TANZANIA: PARTICIPATORY POVERTY ASSESSMENT PROCESS

___________________________

Preliminary Project Description

September 2001

Prepared for the Research and Analysis Working Group by
Dr. Charles Ehrhart, Independent Consultant
Mr. Erasto Ngalewa, REPOA

Abbreviations and Acronyms

CSO Civil Society Organisation
GoT Government of Tanzania
HIPC Highly Indebted Poor Country
IC Implementing Consortium
IMF International Monetary Fund
INGO International Non-government Organisation
IP Implementing Partner
ME Management Entity
MTEF Medium Term Expenditure Framework
NGO Non-governmental Organisation
NPES National Poverty Eradication Strategy
PER Public Expenditure Review
PFP Policy Framework Paper
PMS Poverty Monitoring System
PPA Participatory Poverty Assessment
PRS Poverty Reduction Strategy
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
RA/WG Research and Analysis Working Group
TAS Tanzania Assistance Strategy
VPO Vice President’s Office

Index

1. Introduction 1
2. What is the Government of Tanzania doing to end mass poverty? 2
3. What is a Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, and why is it important? 2
4. How can poor people participate in informing the PRSP? 3
5. What is a Participatory Poverty Assessment? 4
6. Have PPAs been conducted in Tanzania before now? 5
7. Why should we conduct more PPAs in Tanzania? 6
8. What will the Tanzania PPA Process look like? 6
8.1 Organisational Arrangements 6
8.1 Objectives 7
8.2 Subject Matter 8
8.3 Timing 8
8.4 Budget 9
8.5 Funding 11

Annex 1 Institutional Arrangements 12
Annex 2 Timeline for Implementation of 1st T-PPAP Cycle (2002/03) 13

1. Introduction

Institutions committed to poverty alleviation must have ideas about why it occurs, why it persists and how it can be overcome to guide their work. Indeed, they have always operated on the basis of specific theories about poverty that reflect their understanding of cultural, social and economic realities.

Since the second half of the 1980s, public institutions have developed increasingly sophisticated multi-topic surveys as their preferred means to measure, analyse and learn about poverty. In contrast with single-topic surveys (such as Employment, Income and Expenditure Surveys), these multi-topic Household Surveys are designed to generate information on a wide range of issues intimately linked to household welfare. At the same time, private development aid institutions and, to a lesser extent, academic institutions were rapidly pioneering a “participatory approach” to developing information and understanding about poverty.

In their current forms, both methodologies involve poor people in the production of data. The primary difference between participatory and survey-based research is that the former systematically involves poor people in the analysis of its findings. It is this analysis, as much as the raw data, which is then synthesised to inform pro-poor policies.

Some of the advantages to Participatory Policy Research are obvious. First, data analysis does not depend on speculation by urban elites about the conditions poor people face. Instead, it is the result of poor people – the “everyday experts on poverty” – reflecting on, theorising about, debating and explaining the world in which they live in. Second, Participatory Policy Research contributes to social democratisation by engaging poor people in policymaking processes.

On the basis of these characteristics, the Government of Tanzania has decided to make Participatory Policy Research, in the form of Participatory Poverty Assessments (PPAs), a routine part of its Poverty Monitoring System. As such, future PPAs will be firmly enmeshed in national level planning processes. This does not imply that their findings will be irrelevant to Local Authorities. At the very least, PPAs will play a critical part in shaping the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper and Sector Plans that provide the framework of common values and understanding that orient, organise and empower pro-poor development planning at all levels of Government.

This “Preliminary Project Description” provides readers with up-to-date information about the emerging Tanzania PPA Process. Though many operational details have been determined, others – such as management structures and specific subjects for investigation during the 1st PPA Cycle – remain uncertain. These outstanding issues are currently being addressed, and the results will be made available to interested parties within the next few weeks.

2. What is Government doing to end mass poverty?

The PPA process will play a vital role in the increasingly concerted efforts of Government, donors, Civil Society Organisations, the private sector and ordinary individuals to end mass poverty in Tanzania.

