the united republic of tanzania - tzdpg.or.tz · pdf filethe united republic of tanzania...

THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

Mid-Term Review for the Public Finance

Management Reform Program Phase Four

Tanzania

Final Report

September 2015

INN VEX

Final Report - Mid-Term Review for Public Finance Management Reform Program (PFMRP) Phase Four, Tanzania

INNOVEX©2015 ii | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acronyms................................................................................................................................................................. 3

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................

4

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 INNOVEX CONSULTANT TEAM ................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.3 PERIOD OF ASSIGNMENT ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.4 REVIEW REPORTING ................................................................................................................................ 1

2 ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS AGAINST THE STRATEGIC GOAL AND MAIN OBJECTIVES 3

2.1 THE PURPOSE AND GOAL OF PFMRP PHASE IV ....................................................................................... 4

2.2 SCOPE AND COVERAGE OF PFMRP ......................................................................................................... 4

2.2.1 Key result areas and overall purpose and goals ............................................................................... 5

2.2.2 Key result areas addressing PEFA identified PFM weaknesses ....................................................... 5

2.2.3 PFMRP IV addressing current PFM weaknesses ............................................................................. 9

2.3 IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITIES .............................................................................................................. 13

2.4 THE KEY RESULT AREAS, OUTPUTS AND THE PFM CYCLE ...................................................................... 14

2.5 THE NATURE OF THE PFMRP OUTPUTS AND MILESTONES ....................................................................... 17

2.5.1 Outputs relative to their key result areas ......................................................................................... 18

2.5.2 Milestones relative to their outputs .................................................................................................. 19

2.5.3 Outputs and outcomes versus inputs .............................................................................................. 20

2.5.4 Linkages and dependencies ............................................................................................................ 21

2.5.5 A reform programme or a funding programme ................................................................................ 21

2.6 AN ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS AGAINST THE PFMRP IV PLANNED INTERMEDIATE RESULTS ................... 21

2.7 AN ANALYSIS OF THE CONTRIBUTION, BY OUTPUT AND MILESTONE, TO PROGRESS IN ACHIEVING THE

OUTPUTS AND GENERAL GOALS OF THE PROGRAMME ........................................................................................... 23

2.7.1 Progress in achieving the higher outputs and general goals by output and milestone .................... 23

2.7.2 Sequencing of activities and value for money ................................................................................. 24

2.7.3 Choice of outputs, milestones and activities ................................................................................... 24

2.8 IMPACT OF PHASE IV CAPACITY BUILDING AND STUDIES .......................................................................... 25

2.8.1 Impact of capacity building and training .......................................................................................... 25

2.8.2 Impact of studies ............................................................................................................................. 27

2.9 AN ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION PER KEY RESULT AREA, OUTPUT AND MILESTONE ............................ 28

2.10 AN ANALYSIS OF BUDGET EXECUTION PER KEY RESULT AREA, COMPONENT AND SOURCE OF FUNDING ...... 30

2.11 A BROAD REVIEW OF THE NATURE OF ACTIVITIES FINANCED BY THE PFMRP IV ........................................ 31

2.12 A BROAD REVIEW OF THE IMPACT OF PFMRP IV ON OTHER NATIONAL REFORMS, MDGS AND GENERAL

POVERTY REDUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 32

3 ASSESSMENT OF THE FACTORS AFFECTING PROGRESS AND GOOD IMPLEMENTATION

33

3.1 IMPACT OF THE MANAGEMENT, COORDINATION, AND INSTITUTIONAL SETTINGS OF THEPROGRAMME .......... 33

3.2 IMPACT OF THE VARIOUS FUNDING MECHANISMS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION .............................................. 34

3.3 REVIEW OF MONITORING TOOLS AND PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ............................................. 34


INNOVEX©2015 iii | P a g e

3.4 PERFORMANCE OF THE PFMRP SECRETARIAT AND THE PFM JOINT STEERING COMMITTEE .................... 35

3.5 STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................ 36

3.6 RISKS TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF PFMRP IV OUTCOMES.......................................................................... 37

4 EMERGING PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ISSUES ........................................................ 38

4.1 TREATMENT OF OIL AND GAS REVENUES ................................................................................................. 38

4.2 BRN – BIG RESULTS NOW ..................................................................................................................... 39

5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE FOR THE PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

REFORM PROGRAMME, PHASE IV. .................................................................................................. 41

5.1 IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CONTENT OF THE REFORM PROGRAMME .............................................................. 41

5.2 IMPROVEMENTS IN INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ................................................................................ 42

5.3 IMPROVEMENTS IN FUNDING MECHANISMS AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE ............................................... 43

5.4 IMPROVEMENTS IN MONITORING AND EVALUATION, AND REPORTING FORMATS ......................................... 44

APPENDIX 1 – TERMS OF REFERENCE ............................................................................................ 45

APPENDIX 2 – CONSULTANT TASKS FROM THE TERMS OF REFERENCE AND ASSOCIATED

REPORT CONTENT ............................................................................................................................. 55

APPENDIX 3 – DOCUMENTS .............................................................................................................. 57

APPENDIX 4 – STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTED ................................................................................. 60

APPENDIX 5 – IPSASS SELECTED EXTRACTS ................................................................................ 63

APPENDIX 6 – PROGRESS IN THE PFMRP IV OUTPUTS................................................................. 64

APPENDIX 7 – BUDGET COMPARED WITH ACTUAL EXPENDITURE FOR KEY RESULT AREAS,

OUTPUTS AND MILESTONES........................................................................................................... 140

APPENDIX 8 – BUDGET COMPARED WITH ACTUAL RELEASES FOR KEY RESULT AREAS,

OUTPUTS AND MILESTONES........................................................................................................... 149

APPENDIX 9 – RELEASES COMPARED WITH ACTUAL EXPENDITUREFOR KEY RESULT

AREAS, OUTPUTS AND MILESTONES ............................................................................................ 158

APPENDIX 10 – FINANCES FOR COMPONENTS BY SOURCE ...................................................... 167

APPENDIX 11– RISK ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 168

Table 1 PEFA PIs with Significant Departures from Good Practice 6

Table 2 KRA Outputs Addressing Less Critical PEFA Ratings 8

Table 3 Extent of Achievement of Burning Issues/Quick Wins 13

Table 4 Key Result Areas and the PFM Cycle 14

Table 5 Key Result Areas and Component Managers 17

Table 6 Key Result Area and Output Mismatches 18

Table 7 Output and Milestone Mismatches 19

Table 8 Categories of Milestones 20

Table 9 Achievement of Planned Intermediate Results 22

Table 10 Summary of milestone achievement 24

Table 11 Training initiatives and comments on impact 26


INNOVEX©2015 iv | P a g e

Table 12 Studies and comments on impact. 27

Table 13 PFMRP IV comparison of budget, releases and actual expenditure 28

Table 14 Variance between budget and actual expenditure 29

Table 15 Variance between budget and releases 29

Table 16 Variance between releases and actual expenditure 29

Table 17 PFMRP IV budget, releases and expenditure to date 30

Table 18 BRN's National Key Result Areas 39

Figure 1 The public financial management cycle .................................................................................................... 3


INNOVEX©2015 v | P a g e

Acronyms

ACGEN Accountant General ACL Propriety computer-assisted audit technology AFRITAC Africa Regional Technical Assistance Centre AFROSAI-E African Organisation of English-speaking Supreme Audit

Institutions AMP AID Management Platform BoT Bank of Tanzania CAG Controller and Auditor General CDR Council development reports CFR Council financial reports COFOG Classification of the functions of government DAHRM Department of Administration and HRM DCF Development Cooperation Framework DFID UK Department for International Development DP Development Partner EPICOR The trade name for an integrated package of financial

management applications (see IFMIS) FY Financial year GDP Gross Domestic Product GFS Government Finance Statistics GoT Government of Tanzania HQ Head quarters HR Human resources HRM Human resource management ICT Information and communication technology IFMIS Integrated Financial Management Information System IFMS see IFMIS IFRS International Financial Reporting Standards IMTC Inter-Ministerial Technical Committee IPSAS International Public Sector Accounting Standards ISSAIs International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions ISA International Standards on Auditing IT Information technology JAST Joint Assistance Strategy for Tanzania JSC Joint Steering Committee LGA Local government authority M&E Monitoring and evaluation MDA Ministry, department, agency MDGs Millennium Development Goals MIS Management information system MKUKUTA National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty MoF Ministry of Finance MoU Memorandum of Understanding

MTEF Medium-term expenditure framework

MTFF Medium-term fiscal framework MTSPBM Medium Term Strategic Planning and Budgeting Manual NAOT National Audit Office Tanzania NPP National Procurement Policy PAC Public Accounts Committee PAF Performance assessment framework PCCB Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau PE Public entity PEFA Public Expenditure & Financial Accountability Framework

Assessment PER Public expenditure review PFM Public financial management PFMRP Public Financial Management Reform Programme PFMRP III PFM Reform Programme Phase 3 PFMRP IV PFM Reform Programme Phase 4 PI Performance Indicator PM Programme Manager PMC Programme Management Committee PMIS Procurement management information system PMO Prime Minister’s Office PMO-RALG PMO-Regional Administration and Local Government PMU Project management unit PO-PSM President’s Office – Public Service Management PPA Public Procurement Act PPAA Public Procurement Appeals Authority PPPD Public Procurement Policy Division PPRA Public Procurement Regulatory Authority RIMKU National reporting system for MKUKUTA RS Regional Administration Secretariat SIDA Swedish International Development Agency SBAS Strategic Budget Allocation System TNA Training needs assessment TORs Terms of Reference TR Treasury Registrar TRO Treasury Registrar Office TRA Tanzania Revenue Authority TRIMS Tower Records Information Management System TWG Technical Working Group TZS Tanzania shillings VFM Value for money WAN Wide area network WB World Bank


INNOVEX©2015 vi | P a g e

Executive Summary

This is a report of the mid-term review of the Public Finance Management Reform Program, Phase Four (PFMRP

IV) in Tanzania. Innovex Development Consulting Ltd. were contracted by the Government of Tanzania (GoT) to

carry out the review during June, July and August 2015.

