables and charts in MS-Excel.

5.2 Payment Schedule and Durations:

The payments to the consultant will be made upon submission of acceptable reports as summaries

in Item 5.1 above:

(i) 15 percent of the lump-sum amount shall be paid upon acceptance of the Inception

Report by the Joint MoW-DPs management meeting.

(ii) 30 percent of the lump-sum amount shall be paid upon acceptance of the Draft Interim

Report by the TWG 4.

(iii) 30 percent of the lump-sum amount shall be paid upon acceptance of the Draft Final

Report by the Water Sector Working Group.

(iv) 25 percent of the lump-sum amount shall be paid upon submission of the Final Report.

6. REPORTING AND OBLIGATIONS

6.1 Institutional and Organization Arrangements and Client’s obligations

The consultant will report directly to Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the

Ministry of Water (MoW) through the Director of Policy and Planning (DPP) who will be the

contact person for this assignment. The MoW will ensure smooth execution of the consultant’s

activities. However, the Consultant will be responsible for all organizational and logistical



arrangements during his assignment. On written request, the MoW will provide support to the

Consultant with regard to getting access to the required documents/information. In addition, the MoW

will provide a written letter of introduction of the Consultant to the various implementing entities and

Development Partners and will facilitate appointments on consultant’s request. In case of any

difficulties regarding the timely execution of the assignment, the Consultant will inform JICA and the

MoW without any delay and will propose appropriate measures for resolving the difficulties.

The Team Leader will be responsible for maintaining effective communication with JICA and the

MoW during execution of the assignment and timely delivery of outputs.

6.2 Relevant documents and reports to be reviewed

The MoW shall provide relevant documents not limited but including the following; some of which

are available online at http://www.tzdpg.or.tz/index.php?id=221

Programme Implementation Manual including the related volumes and annexes;

WSDP 2006-2025: main Document,

Programme/Project Appraisal Document PAD

WSDP Technical Audit report for the three fiscal year FY 2007/08, 2008/09and 2009/10

and all its Annexes

Memorandum of Understanding for WSDP between the Government of the United

Republic of Tanzania and Basket Development Partners

WSDP reports (Quarterly, Semi Annual, Annual);

Aide Memoires;

A complete list of water sector projects and activities financed individually by DPs and/or

GoT outside the water sector basket funding (if not included in the WSDP progress

report);

The National Water Policy

The National Water Sector Development Strategy (NWSDS 2006-2015)

The WSDP Revised Procurement Plan (FY 2010/2011 and FY2007 to 2013)

A list of signed contracts with the contract price (including addenda), amount paid and

balance yet to be paid;

Work-plan (FY 2010/2011 and 2011/2012)

CAG Special Audit Report and other WSDP Audit reports (internal audit reports as well

as external audit reports)

Water Sector Performance Reports (2010/2011);

Complete list of Districts /Wards/Villages, UWSAs, EAs and BWOs which have benefited

from the WSDP financing;

ESMF and RPF

A list of category A projects

ESIAs/ESMPs and RAPs for sampled sub-projects

WSDP MIS online access or printed reports

WSDP Restructuring Plan Document

HBS 2007

TDHS 2010

NPS 2009 and 2011

Any other available report, data and information deemed relevant to this assignment.

http://www.tzdpg.or.tz/index.php?id=221

inception report - tzdpg.or.tz report: water sector development programme, tanzania - evaluation of...

Documents