Of course, Government has been concerned with poverty alleviation since Independence. However, in recent years, plans and procedures to eradicate mass poverty have multiplied in the form of Vision 2025, the National Poverty Eradication Strategy (NPES), the Tanzania Assistance Strategy (TAS), the Medium Term Expenditure Frameworks (MTEFs) and Public Expenditure Review (PER).

Vision 2025 describes the general level of development the country wants to achieve during the next few decades. In contrast, the NPES sets more specific poverty reduction targets. The TAS is a means to coordinate the efforts of GoT with those of the international community in order to reach these goals. Meanwhile, the Medium Term Expenditure Framework and Public Expenditure Review are important processes enabling Government to prioritise and track the impact of pro-poor public expenditures.

In 2000, Government produced a Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). It was subsequently approved by Parliament and endorsed by the Executive Boards of the World Bank and IMF. The PRSP is narrower than Vision 2025, the NPES and TAS in the sense that it covers a shorter time-span and entails more focused objectives.

3. What is a Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, and why is it so
important?

Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) are three-year, rolling plans that the World Bank and IMF require of countries like Tanzania seeking to access concessional loans and receive debt relief under the Highly Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) Initiative. Simply put, the PRSP explains how Government intends to use its money (particularly that freed up from debt-cancellation) to improve the lives of poor people.

Launched by the World Bank and IMF in September 1999, PRSPs replace the Policy Framework Papers (PFPs) previously demanded of the world’s poorest countries. PRSPs are intended to:
Ø Ensure that macroeconomic, structural and social reforms are coherent and poverty-focused
Ø Be formulated through a government led process involving civil society
Ø Provide a means for coordinating World Bank and IMF assistance. Ultimately, it is envisaged that PRSPs will become the country-specific strategies around which all donors plan and coordinate their development activities.

Seen in this light, PRSPs are indispensable to Tanzania’s short-term economic health. Yet, due to their pragmatic content and unique emphasis on participatory policymaking, PRSPs can be much, much more. Indeed, in coming years, they are likely to become one of Government’s top tools for working with others and coordinating effective plans to fight mass poverty.

This outcome is far from certain since putting PRSPs into practice will require many changes in conventional development planning and assistance. For example:
Ø Donors – including the World Bank and IMF – will have to loosen control of the policy agenda and become more cooperative in relation to GoT and each other
Ø Government policymaking processes will have to become more inclusive and transparent so that local government officials and representatives from civil society and the private sector can participate in shaping poverty reduction strategies
Ø Civil society will have to quickly adapt if it is to take advantage of new opportunities and responsibilities to influence pro-poor policies

4. How can poor people participate in informing the PRSP?

Government’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) and other development initiatives depend on knowing whether or not the activities they set in motion are, in fact, improving people’s welfare, how and why. Therefore, the Government of Tanzania recently established a Poverty Monitoring System (PMS) to provide an institutional framework for rigorous monitoring and evaluation of anti-poverty programmes. The PMS will:
Ø Guide the timely collection, analysis and dissemination of information
Ø Enable policymakers to assess national poverty alleviation strategies, identify shortcomings and make adjustments as necessary
Ø Allow Government and its development partners to identify particularly successful initiatives so that they can be given adequate support and (if feasible) replicated

A wide range of stakeholders have been involved in designing the PMS and ensuring that it seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of poverty trends and their reasons. In October 2000, a Consultative Workshop was held at the White Sands Hotel in order to accelerate creation of this ambitious System. Amongst other important conclusions, participants decided that regular Participatory Poverty Assessment – providing “The poor’s perception of trends in poverty and impact of policy changes under the PRS” – should be conducted.

5. What is a Participatory Poverty Assessment?

The first Participatory Poverty Assessments were conducted in Africa during the early 1990s. Together with information generated through surveys and individual interviews, their findings were meant by the World Bank to show the complex relationship between poverty profiles, public policies, expenditures and institutions.