In order to respond to the agreed terms of reference the review team undertook a review of documentation and

meetings with stakeholders. Stakeholders consulted included programme management, implementers, financiers

and beneficiaries. Broadly in the conduct of this review the review team: made an assessment of progress

against the strategic goal and main objectives; made an assessment of the factors affecting progress and good

implementation; and looked at some emerging public financial management issues. The report makes critical

observations on the PFM arrangements envisaged for the treatment of oil and gas revenues. It also makes

comments on the impact of PFMRP IV on the major constraints identified in the BRN initiative.

In respect of the reform programme, the review found that PFMRP IV is generally regarded as:

Extremely important, indeed critical, to the future development of public financial management in the

Government of Tanzania.

This is evidenced by the broad spectrum of public financial management related initiatives that are

included in the programme and the extent to which critical funding is provided by it. There are

challenges related to the sustainable legacy of the programme.

A success story with a history of achievement.

This is evidenced in the assessment of progress against the strategic goal and main objectives within

the report where despite the spend being well below that planned the report estimates that more than

63% of the programme’s milestones are 50% or more achieved, with more than 42% being 95% or

more achieved.

Under good management and control.

This is partly evidenced by the report’s findings that by far the majority of key result area content i.e.

outputs and milestones directly contribute to the overall goal of the programme but mainly is shown by

the importance, success and achievement previously mentioned.

From the disclosures to the review, the team is also reasonably assured that PFMRP IV is:

Progressing in line with its overall expectations of planned achievement.

Focusing on the strategic aspects of the Programme the review identified the following aspects

Distinction between the PFM cycles of GoT, LGAs and Zanzibar

Critical issues affecting PFM across GoT

Ownership of each reform initiative by individual component managers

Sustainability of the reform programme to improve PFM in long-run

Identification of critical and priority initiatives

Consistency of PFMRP IV outputs with good PFM practice

Availability of development expenditure at end of financial year

Effective arrangements to facilitate measurement of impacts of training, studies and other initiative

undertaken by the programme

Stakeholder arrangements that facilitates achievement of PFMRP objectives


INNOVEX©2015 vii | P a g e

Proactive positioning of PFMRP secretariat.

The review team identified a number of areas surrounding the strategic aspects where the successful progress of

PFMRP IV1 faces challenges and makes recommendations to address them. The challenges and associated

recommendations are summarised below.

1 Challenge:

To establish clear distinctions between the PFM cycles of GoT, LGAs and Zanzibar so that the separate legal and institutional arrangements are respected and strengthened.

Recommendations:

Initiatives should be separately identified, monitored and managed for separate PFM processes and cycles.

2 Challenge:

To ensure that the reform programme focusses on the issues critically affecting PFM across GoT

Recommendations:

The width, complexity and ambition of the programme should be managed to ensure sufficient attention is given to the priority initiatives that address the core PFM processes.

The programme should pay more attention to effectiveness of non-salary expenditure and timeliness and regularity of accounts reconciliation. These are identified by PEFA as being critical areas of poor PFM performance.

The PFMRP should include initiatives to look at ways to include all aspects of the PFM cycle in the transition from cash to accrual accounting so that the benefits of this transition can improve the whole cycle. This means that current assets and current liabilities are fully and promptly identified ensuring that payment arrears and revenue/tax collection arrears are known and controlled. This would make the transition from cash to accrual a truly reforming exercise rather than the technical accounting exercise that it is currently.

The PFMRP should also include an initiative that looks at the statutory financial statements, their purpose, their need and how they should be produced. Since the Government of Tanzania intends to be a regional leader in the adoption of accrual based accounting, it must include in the reform programme the necessary legislative review that ensures that the positions of the various funds and controlled entities of the various levels of government can be appropriately consolidated to produce meaningful reports to the legislature, shareholders and public whilst at the same time meeting international accounting and reporting standards.

3 Challenge:

To determine a clear ownership of each reform initiative by individual component managers.

Recommendations:

Initiatives should be organised to address, reform and improve discrete parts of the PFM cycle. This ensures ownership by component managers and tends to eliminate duplication. We have identified a potential set of key result areas that could implement this recommendation.

There should be a very clear ownership of each milestone by a component manager. That ownership should be recorded in the M&E Framework document.

1 It is important to note that PFMRP when referred to in the report does not represent PFM but rather the programme under review


INNOVEX©2015 viii | P a g e

4 Challenge:

To ensure that the reform programme is sustainable and improves PFM in the long-term.

Recommendations:

Outputs, milestones and associated initiatives should be designed to create sustainable reform and not to simply fund recurrent expenditure.

As an investment activity the acquisition of a capital asset should not be considered a reforming activity and hence excluded.

5 Challenge:

To ensure that critical and priority initiatives are identified and duly undertaken.

Recommendations:

Linkages and dependencies between milestones should be established to ensure that the critical paths for the reform can be more easily identified.

Output and milestone priorities should be identified.

A general review of all milestones and activities should be undertaken to eliminate those where the need and achievement of value for money is less certain

6 Challenge:

To ensure that PFMRP IV outputs are consistent with good PFM practice.

Recommendations:

The DPS PFM should take a more active and prominent role in overall PFMRP management and guidance and particularly in ensuring that the reform programme is not undertaking activity that results in inconsistency with good PFM practice.

There is a need for a capable PFM Adviser.

JSC should meet every three months and take a much more active role in the quality review of reform programme outputs.

7 Challenge:

To ensure that development expenditure remains available at the end of a financial year.

Recommendations:

Current GoT rules and regulations do not distinguish between the procedures for budgetary control over development and recurrent activities, even though the natures of the two activities are obviously different. DPS PFM as part of PFMRP IV should supervise an initiative that looks into and recommends a solution to this problem.

8 Challenge:

To make effective arrangements so that the impact of training, studies and other initiatives can be measured.

Recommendations:

Benchmark measurements should be undertaken prior to and at some time post an initiative being undertaken. The first part of any future reform programme must be measurement of a set of


INNOVEX©2015 ix | P a g e

carefully considered and comprehensive benchmarks.

Milestones should ideally relate to measurable outputs. Where they do not, a related output milestone should be established.

9 Challenge:

To maintain good stakeholder relationships so that they facilitate achievement.

Recommendations:

Stakeholders not only need to be kept informed, they also need to be actively engaged and managed. We recommend that a much more pro-active stakeholder management strategy be adopted by the programme management and be facilitated by the PFMRP Secretariat.

10 Challenge:

To improve the pro-active positioning of the PFMRP Secretariat.

Recommendations:

The PFMRP Secretariat staff should prepare individual detailed time-bound work plans against which they themselves, the Programme Manager and the DPS PFM can measure achievement.

The PFMRP Secretariat should keep files, and have them available for use, of meeting papers, minutes, resolutions and the like for all JSC, PMC and TWG meetings. The secretariat should also retain copies of all component managers detailed and costed work plans for the achievement of each of their milestones.

DPS PFM should ensure that the secretariat’s finance specialist has access to up to date data from the IFMIS on the financial performance of the component managers’ use of funds.


INNOVEX©2015 1 | P a g e

1 Introduction

1.1 INNOVEX Consultant Team

This review has been undertaken by INNOVEX personnel: Leonard Chacha Kitoka - Assignment Director, James

Tapera – Consultant, Daniel Mburu Njenga - Consultant, and Robert Edward Hawkins - Team Leader.

1.2 Terms of Reference

The terms of reference (TORs) for the review are given in Appendix 1 – Terms of Reference. This is a second

set of terms of reference and substituted those in place at the time the contract for this review was signed. In our

inception report we highlighted newly introduced areas of activity which we would only be able to address at a

high level. In particular, the consultant tasks 5 (h) and (i) to be carried out in sufficient detail require specific

benchmark measurements to have been established and undertaken prior to and post both training and study

initiatives. Since these have not been undertaken as part of the reform programme, detailed impact

assessments cannot be made.

Since the list of tasks for the consultant given in the terms of reference are inappropriate for a report format for

reader convenience we have cross referenced the tasks in the TORs with the content of this report in Appendix 2

– Consultant tasks from the terms of reference and associated report content.

