A plethora of policy processes has been put in place are a sign of improving participation in the policy process but there are concerns that have arisen in the course of time.
When DP representatives are asked what they would like to achieve in the dialogue with Tanzania, there is a remarkable unity in the replies. Everybody points to a number of cross cutting issues that are not sector specific as the main points of dialogue and everybody complains that it is difficult to get through on a number of these issues. This means that there is much to be gained from a coordinated dialogue.
Sector specialists working as donor representatives have expressed the view that their dialogue is too dominated by cross cutting issues possibly at the expense of addressing sector specific challenges.
The typical cross-cutting issues include: issues related to improved budget quality there are important, monitoring of social and economic developments including poverty monitoring and analysis, improvement of economic statistics, tracking of social sector funding and actual service delivery in local communities and public financial management reform, in particular public procurement reform, local government funding and roll-out of the IT-based accounting system etc. These issues are recurrent in discussions with heads of missions, economists and sector specialists on the donor side and of both Ministry of Finance representatives and line ministries’ representatives on the Government side. There is wide agreement that there is a need for a cross-cutting dialogue and technical cooperation on these issues.
GoT side officials who were interviewed expressed the wish to see effective but less complicated and less interfering dialogue with the donors.
Recommendation
GoT should come out more clearly and strongly on the modalities of policy dialogue and clarify entry points by various stakeholders in policy dialogue as well as stipulate the practice and procedures that should be followed. This point is also raised in Peretz & Wangwe (2004)17. GOT should define the dialogue modalities, agree with the donors and make arrangements to be more proactive in engaging DPs and other partners in policy dialogue.
.
Many of the stakeholders in the government – donors’ dialogue in Tanzania have expressed concern over the lack of clarity on the respective roles of government and donors in the many interactions they have. Concern has been expressed that there are too many joint working groups and very often lack of clarity as to the status of reports and assessments that emerge for the groups.
It is proposed that a simplified system of dialogue be adopted. The proposed simplification of dialogue is as follows:
Dialogue issue/area
Existing or new group for dialogue
Political level dialogue
DCF represented by high level DPG and GoT
Aid policy and pledging support to Tanzania using the modality of GBS, which is the GoT preferred modality
PRBS Heads of Missions, which is the main dialogue forum for the PRBS DPs with the Ministry of Finance.
Dialogue on macroeconomic developments, structural reform issues in private sector and overall budget allocations.
PER macro group with MoF. (Economists supporting the two “political level groups). This process should mirror and be supported by the PRGF dialogue.
Poverty monitoring and outcome
PMS group with VPs Office
Public Financial Management Issues
PFMRP Joint Steering Committee
Sector working groups
PER-based and one single group for each sector
The proposed dialogue arrangements should be structured and implemented on the basis of the considerations and guidelines:
It should be structured around a Performance Assessment Framework (PAF) which should be derived from MKUKUTA
it should include sector coverage with the aim of encouraging a shift in financing to GBS but detailed issues should be avoided due to transaction costs.
It is of utmost importance not to overload the dialogue process. The number of issues featured in the Performance Assessment Framework and discussed in the semi-annual meeting must be limited so as to get the right focus and depth.In the PAF there should be identified a maximum of 6-10 results based monitorable actions that are derived from the NSGRP. PAF should in addition make “one-line“ references to completion of satisfactory reviews in the existing relevant programmes.
NSGRP implementation should be monitored by an assessment of overall progress focusing on: (i) policy on and adequacy of resource “inputs“ (through PER process and facilitated by Government efforts to make the budget more transparent and linked to the NSGRP) and (ii) operational outcomes or concrete “outputs“ of achieving the NSGRP through the PMS. Sector issues such as education or health policy should be brought in on an as and when required basis.
The assessment of Macroeconomic developments such as reforms on financial sector, debt policy and management, and tax policy and management, should be monitored under the IMF PRGF programme to avoid cross-conditionality and reporting burdens on Government to two sets of foreign stakeholders (IMF as well as GBS partners). PRGF staff reports would then indicate progress made. The macroeconomic choices should continuously be aligned with MKUKUTA with a view to ensuring that the macroeconomic policy choices that are being made are consistent with the principles and spirit of MKUKUTA and supportive of the implementation of national programmes.
Detailed issues are better dealt with in the PER sector working groups and reviewed in the main PER work agenda. For sector reviews to be more consistent with the NSGRP and JAS.
The new PER-linked Sector Groups would provide donors and government sector ministries with a forum for discussion on policy, budget proposals to be submitted to Ministry of Finance and technical cooperation. Donor representatives taking part in these groups would not pledge direct support but rather work with the government in an advisory capacity. They would also bring particular issues such as major policy reform, substantial deviation from plans and serious policy issues or slippages to the attention of the PRBS/PRSC meeting representatives in their own organisations.