PPAs quickly spread beyond the Bank to other agencies, where they continued to evolve and develop in terms of methodology and objectives. As a result, there are many different definitions of what a PPA is and no apparent agreement on what a PPA is not. One of the most contentious issues is the question of whose views should be represented in PPAs. According to the World Bank, they should document the perspectives and priorities of multiple stakeholders – including local elites and donors. The U.K. Department for International Development (DfID), amongst others, disagrees. It argues that these voices are usually heard in policy fora. Thus, they suggest that PPAs should focus on bringing the insights and concerns of poor people into these spaces.
In the midst of ongoing debates, the many goals of PPAs have grown to include:
Ø Providing critical supplementary data (e.g. qualitative data) to inform effective pro-poor policies
Ø Providing information about the perceptions and attitudes of poor people
Ø Improving the accuracy of ‘poverty assessments’ based on conventional research methodologies (and thereby improving the quality of poverty alleviation policies)
Ø Explaining the causes and consequences of poverty
Ø Engaging a range of stakeholders in the research process so as to stimulate local activities for poverty alleviation
Ø Raising poor people’s awareness of their rights and responsibilities (particularly vis-à-vis good governance)
Ø Building poor people’s capacity to analyse and solve their problems
Ø Changing policymakers’ understanding of and attitudes towards poor people by involving government officials in the research process
Ø Building governments’ capacity for poverty analysis and policy design
Ø Ensuring that Poverty Reduction Strategies reflect the priority needs of poor people
Ø Promoting wide ownership and partnership in the implementation of Poverty Reduction Strategies

Not all PPAs aim to meet all these goals, nor do all PPAs meet their goals. However, many are realised and have made critical contributions to poverty alleviation efforts.

6. Have PPAs been conducted in Tanzania before now?

In 1994/5, the World Bank conducted a PPA in Tanzania. It illuminated aspects of poverty and wellbeing important to poor people themselves. It also showed how surveys can distort our understanding of poverty by papering-over the unequal access to economic and non-economic resources experienced by individuals in the same household. Indeed, findings from this PPA contributed to growing recognition of poor communities and households as heterogeneous units whose members face an array of circumstances demanding a range of policy responses.
The 1997 Shinyanga PPA worked in a single region. It built the capacity of local government staff to engage in participatory planning and provided key information for a Human Development Report.
Both these “First Generation PPAs” were designed to collect information about the nature, causes and consequences of poverty from the perspectives of poor people. They did this well and have provided policymakers with essential information about the complexity, seasonality, etc. of poverty in Tanzania. Unfortunately neither PPA was designed as a comprehensive process to inform and influence national policy. As a result their impact was limited.
7. Why should we conduct more PPAs in Tanzania?

There is still much to learn from PPAs. Indeed, many basic questions remain unanswered. Moreover, we need to understand the changing causes and consequences of poverty – research goals the PPA methodology is particularly well suited to pursue.

In the context of a comprehensive, sustained process to inform and influence national policy, a new generation of PPAs will do all this and more. Thus, the 2000 PRSP expects that:

“The integration of a regular PPA in the PRSP monitoring system... will provide invaluable qualitative data, which will serve to cross-check quantitative data, help us judge the effectiveness of policy measures and more generally help us understand the causal links between the action programmes of the PRSP and changes in poverty. But most importantly, it will help us listen to the concerns, perceptions and opinions of the poor themselves.”

and the Vice President’s Office looks forward to PPAs allowing:

“the poor themselves to express their views on how poverty is evolving, what the causes are behind changes in the level and nature of poverty and how different policies and strategies are having an impact on the poor. The data and information coming out of the PPAs will be invaluable to put the quantitative data in context and to enhance our understanding of them”

In sum, the Government of Tanzania hopes that future PPAs will:
Ø Improve policymakers’ understanding of poverty and the outcome of poverty alleviation activities
Ø Open-up political processes by involving poor people in decisions that affect their lives.