1.3 Period of Assignment

The period of engagement in field work in Tanzania has been from the 8th June to 24th July 2015. During that

time the approach taken by the consultant team was: to meet with as many stakeholders in the Public Financial

Management Reform Programme as possible; review reports, minutes of meetings and other documentation (the

significant documents are listed in Appendix 3 – Documents); undertake data collection as required; and

formulate the findings and conclusions contained in this report. The list of documents obtained during the review

appears extensive, however, it must be recorded that the review team had much difficulty in obtaining reports

and documentation. A list of stakeholders met and consulted is given in Appendix 4 – Stakeholders consulted.

This report was presented to stakeholders on 13th August at the MoF Board room where comments were raised

and have been incorporated in this report.

1.4 Review Reporting

This is the final report of the review. It is presented after a final presentation to and consultation with

stakeholders that was held on 13th August and incorporates stakeholder comments that we received from the

client on 18th August 2015. The format of the report largely follows the structure required to meet the terms of

reference, however, it may not necessary be arranged in the format of the terms of reference for the purposes

allow reading flow. There are four principal sections beyond this introduction:

Section 2: Assessment of progress against the strategic goal and main objectives

In this section we review the purpose, goal, priorities, scope and coverage of PFMRP IV. This is followed by a

review of the key result areas, components, outputs and milestones and an assessment of progress made

against planned results. We make an assessment of the impact of capacity building and studies undertaken as

part of the programme. Subsequently we present an analysis of budget execution by key result area, component

and source of funding.



Section 3: Assessment of the factors affecting progress and good implementation

In section 3 we look at the factors affecting programme implementation, both positive and negative. We review

the management and institutional arrangements for the programme, the monitoring tools and management

systems and the engagement of stakeholders. Finally in this section we look at the risks to the achievement of

PFMRP IV planned outcomes.

Section 4: Emerging public financial management issues

In this section we examine the public financial reform implications of the proposed treatment of oil and gas

revenue and the contribution of PFMRP IV to the ‘Big Results Now’ initiative.

Section 5: Recommendations for the future for the Public Financial Management Reform Programme,

Phase IV

In this final section we make recommendations to secure improvements in the choice of areas of PFM to be

targeted by reforms, in the institutional arrangements to support reform, in funding mechanisms and financial

performance, and in monitoring and evaluation and reporting formats.



2 Assessment of progress against the strategic goal and main objectives

At its core, public financial management is a cycle established to ensure that plans and budgets are converted

into correspondingly defined actions, that are in turn monitored and reviewed to ensure compliance, and

subsequently reviewed to establish whether the outcome is as originally planned. Lessons learnt from the review

process are then used to refine the plans and budgets to better secure the desired outcome in the future.

6. Reporting

and audit

1. Policy

review

3. Budget

preparation

2. Strategic

planning

5.

Accounting

and

monitoring

4. Budget

execution

Figure 1 The public financial management cycle2

Therefore, the public financial management cycle is specifically designed to ensure that financial resources are

used for the purposes intended, that value for money is achieved and transactions are properly accounted for.

The PFM cycle is hence the vehicle for the management, mitigation and elimination of fiduciary risk. All fiduciary

risks result from a failure or weaknesses somewhere in the operation of the public financial management cycle.

The cycle’s integrity is established by the legislative and institutional arrangements put in place. The passing of

legislation does not in itself secure a sound PFM cycle. The legislative and institutional arrangements actually

need to be implemented to ensure that:

i. The PFM cycle is distinct, hence:

responsibility for the planning, usage, control and review of specific financial resources is clearly

defined;

accountability for performance is known and transparent; and

the same set of financial resources is engaged throughout the cycle.

ii. There is appropriate separation of powers and responsibilities for the various parts of the cycle to guarantee

that each provides an independent check on the performance of another.

2 DFID How to note. Managing Fiduciary Risk when Providing Financial Aid



All of this both secures a robust PFM cycle and ensures that weaknesses or failures are detected and corrected

at the earliest opportunity.

2.1 The Purpose and Goal of PFMRP Phase IV

In its strategy document3 the purpose of PFMRP Phase IV is given as “strengthening and improving public financial management systems in a more coordinated manner [than previous phases4] in order to meet the current fiscal policy challenges”. In the strategy executive summary this is somewhat elaborated as being in support of MKUKUTA/MKUZA II and Vision 2025, with three key elements for PFMRP to achieve:

1. Fiscal sustainability and balance in the public economy;

2. Restructuring and reallocations for growth and poverty alleviation; and

3. Improved public sector performance, efficiency and effectiveness in public administration leading to improved service delivery and development results for Tanzanians.

In respect of these key elements we would expect the public financial management process to contribute as

follows:

A. For fiscal sustainability and balance in the public economy, the role of the public financial management

process is to provide appropriate revenue and expenditure mechanisms that control and maximise

revenue collection; control expenditure and secure the best value for money from such expenditure.

Policy decisions that need to be made to achieve sustainability and balance must be based upon

prompt, accurate and complete financial information provided by the public financial management

process.

B. For restructuring and reallocations for growth and poverty alleviation, the role of public financial

management is to provide the budget preparation, budget execution and review processes that control

the allocation and use of resources consistent with the authorisation of Parliament. In order for

management activity to be effective in securing appropriate restructuring and reallocations, the public

financial management process must provide the appropriate prompt, accurate and complete financial

information.

C. For improved public sector performance in service delivery and development, the role of the public

financial management process is to combine aspects of budget preparation, budget execution and

review to facilitate the execution of policies and activities for improvement in service delivery and

execution. In particular, the public financial management process should control the allocation,

movement and disposal of financial resources utilised in service delivery and development and

importantly provide the appropriate prompt, accurate and complete financial information to show that the

service delivery and development is taking place.

2.2 Scope and Coverage of PFMRP

There are six key result areas in PFMRP Phase IV with outputs, targets and milestones. They are:

KRA 1 Revenue management: Strengthened systems, processes and procedures for improving the

operational capability of the revenue collection by June 2016.

KRA 2 Budgeting and planning: Strengthened capacity of planning and budget management,

including results and program based budgeting, within MOF, MDAs and LGAs by June 2016.

KRA 3 Budget execution, accountability and transparency: Improved utilization of public resources

in a more effective, efficient and transparent manner by June 2016.

3Public Financial Management Reform Programme Strategy Phase IV, 2012/13 - 2016/17, Volume I 4 Author’s assumption based on previous reviews of PFMRP phases.



KRA 4 Budget Control and Oversight: Improved adherence and enforcing of MDAs and LGAs to

financial internal controls, rules, laws, regulations and audit recommendations by June 2016.

KRA 5 Change Management and Programme Management: Improved management practices with

increased accountability and leadership to better manage performance of PFMRP.

KRA 6 LGA Reform Sub Programme.

2.2.1 Key result areas and overall purpose and goals

The first consideration is how well these key result areas correspond with the overall purpose and goals of

PFMRP Phase IV. KRA 1, revenue management, should be a major contributor to fiscal sustainability and

balance in the public economy. It should also contribute to growth and poverty alleviation and improve the

resource availability for service delivery and development.

Both KRA 2, budgeting and planning, and KRA 3, budget execution should contribute effectively to all three

key elements described in section 2.1. One would expect these reform areas to contribute to growth and poverty

alleviation by securing a better allocation of resources in the budget preparation process. This key element

should also be improved through the better control over the usage of funds in the process of budget execution.

These changes should in turn lead to improved performance, facilitating better service delivery and development.

KRA 4, budget control and oversight, by its title should be closely aligned with both budget execution and

review processes. This alignment should lead to this KRA contributing to growth, poverty alleviation, and

performance improvement in service delivery and development. An examination of the outputs in this key result

area shows that the majority are concerned with oversight and the review processes with little concerning budget

control in budget execution.

KRA 5, change management and programme management, from its title suggests that it is concerned with

facilitation of change and the management of the reform programme itself. This is not a key result area that one

would expect to make a direct contribution to the key elements in the goal and purpose of the reform. However a

closer examination of the content of the outputs within KRA 5 shows that it encompasses activities that are not

part of programme management but central to public financial management reform. The upgrading and roll-out

of IFMIS/EPICOR is a specific example.

Finally, there is KRA 6, the LGA Reform Sub Programme. This KRA has been added to the reform

programme in the last financial year. It should contribute across all three key elements in respect of local

government authorities. It recognises the difficulties associated with combining reform activities for central

government and local government together.

2.2.2 Key result areas addressing PEFA identified PFM weaknesses

The next consideration is the extent that the key result areas and anticipated outputs therein address the

weaknesses in public financial management that need to be included in a public financial management reform

programme. The first complication in attempting to undertake such an assessment is the mixing of both central

and local government targets in the outputs, milestones, and activities in the reform programme. The public

financial management processes for each are, or at least should be, separate. They have different legal

frameworks, oversight structures and complexities. This issue has somewhat been mitigated by the appropriate

creation of KRA 6 which deals with local government separately.

Taking central government alone one needs to know what the current weaknesses, if any, are in the public

financial management process. An obvious starting point for that is the latest Public Expenditure and Financial

Accountability (PEFA) Assessment. This assessment, whilst it may not precisely reflect local issues and

priorities is internationally recognised as an important indicator of weaknesses in a country’s public financial



management processes. The 2013 PEFA Assessment cited the following performance indicators as having a C

or D where a C indicates a significant departure from good practice and a D indicates a major departure from or

lack of good practice. The following table gives those performance indicators and shows, by way of key result

indicator and output references, where in the reform programme those weaknesses are potentially addressed:

Table 1 PEFA PIs with Significant Departures from Good Practice

Performance Indicator 2013 PEFA

Score PEFA Comment5 KRA/output reference

PI-2 Composition of expenditure

outturn compared to

original approved budget

D+ The budget lacks credibility KRA output 2.2 specifically

targets this PI. KRA output

2.1 should also contribute

to improvement for this PI.

PI-3 Aggregate revenue outturn

compared to original

approved budget

C Revenue generation and

collection insufficiently effective.

KRA output 1.1 specifically

targets this PI.

PI-4 Stock and monitoring of

expenditure payment

arrears

C Arrears at an unacceptable

level showing a lack of

commitment control.

KRA output 3.2 could

contribute to improvement

for this PI but does not

directly address

commitment control.

PI-5 Extent of unreported

government operations

C+ A significant portion of

government operations is off-

budget and unreported

KRA outputs1.4 and 2.1

specifically target this PI.

PI-8 Transparency of inter-

governmental fiscal

relations

C+ Revenue and expenditure

consolidated data is not being

reported for general

government for sectoral

categories

KRA outputs6.2 and

6.3target this PI.

PI-9 Oversight of aggregate

fiscal risk from other public

sector entities

C There is insufficient oversight of

fiscal risk.

KRA output 4.4specifically

targets this PI.

PI-

12

Multi-year perspective in

fiscal planning, expenditure

and budgeting

C An appropriate multi-year

perspective is not in operation.

KRA output 2.2 should


for this PI.

PI-

14

Effectiveness of measures

for taxpayer registration

and tax assessment

C Insufficient measures to ensure

taxpayer registration and tax

assessment in place.

KRA output 1.2 could


for this PI but does not

directly address the

weaknesses.

5Based on the description of the score level from the PEFA Fieldguide, May 2012.



Performance Indicator 2013 PEFA

Score PEFA Comment5 KRA/output reference

PI-

16

Predictability in availability

of funds for commitment of

expenditure

C A robust cash flow forecasting

system is not yet in place

KRA output 3.2 targets this

PI.

PI-

17

Recording and

management of cash

balances, debt and

guarantees

C There is insufficient

consolidation of the

government’s cash balances

KRA output 3.3specifically

targets this PI. KRA output

3.2 should also contribute


PI-

20

Effectiveness of internal

controls for non-salary

expenditure

D+ Commitment control systems

are generally lacking or they are

routinely violated. The core set

of rules for processing and

recording transactions are not

complied with on a routine and

widespread basis

KRA output 3.1 and to an

extent KRA output 4.6 in

respect of procurement

should partially contribute


PI-

22

Timeliness and regularity of

accounts reconciliation

D+ Bank reconciliation does not

meet the required standards

and reconciliation and

clearance of suspense

accounts is not satisfactory.


targets this issue for LGAs

only. This may be

addressed indirectly by

improvements in internal

audit, KRA output 4.1

PI-

23

Availability of information

on resources received by

service delivery units

C Sufficient regularly reported

data is not available.

KRA output 5.1 in effect

targets this PI.

PI-

24

Quality and timeliness of

in-year budget reports

C+ There are some concerns about

the accuracy of information


targets this PI.

PI-

26

Scope, nature and follow-

up of external audit

C+ The follow-up on audit

recommendations is

unsatisfactory


targets this PI.

PI-

28

Legislative scrutiny of

external audit reports

D+ Scrutiny of audit reports is

extremely delayed if it happens

at all. Resultant

recommendations are largely

ignored by the executive.


targets this PI.

From the above table, which reflects the PEFA assessment for central government, there are two main

performance areas that are not directly addressed by PFMRP IV. These unfortunately are frequently mentioned

by the NAOT as recurrent areas of poor performance. They are:

Effectiveness of internal controls for non-salary expenditure, where commitment control systems are

generally lacking or they are routinely violated and where the core set of rules for processing and



recording transactions are not complied with on a routine and widespread basis. This is only partially

addressed in the reform programme by targeting improvements in procurement controls.

Timeliness and regularity of accounts reconciliation, where the only direct interventions in the reform

programme are for local government authorities. The improvement of internal audit in central

government will only have an indirect and longer-term impact.

Both of these performance areas are critical in ensuring the probity of transactions and the completeness in

accounting. Significant fiduciary risk is introduced by deficiencies in these in particular since either can hide or

mask monetary malfeasance.

On the other hand one needs to consider the extent to which there are key result area outputs that are in areas

of public financial management that appear to be less critical. We identify the following activities as addressing

performance areas where the PEFA assessment indicates a less urgent need. They are presented in the

following table.

Table 2 KRA Outputs Addressing Less Critical PEFA Ratings

KRA output Comment

3.4 Improved integrity and content of government

financial statements and the migration from

IPSAS cash to IPSAS accrual accounting

forall government accounts is progressing in

accordance with plans.

The conversion from cash to accrual accounting is

driven by a decision to make the government accounts

IPSASB standards compliant. This is being

undertaken as a technical accounting exercise. It is

not taking advantage of the transition to improve the

budget preparation and execution processes.

3.5 Improved accountability in management of

government assets for supporting migration

to IPSAS accrual.

This output is largely driven by the decision to migrate

from a cash to an accrual basis of accounting.

4.1 Increased coverage and quality of the internal

audit functions

This output has an indirect impact on the improvement

of a range of public financial management processes

but in itself is not seen as critical. It could be argued

that the first year of spending by the reform

programme on internal audit has resulted in the

improvement. The improvement from a ‘C’ in 2010 to

a ‘B’ in 2013 appears to confirm this. The question is

whether a continuing level of support is appropriate. In

addition, internal audit functions should be sustained

through sustainable government budget structure.

4.7 HCMIS is entrenched in service delivery

points in selected sectors and its

sustainability attained

The 2013 PEFA PI-18 rating of ‘B’ suggests that this is

not a critical performance area. This is, however an

improvement of the ‘C+’ score of 2010. Again the

question is whether a continuing level of support is

appropriate.

5.1 Coordinate integration, interfacing and

rationalization of government financial

systems.

This output would appear to be concerned with the

integration of central government but in fact the

performance indicators suggest that it goes beyond

this. The output seeks the integration of central



KRA output Comment

government systems with local government

authorities. This is not a usual feature of nations with

devolved and distinct local government authorities.

5.2 Utilization of EPICOR modules Increased

from seven to ten

This output apparently requires the implementation of

multi-site management, replication server license and

advanced report designer modules in EPICOR. The

milestones do appear to match this requirement and

one is led to question its need and priority.

5.3 All software development and module

upgrades are coordinated with the

overarching plans for ICT integration

Software development and module upgrades should

form part of ongoing maintenance of any set of

financial applications. A reform programme ideally

should not be used to provide support for what should

be recurrent expenditure.

5.5 Coordination and standardization of PFM

training

No doubt this is a useful ambition but not a PEFA

assessment based requirement.

2.4 Quality and comprehensiveness of budget

documentation as well as public access to

key fiscal information

4.3 Improved transparency on audit reports

(central, local and parastatal levels) to

strengthen scrutiny and accountability

5.4 Improved communication and public access

to key fiscal information to stakeholders

All of these outputs are concerned with transparency

and public access to PFM related information. None

of these outputs are specifically required to respond to

significantly weak areas in the PEFA assessment.

This review recognises that there is merit in supporting improvements in all of the aspects of public financial

management supported in the previous table. We believe that the reform programme should actively identify

priorities. From our analysis we have been able to identify those reforms that we consider to be of a lower

priority. The risk is that in not identifying the priorities within the PFMRP structure an overview of the health of

public financial management generally may be lost in the width, complexity and ambition of the programme.

2.2.3 PFMRP IV addressing current PFM weaknesses

In order to assess how well PFMRP IV is addressing the required public financial management reforms in

Tanzania, a further analysis can be provided by considering the features of existing public financial management

that depart from good practice.

2.2.3.1 Consolidated Fund

A basic principle of public financial management for central government is that all monies from whatever source

are paid into a consolidated fund. Monies can only be withdrawn from that fund by act of the legislature and

utilised in accordance with legally binding conditions of control and management. At specified times and

particularly at the end of the financial year, the executive is required to report to the legislature on the authorised

use of those resources and the position of the balances that remain to ensure that funds have only been used for



authorised purposes. The statements that provide the detail for this report are independently reviewed, assessed

and reported on by the supreme audit institution.