8. What will the Tanzania PPA Process look like?

8.1 Organisational Arrangements

The National Poverty Monitoring System is led by an inclusive Steering Committee composed of representatives from government, the private sector, civil society, and the academic/research community. Technical Working Groups have been established and given responsibility for directing activities under the PMS. Thus:
1. The Working Group on Surveys and the Census (led by the National Bureau of Statistics) is establishing a multi-year household survey programme that will provide data on an annual basis for poverty monitoring
2. The Working Group on Routine Data Collection (led by the President’s Office - Regional Administration and Local Government) is improving the routine data collection systems of local authorities and sector ministries, as well as collating their information outputs
3. The Working Group on Research and Analysis (led by the President’s Office Planning and Privatisation) is co-ordinating research and analysis of poverty issues to inform the PRSP. This entails working with an array of stakeholders to set research priorities and ensure high quality investigations. This Group is also responsible for overseeing implementation of the Participatory Poverty Assessment process
4. The Working Group on Dissemination and Sensitisation (led by the Vice President’s Office) is developing and spearheading a strategy for the effective dissemination of findings from the Poverty Monitoring System

The Research and Analysis Working Group is responsible to the PRS Technical Committee for the successful implementation of PPAs. In order to meet its obligations, the Working Group has formed an inter-institutional Committee to oversee and guide the PPA Process as executed by the Macro-Economy Division of the President’s Office, Planning and Privatisation.

Participants in the 7th March PPA Stakeholders’ Workshop recommended that, while the process should be executed by a Government Agency, it should be implemented by a Consortium including:
Ø Non-profit academic & research institutions
Ø National non-governmental organisations
Ø International non-governmental organisations

Though the size of this Consortium has not been pre-determined, it is expected that a well-balanced, complementary team can be fashioned from six to ten institutions co-ordinated by a “Lead Implementing Partner.”

These relationships are represented in Annex 1 (wherein solid arrows illustrate reporting lines and dashed arrows indicate channels of oversight and guidance).

8.2 Objectives

The first Stakeholders’ Workshop for the PPA Process was held 7th March 2001 in the Courtyard Hotel, Dar es Salaam. Representatives from Government, donor institutions and civil society organisations attended, discussed and debated the shape to be taken by the PPA Process in Tanzania. Their conclusions, in combination with Government’s prior expectations, imply that its specific objectives include:
Ø Enhancing, through in-depth description and analysis, research participants’ and policymakers’ understanding of key poverty issues
Ø Exploring the (a.) different and sometimes competing priority needs of poor people, (b.) likely impact of policies and (c.) tradeoffs and potential compromises between diverse interests in order to develop ‘best bet’ recommendations for poverty alleviation
Ø Facilitating the constructive engagement of civil society in pro-poor policymaking processes

8.3 Subject Matter

Each PPA Cycle will focus on a particular subject matter, or “Research Theme,” strategically selected to contribute timely information to key policy debates.

The 1st PPA Cycle will concentrate on the vulnerability of different social groups to “extreme poverty” and their diverse experiences trying to prevent, survive and/or overcome it. A more detailed Research Agenda will be developed in coming months by the PPA’s Implementing Partners, policymakers/data-users and other stakeholders.

8.4 Timing

PPAs will be implemented in two-year long “cycles” calculated to feed into the PRSP and other policy review processes. The first of these cycles will begin in January 2002 with an intensive training programme in Participatory Policy Research. Fieldwork will begin in March 2002 and continue through June.

From July through December, the PPA will undertake further analysis and write-up its research results. This period will lead to the production of a National Report and an as of yet undetermined number of special policy briefing papers.

From January 2003 through June, the PPA will concentrate on disseminating its findings, ensuring their incorporation in key policy documents and facilitating the participation of various stakeholders in pro-poor policy processes. These activities will continue through December 2003. However, during the second half of the year, the PPA will also plan and prepare for its 2nd Cycle (set to begin in January 2004). This timeline is represented graphically in Annex 2.

8.4 Budget

It is difficult to make precise projections about the cost of a PPA before key details (e.g. number and location of field sites, amount and value of resources contributed by Implementing Partners) have been determined. In general, the most effective PPAs have cost in excess of US$ 1,000,000.

Based on all available information, the 1st Cycle of the Tanzania PPA Process is likely to cost US$ 1,258,550. This figure represents a significant investment in research and logistical materials. All other factors remaining roughly the same (e.g. number of field sites, the cost of logistical support), future Cycles will be much less expensive.