Therefore, one would expect to find a set of financial statements for the Consolidated Fund that compare the

authorised budget with the actual performance and account for the receipt, disposal and disposition all of the

government monies received into the Consolidated Fund. This would require bringing together the transactions

relating to all of the monies that are considered to remain within the Consolidate Fund i.e. those funds, which if

they are unspent at the financial year end, need to be returned or more specifically monies where the legislature

has not enacted some provision whereby the monies can be retained separately. By the production of these

statements the executive assures the legislature that monies received by the Consolidated Fund are fully

accounted for and that monies expended from the fund have only been in accordance with the legislature’s

authorisation. The relevant statements for the Consolidated Fund are those set out in Section 25 of the Public

Finance Act, Cap 348. We are not able to find statements in the 2013/14 Annual Financial Statements for the

Government of Tanzania that meet the Section 25 requirements. We are also unable to find any comments by

the Controller and Auditor General on their absence. In our view, the need to meet legal requirements comes

first. International standards are a secondary consideration.

The importance of this requirement to fully account for the Consolidated Fund can be illustrated by an

examination of the Budget for Fiscal Year 2013/14 April – June 2014 Full Year Budget Performance and

Economic Review report. In Annex A: Summary of Central Government Operations July -June 2014 there is a

presentation that should show how the central government budget has actually been implemented during the

financial year, i.e. a summary of the basic statement for the disposal of the Consolidated Fund during the

financial year.

The first obvious error is the inclusion of “LGAs own source” in the operations of central government. These

funds are not from central government operations and are not to be included in the Consolidated Fund. This is

the first indication that the statement is materially inaccurate. Further down the page is an item labelled

‘Expenditure Float’ for TZS 611 billion in 2013/14 and another labelled ‘Adjustment to cash & other items’ for a

further TZS 542 billion in 2013/14. The former is a balance established in Annex D and the latter is most

certainly a balancing figure for Annex A. This is evidenced by the fact that the Annex A figures for domestic

borrowing in 2013/14 are exactly the same as those for 2012/13, yet the statement is made to balance. If one

adjusts for the obvious errors i.e. LGA own revenue and the 2013/14 domestic borrowing figures, the

unexplained balance would be of the order of TZS 845 billion. This represents a failure to account for either,

26% of borrowing, 8% of revenue or 5% of expenditure. It should be noted that any changes in the basis of

accounting cannot explain such differences. Good practice would require that the budget and statements of

financial performance are prepared on the same basis.

We note that the Budget Act 2015 includes in Section 13.(2) ‘The Commissioner for Budget under the direction of

the Permanent Secretary shall be responsible for the preparation, execution, monitoring, evaluation and

reporting of the budget.’ The Commissioner for Budget cannot be given responsibility for the whole of the public

financial management cycle. This is certainly a significant departure from good public financial management

practice. There should be distinct separations in the responsibilities for each part. The execution of the budget

and subsequent reporting are primarily the responsibility of accounting officers. The support and overall co-

ordination of this activity should be with the Accountant General. In fact, the Commissioner for Budget should

only support the accounting officers in the preparation of their budgets, providing guidelines within which they

need to be prepared. The Commissioner for Budget should co-ordinate and supervise budget formulation.

We also note that Section 50 includes “(3) The Commissioner for Budget in collaboration with the Commissioner

for Policy Analysis shall, within the time prescribed in the regulations issue and publish quarterly a report on



budget execution.” In good practice of public financial management this would be the responsibility of the

Accountant General. The Accountant General should own the financial data for budget execution and have the

accounting expertise to assure its quality. The confusion that this provision introduces may be reflected in the

deficiencies previously noted in the Budget for Fiscal Year 2013/14 April – June 2014 Full Year Budget

Performance and Economic Review report.

The most important role of a country’s supreme audit institution is in providing an independent review for the

legislature of the annual financial statements presented by the executive, in particular in forming an opinion on

their veracity and legal compliance. The Controller and Auditor General’s report on the Consolidated Financial

Statements for the Year Ended 30th June 2014states that it is not possible to form an opinion on the statements

since they are a consolidation of accounts for entities that have differing accounting periods and policies i.e. they

do not comply with the relevant IPSASs. The opinion is silent as to how well the statements meet the legal

requirements.

2.2.3.2 Transition from cash to accrual

As noted in the previous section the transition from a cash basis to an accrual basis is being undertaken as a

technical accounting exercise. The major benefit for any public authority in undertaking such a transition is the

improvement in the allocation of resources through the identification of true costs. This translates into an

improvement in budget preparation and control. The most immediate benefits of the transition come through the

recognition of current assets and liabilities. This means that commitments and arrears are better controlled

through the recognition of expenditure at the time that goods and services are received. It also means that tax

and other revenue collections are better monitored through the proper identification of collection arrears and the

fuller identification of bad and doubtful debts and write-offs. This improved statement of financial performance

can only be utilised effectively if it is compared with a budget statement prepared on the same basis. Hence one

would expect any transition to accrual accounting to be accompanied by parallel changes in budget preparation.

Currently the transition from cash to accrual is confined to a technical accounting exercise. The basis for budget

preparation has not been changed.

Despite a herculean attempt to consolidate the accounts of all levels of government including both central and

local government on an accrual basis, the Consolidated Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30th June 2014

do not meet the basic public financial management requirement, particularly in respect of accounting for the

Consolidated Fund. It is recognised that the consolidated statements prepared for the financial year 2013/14

show that the Accountant General’s staff and the finance staff in many public entities have made huge efforts to

produce financial statements prepared on an appropriate and consistent basis. This provides evidence of the

success of the many IPSASs related training initiatives that have been undertaken by the reform programme.

This work provides a very strong platform from which to take the transition forward. The challenge is to transform

the other processes within the PFM cycle to secure the real benefits to resource utilisation that the transition from

cash based to accrual based financial management should generate.

When asked why the financial statements did not show comparative forecast budget figures on the same basis

for financial performance and financial position, the Accountant General and staff made two observations:

1. The production of outturn figures are the responsibility of the Commissioner for Budget; and

2. The IPSASs standards allow in the period of transition for the statements to be prepared on an accrual

basis whilst the budget is prepared on a cash basis.

In respect of the first statement, it is true that the Budget Act 2015 in Section 13.(2) states ‘The Commissioner for

Budget under the direction of the Permanent Secretary shall be responsible for the preparation, execution,

monitoring, evaluation and reporting of the budget.’ We have already noted that the wording of this section is a



departure from good PFM practice. Section 50 of the Act both places a responsibility on the Accountant General

in sub-section (1) to provide income and expenditure reports to the Permanent Secretary Treasury and for the

Commissioner for Budget to provide quarterly reports on budget execution in sub-section (3). The Budget Act is

silent as far as responsibility for the overall quality and assurance of financial reporting, which in our view should

be with the Accountant General. The legislation, as currently worded, is confusing and does not comply with

good practice.

The second statement is on the face of it correct. The IPSASs do allow for the budget and the financial

statements to be prepared on a different basis in a transitional period. However, the IPSASs for accrual

accounting also require additional statements to be included that make comparisons on the same basis for actual

performance and budget. The detailed wording of the IPSASs requiring these statements is given in Appendix 5

– IPSASs selected extracts.

2.2.3.3 Other public financial management legislation

A review of the public financial management related laws and regulations is not required by the terms of

reference for this mid-term review. However, in undertaking the review certain legal provisions have come to our

attention, which indicate a lack of attention to public financial management principles. We have already noted

some inappropriate provisions in the Budget Act. The Public Finance Act 2001 states that the purpose of this act

is to put in place ‘The effective control, management, and regulation of the collection and use of the finances of

the United Republic of Tanzania and for enhancing Parliamentary control and supervision of public funds and

resources’. It is an Act that provides control, management and regulatory measures. It is not a fiscal or revenue

raising instrument. Yet amendments to section 11 establishing the Consolidated Fund have been made which

are concerned with what is effectively a Consolidated Fund tax.

It would appear that the motivation for the tax is the failure of the arrangements made when establishing the

various Executive Agencies, Public Corporations, etc. to secure the appropriate returns on their investment to the

central government and hence the Consolidated Fund. The establishment of this tax should have been through

a separate Act that made it clear that it overrode any provisions under any other Act that created a separate fund

from the Consolidated Fund. From a practical revenue generation perspective one wonders how the disparate

entities each with their own supply, demand and cost positions can uniformly cope with a blanket tax of this

nature. No doubt this will have its associated bad and doubtful debt provision complications.

The latest draft of Chapter 290 the Local Government Finances Act shows that a similar situation is being

created by a lack of clarity concerning the distinction between public financial management principles for local

authorities and general revenue positions. Section 5 Sources of revenue of urban authorities includes, not as an

overriding principle but within a list of sources, the following text:

“(4) All revenues of an urban authority shall be paid into the general fund of the urban authority.

(5) Any receipt derived from any trade, industry, works, service or other undertaking carried on or owned by

a Urban Authority either in whole or in part may be paid into a separate fund to be maintained by the

Urban Authority for the purposes of the trade, industry, works, service or undertaking, as the case may

be, from which the receipt is derived.”

These PFM principles should be clearly and separately stated and indeed the conditions and restrictions placed

by the local authority on the creation of separate funds, with associated fiduciary risk, should be more clearly

articulated. It would be desirable for there to be separate local government public financial management and

financing legislation.



2.3 Identification of Priorities

The establishment of priorities is not the integral part of the reform programme design that one might expect. It

would be useful for the programme to identify where its priorities lie in order for the programme to flexibly

respond to the demands on and availability of resources. This would also facilitate both the management and

assessment of qualitative rather than quantitative progress of the overall reforms.

This is addressed somewhat by the inclusion in joint supervision mission reports of ‘burning issues/quick wins for

the next period’. The Sep/Oct 2013 mission tabulated a number of outputs and milestones that were established

as burning issues/quick wins. In the following table we consider those outputs and milestones and the extent of

their subsequent achievement:

Table 3 Extent of Achievement of Burning Issues/Quick Wins

Burning Issue/Quick Win

Output

Milestones Extent of achievement

1.2 The Government improves efficiency in

domestic revenue mobilization both at the

policy and the administration levels by

updating legal instruments towards

international best practice

1.2.8

1.3.6

Achieved - VAT Act passed.

Achieved - LG Finances Act study.

2.1 Strengthened capacity of LGAs for

MTEF preparation by 2015

2.1.3 Delayed - Not yet rolled out to all MDAs let

alone LGAs.

2.2: Increased effective utilization of

planning and budgeting tools by 2016 -

increase budget credibility

2.2.9

2.2.10

Achieved - Revised budget calendar.

Not yet achieved – Review to establish potential

improvements in budget credibility has not been

under taken and is unscheduled.

2.4 Quality and comprehensiveness of

budget documentation as well as public

access to key fiscal information

2.4.1

2.4.2

2.4.3

Achieved - For the past three financial years.

Delayed - Ownership of milestone uncertain.

Delayed - Ownership of milestone uncertain.

3.1 Strengthened public sector

procurement by June 2015

3.1.2 Achieved – Public Procurement Regulations

published Dec 2013.

3.2 Strengthened capacity of MDAs, RSs

and LGAs in cash management by 2015

3.2.1

3.2.3

Partially achieved - Only MDA staff trained.

Achieved - Monthly payment arrears report.

3.3 Strengthened public debt management

capacity by 2015

3.3.6

3.3.7

3.3.8

Not yet achieved - Quarterly monitoring of

contingent liabilities not undertaken.

Not yet achieved - Annual monitoring of

guarantees not undertaken.

Achieved - Quarterly debt report produced.

4.1 Increased coverage and quality of the

internal audit functions by 2016

4.1.7

4.1.8

At risk - Computerised internal audit delayed.

On track - 48 technical audits have been

undertaken.

4.2 Strengthened external audit functions

by 2016

4.2.9 Achieved - Findings and recommendations

follow-up data base established.



Burning Issue/Quick Win

Output

Milestones Extent of achievement

4.4 Improved performance of parastatals by

June 2016

4.4.4 Delayed - TR Bill is delayed. IMTC requires

international study tour results first.

5.1 Coordinate integration, interfacing and

rationalization of government financial

systems

5.1.3

5.1.4

Achieved - A costed action plan for integration

of financial IT software and architecture.

Not yet achieved - Action plan execution not yet

completed.

5.12 National systems and processes for

intergovernmental transfers to LGAs

streamlined and rationalized

5.12.4 Achieved – Action plan for intergovernmental

transfers processes rationalisation developed.

The extent of achievement given in the above table is taken from Appendix 6 – Progress in the PFMRP IV

Outputs. In this appendix we have examined the achievement of each milestone within each output within each

key result area. The table shows a wide variety of results. It indicates that the programme has not secured the

quick wins and addressed the burning issues that it targeted. This suggests that the programme should do more

to actively focus on its priorities.

2.4 The Key Result Areas, Outputs and the PFM cycle

It is a generally accepted principle that public financial management is a cycle which through appropriate legal

and institutional arrangements undertakes the planning, execution and review of public finance. The principle

activities under these parts of the cycle include:

Planning – Strategic direction, national development plans, medium-term fiscal frameworks, medium-

term expenditure frameworks, annual budgets and legislature budgetary oversight.

Execution – Fund releases, cash flow management, reallocations, procurement, revenue collection,

commitment, ordering, internal control, recording and accounting

Review – Monitoring and evaluation, management accounting, in-year budget reporting, financial

statements, internal audit, external audit and legislature oversight of accounts.

These various processes overlap and interface with each other. However, public financial management works

best when it is recognised that the major processes, their ownership and accountability to the legislature should

be as clear and separate as possible. Similarly, the PFMRP Phase IV should be organised to address, reform

and improve discrete parts of the cycle. This ensures ownership and tends to eliminate duplication.

The following table presents comments on the way which the key result areas in PFMRP IV are aligned with the

parts of the PFM cycle.

Table 4 Key Result Areas and the PFM Cycle

Key Result Area Comments

KRA 1 Revenue management

Strengthened systems, processes and

procedures for improving the

operational capability of the revenue

collection by June 2016

The wording suggests an improvement in revenue collection

processes is required (execution) but the PEFA PI-3

measurement and the milestones (1.1.1 & 2) target forecasting

(planning). The next 1.2.1 to 4 and 1.2.6 &7 target process

improvement (execution). Milestone 1.2.5 and all of Output 1.3




deal with local government which being under a distinct legal

and institutional PFM framework should have beenwith PMO-

RALG. Output 1.4 deals with bringing more development

partner funding into the exchequer system and affects the

performance of the whole PFM cycle and is not just a revenue

improvement initiative.

KRA 2 Budgeting and planning

Strengthened capacity of planning and

budget management, including results

and program based budgeting, within

MOF, MDAs and LGAs

The milestones and activities included under this KRA generally

target improvement in planning and budget processes for central

government. The exceptions are Milestone 2.1.6 and Output 2.3

which deal with local authorities and should have been with

PMO-RALG. The Output 2.4 was appropriately transferred from

KRA 5. The introduction of KRA 6 to deal exclusively with local

government has also been an appropriate change.

KRA 3 Budget Execution, Accountability

and Transparency

Improved utilization of public resources

in a more effective, efficient and

transparent manner

Output 3.1 for procurement and Output 3.2 for cash

management are both focussed on the execution part of the

PFM cycle. That is with the exception of local government cash

management improvement which should be co-ordinated by

PMO-RALG. However, Output 3.3 concerning debt management

should impact all parts of the PFM cycle as should Outputs 3.4

and 3.5 re transfer from cash to accrual accounting. The latter

two whilst obviously focussed on accounting for execution must

be compatible with budgeting in order to facilitate effective

subsequent review and oversight.

KRA 4 Budget Control and Oversight

Improved adherence and enforcing of

MDAs and LGAs to financial internal

controls, rules, laws, regulations and

audit recommendations

Strengthening internal and external audit (4.1, 4.2 and 4.3) are

certainly improvements in PFM review processes. Output 4.5

concerning the performance of the PAC is also a review and

oversight reform. Outputs 4.4 and 4.6 concerning PEs cut

across many individual entities’ PFM processes. As far as the

central PFM process is concerned the focus is on either or both

increasing the revenue available or expenditure commitment in

respect of those PEs throughout the PFM cycle. Output 4.7 re

HCMIS squarely targets the execution part of the PFM cycle.

KRA 5 Change Management and

Programme Management

Improved management practices with

increased accountability and leadership

to better manage performance of

PFMRP

From its description this KRA should be concerned with internal

PFMRP management practices. It is not. This KRA includes a

number of cross cutting initiatives. Outputs 5.1 and 5.12 concern

integrating MDA and LGA financial systems. This is the

intended integration of two separate levels of government with

PFM. Technically this should be only undertaken to meet the

need of generating compatible statistical data not as an

instrument for establishing central control and accountability.

LGAs are accountable to their electorate.

Output 5.2 concerns the utilisation of an increased number of

EPICOR modules. This targets budget execution and

subsequent accounting and reporting. This in turn fuels the




review part of the cycle and indeed the format and content of

planning and budgets. Output 5.4 concerns the improvement of

communication and public access to financial data throughout

the PFM cycle.

Output 5.13 for Zanzibar concerns the reform of a separate PFM

cycle and should be at the centre of a separately expanded

KRA.

The other outputs in this KRA concern internal PFMRP

management matters and should be addressed separately.

KRA 6 LGA Reform Sub Programme This KRA addresses the LGAs’ PFM cycles that are separate

from that at the centre. This KRA within itself should be

organised such that the separate parts of the LGAs PFM cycle

are supported by the appropriate experts from the centre.

The analysis in this table when summarised indicates that the reform programme could be organised around the

key result areas below. Primarily this would emphasise appropriate ownership of the various parts of the cycle

and avoid some existing confusions as to responsibilities for some outputs and milestones.

A. Planning and budgeting – Tanzania does have a parliamentary standing committee which scrutinises

the budget, however, this is a recent development and therefore a lot still needs to be learned by the

way the committee works. In addition, Tanzania government does have a Commissioner for Budget

that directs the budget preparation. This office should be the focal point for all budget /planning

initiatives in the reform programme i.e. Outputs 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.4.

B. Budget execution –These outputs are concerned with expenditure management which is the

responsibility of individual accounting officers. The focal point for outputs 3.1, 3.2,4.7 and 5.12 would

be the Accountant General.

C. Review and scrutiny – These outputs can be logically split between two focal points. The Controller and

Auditor General would be the focal point for outputs 4.2, 4.3 and 4.5. The Internal Auditor General

would be the focal point for output 4.1.