Item Cost inApprox. US$
Preparatory Period
Initial PPA Consultancy $36,000
Second PPA Consultancy $50,000
Technical Assistance to define Research Agenda for 1st PPA Cycle $4,000
Non-recurring purchase of office equipment $25,000
Non-recurring purchase of project vehicle $35,000
Preparatory Period Total $ 150,000

Year 1: Research & Analysis
Training in Participatory Policy Research ($2,000 x 24 researchers + 2 alternates) $52,000
Identification and preparation of 25 field sites (25 x $ 750) $18,750
DSA for Field Workers (24 researchers x 110 research days x 30,000 DSA) $88,000
Salaries for Field Workers Assuming 4 Research Teams composed of:3 Core Researchers x 6 months x $1,000 per month = $ 72,0001 Regional Government Officer x 25 field sites = $0.00 1 Student Apprentice x 6 months x $500 per month = $12,0001 Team Leader x 6 months x $1,500 per month = $36,000 $120,000
Mid-term Workshop & Training Assistance to Research Teams $25,000
Vehicle rental 3 vehicles x 40 training & prep. days x $100 per day = $12,0004 vehicles x 110 field days x $100 per day = $44,000 $56,000
Fuel/logistics $20,000
Equipment $10,000
Documentation of Research Process $5,000
Analysis & Writing-Up of National Report and up to 8 Speciality Reports (3 core authors @ $1,500 x 6 months) $27,000
Publication of National Report (2000 x $10 per report) $20,000
Publication of 8 Speciality Reports (500 x $5 per report) $20,000
Translations $5,000
Dissemination $5,000
Ongoing communication of PPA Process (e.g. creation of web-site) $5,000
International Technical Assistance $20,000
Management Team staffing $110,000
Management Team office supplies $5,000
Management Team vehicle fuel & maintenance $4,000
Management Team office leasing ($1,500 x 12) $18,000
Executing Agency costs $5,000
Implementing Agency costs $10,000
Unforeseen costs (x 10% of total) $64,800
Year 1 Total $713,550

Year 2: Communication & Sensitisation
Communicating Research Results to Field Sites (includes Validation of Findings) & Local Governments (25 sites x $2,000 per site) $50,000
Workshops to communicate Research Results at National Level $15,000
Additional communication events and activities $150,000
Evaluation of 1st PPA Cycle $7,000
Dissemination of Evaluation Results $1,000
Workshops and other meetings to plan 2nd PPA Cycle $10,000
Technical Assistance to define Research Agenda for 2nd PPA Cycle $10,000
Management Team staffing $110,000
Management Team office supplies $5,000
Management Team vehicle fuel & maintenance $4,000
Management Team office leasing $18,000
Executing Agency costs $5,000
Implementing Agency costs $10,000
Year 2 Total $395,000

1st PPA Cycle, Grand Total $1,258,550

8.5 Funding

The PPA Process is envisioned as a true partnership between the Government of Tanzania, Civil Society Organisations and development partners. As such, Government will allocate substantial resources to allow rigorous, high quality participatory research and to enable the PPA to make a significant contribution to pro-poor policy debates.

In the spirit of partnership, Implementing Partners will also be expected to contribute resources. The exact nature and amount of these resources will, necessarily, vary from institution to institution. In any case, these contributions will almost surely constitute a fraction of the PPA’s total costs.

Development partners will be asked to contribute to the budget for the PPA Process. The PPA budget has been incorporated in the Poverty Monitoring Master Plan. It is anticipated that contributions from development partners will be administered through the joint funding mechanism for poverty monitoring, which is currently being designed.

Preparatory Year
Dates: September2001 October November December
Activities: Preparation for 1st T-PPAP Cycle

Year 1
Dates: January2002 February March April May June July August September October November December
Activities: Research Team Training & Work Plan Preparation Fieldwork Production of National and other Reports

Year 2

Dates: January2003 February March April May June July August September October November December
Activities: Dissemination, Communication & Pro-poor Support to Policy Processes Continuing Support (as necessary) to Policy Processes Preparation for 2nd T-PPAP Cycle