D. Whole of PFM–The Deputy Secretary (PFM) should be the focal point for those outputs that need to be

at a level where their effects on all aspect of the PFM can be recognised, facilitated, coordinated and

controlled. They are:

a. Outputs 3.4 and 3.5 re the transition from a cash to accrual basis

b. Output 3.3 re debt management

c. Outputs 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 dealing with cross-cutting IT initiatives

d. Output 5.4 re public access to fiscal information

e. Output 1.4 re DP funds and the exchequer system

E. Non-core PFM – The focal points for these reform initiatives should be:

a. Outputs 4.4 and 4.6 re improved performance of PEs – Treasury Registrar as focal point

b. Outputs 5.5 re PFM training – Director of Administration and Human Resource Management

MoF as focal point.

F. Local government authorities – Outputs 1.3, 2.3 and parts of others together with all of KRA 6 are

concerned with local government authorities for which the PMO-RALG should provide the focal point.



G. Zanzibar – h Output 5.13 for Zanzibar needs to be fleshed out to identify the core PFM initiatives and

focal points for the reform of Zanzibar’s own PFM processes.

H. PFRMRP management - Outputs 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11are all concerned with programme

execution. The focal point for these should be the Programme Manager, the Director Planning Division.

When undertaking this mid-term review we have found a number of instances where the ownership for the

execution of a particular milestone is unclear. This is shown in our detailed evaluation in Appendix 6 – Progress

in the PFMRP IV Outputs. Examples of such confusion can be found for several milestones including 2.2.8,

2.4.2, 2.4.3, 3.1.1, 3.4.1, 3.4.12, 5.5.2, 5.10.1aand 5.10.2. The relationships between milestone and component

manager have not been clearly established and are not part of the M&E framework as they should be. Part of

the problem results from the design of the reform programme not being focussed on the PFM cycle. This results

in component managers having responsibilities for diverse parts of key result areas as shown in the following

table.

Table 5 Key Result Areas and Component Managers

Component Manager Key Result Area 1 2 3 4 5 6

Accountant General x x x

DAHRM x

Policy Analysis x x

PMO-RALG x x x x

External Finance x

Commissioner for Budget x x

Public Procurement Policy Department x

Government Asset Management x

Internal Auditor General x x

National Audit Office x

Treasury Registrar Office x

Public Procurement Regulatory Authority x x

PO-Public Service Management x

PO-Planning Commission x

Financial Information Systems Management x

Government Communication Unit x

Planning Division x x

Zanzibar x

Regional Administration Secretariats x

2.5 The nature of the PFMRP outputs and milestones

In the following section we consider the following challenges to any reform programme. The reform programme

should be designed such that:

The outputs relate to the key result area.

The milestones relate to the outputs.

Milestones or achievement measurements relate to outputs and outcomes rather than inputs.

The inter-dependencies and linkages between outputs and milestones are established.

The programme funding supports reform and sustainability rather than providing recurrent funding.



2.5.1 Outputs relative to their key result areas

The best design of a reform programme is where the outputs fully support the key result areas. A review of the

reform programme’s content suggests that there are areas where the planned output does not fully match the

key result area within which it is included. This is shown in the following table.

Table 6 Key Result Area and Output Mismatches

Key Result Area Mismatched output Comments

KRA 1 Revenue Management:

Strengthened systems, processes and procedures for improving the operational capability of the revenue collection by June 2016

1.4: Increase of donor funding that flows through the exchequer system by 2016

This is not an output related solely to revenue. The output refers to both revenue and expenditure and should engage the complete PFM cycle.

KRA 2 Budgeting and planning:

Strengthened capacity of planning and budget management, including results and program based budgeting, within MOF, MDAs and LGAs by June 2016.

None All outputs for this KRA are appropriate.

KRA 3 Budget Execution, Accountability and Transparency:

Improved utilization of public resources in a more effective, efficient and transparent manner by June 2016

3.3: Strengthened public debt management capacity by 2015

Whilst public debt is probably most closely associated with budget execution, it is also closely aligned with overall fiscal planning and performance throughout the PFM cycle.

3.4: Improved integrity and content of government financial statements and the migration from IPSAS cash to IPSAS accrual accounting for all government accounts is progressing in accordance with plans.

Superficially this migration is an accounting exercise that is centred on the budget execution process. This should, however, be a PFM cycle wide initiative so that the real benefits of a transition to accrual accounting impact all of PFM.

3.5: Improved accountability in management of Government Assets for supporting migration to IPSAS Accrual

Similarly to 3.4 this output should be considered as part of the transition process.

KRA 4 Budget Control and Oversight:

Improved adherence and enforcing of MDAs and LGAs to financial internal controls, rules, laws, regulations and audit recommendations by June 2016

4.4: Improved performance of parastatals by June 2016.

The proper control of parastatals impacts all parts of the PFM cycle. Funding demands from parastatals directly affect both budget credibility and budget execution. Their performance and presentation of contingent liabilities are important factors to be taken into account in the review process.

4.6: Improved public procurement performance by PEs by 2015

4.7: HCMIS is entrenched in service delivery points in selected

This is a budget execution output that should be included in a KRA



Key Result Area Mismatched output Comments

sectors and its sustainability attained

that is focussed on that part of the PFM cycle.

KRA 5 Change Management and Programme Management:

Improved management practices with increased accountability and leadership to better manage performance of PFMRP

5.1: Coordinate integration, interfacing and rationalization of government financial systems.

These outputs are not directly related to change and programme management. They are all initiatives concerning cross-cutting processes that impact the whole of the PFM cycle. They should be separated from this key result area.

5.2: Utilization of EPICOR modules Increased from seven to ten

5.3: All software development and module upgrades are coordinated with the overarching plans for ICT integration.

5.4: Improved communication and public access to key fiscal information to stakeholders

5.5: Coordination and Standardization of PFM Training Achieved.

5.12: National systems and processes for intergovernmental transfers to LGAs streamlined and rationalized.

This is not a programme management issue. It is concerned with budget execution and should be grouped with the outputs in that part of the PFM cycle.

5.13: Strengthened Public Financial Management Reforms in Zanzibar by 2016

This again is not a programme management issue. It should have its own key result area with outputs focussed on the parts of Zanzibar’s PFM cycle.

KRA 6 LGA Reform Sub Programme

None All outputs for this KRA are appropriate.

2.5.2 Milestones relative to their outputs

In by far the majority of cases the milestones established are appropriately supportive of their relevant output.

There are few exceptions however that are highlighted in the next table.

Table 7 Output and Milestone Mismatches

Output Mismatched milestone Comments

4.2: Strengthened External audit functions by 2016

4.2.6. Closing of books of accounts for parastatals harmonized and audit modalities agreed by 2016

This milestone does not relate to strengthening external audit functions. It should be more correctly associated with 4.4 re performance of parastatals.

5.2: Utilization of EPICOR modules Increased from seven to ten [The new modules are:

5.2.1. EPICOR system upgrade completed by December 2014

The achievement of these milestones and the activities thereunder have related to the

5.2.2. ACGEN staff capacity



Output Mismatched milestone Comments

Multi-Site Management; Replication Server License; and Advanced Financial Report Designer].

enhanced by December 2014 upgrade to version 9.5 of EPICOR and associated training rather than the implementation of the three new modules.

5.2.3. Training for IFMS end users on the upgraded modules conducted by December 2014.

5.5: Coordination and standardisation of PFM training achieved

5.5.1. Training mapping exercise completed by December 2012

This mapping exercise established the training that had not been undertaken but had been planned to be undertaken. This does not contribute to coordination or standardisation. The first step is to establish the training needs so that the opportunities for coordination and standardisation are presented.

5.5.2. Capacity building plan developed and result measurement framework shared with key stakeholders by Feb 2014

A capacity building plan may contribute to coordination by establishing what is needed where but this should be preceded by a needs assessment to identify common skill gaps that can be targeted by coordinated and standardised training.

5.5.3. An impact assessment of PFM training is conducted to measure staff performance following various trainings by June 2015

An impact assessment may only be a measure of quality or relevance of training rather than demonstrating achievement of appropriate coordination and standardisation.

2.5.3 Outputs and outcomes versus inputs

The following table of data extracted from Appendix 6 – Progress in the PFMRP IV Outputs, shows the numbers

and percentages of milestones that are considered by the review to be measurable or unmeasurable and relate

to an output or input. An output milestone is considered to be one that has a direct effect on the higher level

strategic plan output, whereas an input milestone makes an indirect contribution. A measurable output is the

optimal condition for a milestone in achieving the higher level strategic plan output.

Table 8 Categories of Milestones

Milestone Category

Inputs Outputs

Measurable Unmeasurable Measurable Unmeasurable

Number 79 30 58 10

% of Total Milestones

45% 17% 33% 6%

This table shows that 23% of the milestones established are considered by the review as lacking the specificity

for them to be measured in order to demonstrate full achievement. It also shows that 62% of the milestones

relate to a measurement of an input rather than an output.



2.5.4 Linkages and dependencies

It is important for the successful implementation of any reform programme to identify the linkages between

milestones and the dependency that any milestone may have on the completion of one or more others. In

PFMRP IV there are a number of examples where interdependencies should have been identified. This lack of

identification has led to situations where in supervision and progress reports milestones have been measured as

‘on track’ when in fact they have not been started, since they are dependent upon the completion of a previous

milestone.

An example of where dependencies have not been expressed and the adverse effect on reform programme

management concerns Output 3.1: Strengthened public sector procurement by June 2015. In Output 3.1 the

milestones 3.1.11 through to 3.1.17 are an interdependent sequence of milestones that in turn require the

completion of a national procurement policy in milestone 3.1.7. In the Joint Supervision Mission of September

2013 whilst it was noted that 3.1.7 was delayed the other seven milestones were considered to be ‘on track’. In

the December 2014 Annual Progress Report 3.1.7 is still shown to be delayed but yet again four of the seven

milestones are either ‘on track’ or not reported. The latter is generally taken to mean achieved. All of these

milestones must be regarded as either ‘delayed’ or ‘at risk’. The latter meaning that whilst the deadline has yet

to be passed the timely achievement of the milestone is at risk.

2.5.5 A reform programme or a funding programme

When meeting with component managers and discussing the support that they receive from PFMRP IV and the

extent to which they have been able to achieve the intended milestones we have noted that in a large number of

cases the activities that are being funded are activities that, given adequate resources, the Government of

Tanzania itself should be funding on a recurrent basis. Specific examples are the Internal Auditor General’s

office, where more than 50% of the internal audit activity is funded from PFMRP IV, and similarly more than 70%

of the procurement audits being carried out by the PPRA are funded from the programme. One can understand

a reform programme funding the introduction of these types of activity but to become a true reform programme

the steps taken within the reform should include the implementation of strategies to make these activities

sustainable within the government.

2.6 An assessment of progress against the PFMRP IV planned intermediate results

In the Public Financial Management Reform Programme Strategy Phase IV 2012/13 - 2016/17 the planned

intermediate results are set out. The review has undertaken a detailed assessment of progress against the

PFMRP IV planned milestones as included in the PFMRP IV Strategy document, volume 1 as updated by the

latest documentation. The detailed findings of the review in this respect are given in Appendix 6 – Progress in

the PFMRP IV Outputs.

One would expect a detailed review of the status of the achievement of the milestones, outputs and key result

areas to contribute directly to an assessment and understanding of the extent of achievement of a set of planned

interim results. This is unfortunately not the case. The planned intermediate results are a list of overall

aspirations. They lack specificity, are overly complex, do not have any baseline measurement and are in fact

largely unmeasurable.

However, based on our field work, our detailed analysis and overall understanding of the status of PFM in the

Government of Tanzania we make comments on the achievement of these ‘planned intermediate results’ in the

following table:



Table 9 Achievement of Planned Intermediate Results

Planned intermediate result Comment on achievement

i) Coordinated, comprehensive PFMRP effectively sequenced and supported by a consistent and harmonised legal and institutional framework;

There is some confusion in this planned result. The topic is probably the legal and institutional framework for PFM rather than PFMRP. There has been a number of new pieces of legislation:

Value Added Tax Act 2014

Budget Act 2014

Oil and Gas Revenue Management Act(Bill)

Public Finance Act amendment 2010

Public Procurement Act amendment 2011

Tax Administration Act 2014

This review, however, cites a number of examples where the principles of good practice for PFM are being confused and eroded by the content of some of the legislation in the above list.

ii) Utilisation of sound and comprehensive macroeconomic analysis, macro fiscal forecasting for a credible and transparent budget process and utilisation of MTFF.

The main area of reform in this area has been the work that is still ongoing to introduce programme based budgeting. A clear budget process and timetable has been established by the new Budget Act. Budget reallocation reports are published regularly. There is improved transparency in the budget process. The official budget manual is delayed awaiting formal approval. The actual impact of these changes on the actual measurements of variations of budget compared to actual have yet to be measured by an updated PEFA.

iii) Realistic revenue forecasting, collection and management;

Changes to and adoption of relevant legislation has been made and training has been delivered. Again the actual improvement in the accuracy of forecasting will be established by the next PEFA.

iv) Enhanced accuracy in forecasting and reporting of domestic and external cash resources;

Measures have been introduced reducing the number of bank accounts operated by LGAs. Training has been given to MDAs and LGAs on cash management. This has yet to be translated into a firm track record of cash management in practice.

v) Improved reporting and corrective action to enhance quality and completeness of report on financial statements and audits; cash and debt management;

Progress is being made in public debt management. The Public Debt Management Department has not yet been established but is expected soon. Monitoring of contingent liabilities has been delayed. Great strides in preparing financial statements on an IPSASs accrual basis are somewhat offset by the absence of both statutory financial statements and comparisons of outturns with budget. The Internal Auditor General’s office has been given training and funding for its activities. Similarly, the National Audit Office has received funding for training and some of its activities. The major risk that the NAOT faces is the reduction in its independence resulting from the new budget approval provisions in the Budget Act and the continued reliance on POPSM approvals for audit staff recruitment. There is now fear by NAO that, the office runs that risk of being reclassified below AFROSAI-E level three following some of the recent steps to curtail NAO independence.

vi) Establishment of a clear sequenced and coordinated

All of these ‘high impact’ agencies and initiatives have been receiving support through the reform programme. They all have been making



Planned intermediate result Comment on achievement

roadmap for support and implementation of “high impact” implementing agencies and initiatives such as program-based budgeting, Internal Audit, DFMIS, Treasury Registrar, ACGEN, PMORALG and Revenue management;

progress. However, a clear sequenced and coordinated roadmap has not been established. An example of this is the transition from cash to accrual accounting. The main objective of this exercise is to establish the true costs of service delivery which in turn should improve the credibility and accuracy of budgeting. Transformations of the budgeting and accounting processes need to go hand in hand. A clear sequenced and coordinated roadmap is required.

vii) A global performance and monitoring framework and establishing of strong linkages between policy objectives and public expenditure by means of sector-led MTEF and costed strategic plans; and

We are unclear as to what this planned result intends. Assuming we are talking about PFM rather than PFMRP, then the global performance and monitoring framework is established by the PFM cycle itself through budgeting, accounting, reporting and review. There are many aspects of the PFMRP that are direct improvement initiatives in these areas. In respect of a sector focussed MTEF and strategic plans, the main initiatives in the PFMRP concerned programme based budgeting.

viii) Institutional and Standardized training modules established where relevant.

This anticipated interim result does not appear to be supported by the appropriate milestones within the reform programme. The coordination and standardisation initiative are confined to a mapping exercise, uncoordinated capacity building plans and impact assessments. There are no apparent actions to standardise and coordinate training activity.

2.7 An analysis of the contribution, by output and milestone, to progress in achieving the

outputs and general goals of the programme

2.7.1 Progress in achieving the higher outputs and general goals by output and milestone

In section 2.2Scope and Coverage of PFMRPwe have already examined how well the key result areas address

the programme’s higher level outputs and goals. We concluded that:

The key result areas could be more closely aligned with the parts of the PFM cycle.

There could be a more effective separation between the PFM cycles in the various levels of

government. Whilst significant progress has been made in separating local government initiatives.

The key result areas generally support the higher level outputs and goals.

In order to assess the progress in achieving the higher level outputs and general goals of the programme the

next step is to consider the extent within key result areas that milestones are progressing and being achieved.

This is undertaken in the detailed examination shown in Appendix 6 – Progress in the PFMRP IV Outputs. This

in turn is evaluated as a percentage of completion in Appendix 7 – Budget compared with actual expenditure for

key result areas, outputs and milestones. The following table gives a high level summary and indicates that

overall the reform programme is making a reasonable level of progress.



Table 10 Summary of milestone achievement

% Achieved# of

Milestones

% of

Milestones

0 57 30.5%

10 1 0.5%

25 8 4.3%

30 2 1.1%

50 20 10.7%

60 6 3.2%

70 5 2.7%

75 2 1.1%

80 3 1.6%

85 1 0.5%

90 3 1.6%

95 11 5.9%

100 68 36.4%

2.7.2 Sequencing of activities and value for money

An important consideration in establishing any reform programme is the sequencing of activities. Any

inappropriate sequencing can severely impair the impact of an activity and affect its achievement of value for

money. Whilst as previously noted we observed that the dependencies and linkages that we would expect to

find in a programme of reform were not established, we have found no significant instances where the

milestones have been inappropriately sequenced leading to waste. The one possible notable exception is in

respect of the milestones undertaken in the transition from cash to accrual accounting. The steps that have been

taken could be argued to be in the appropriate sequence but it is our belief that these steps do not include

actions and activities in respect of budgetary control over revenue collection arrears and payment arrears that

good practice requires. This means that milestones related to the valuation of fixed assets, for example, are in

our opinion out of sequence. It is almost certain that by the time that these valuations are considered for use in

the identification of true costs in planning the allocation of resources, the valuations will be out of date and

require revision. Hence these activities are in fact poor value for money. They should appear later in the

transition and thus avoid duplication of cost.

Assessment of value for money has been a major challenge for the review team. In order to effectively assess

value for money one needs to compare the cost of an initiative with the value of the impact of the outcome of that

initiative. Unfortunately, as has been mentioned elsewhere in this report there is little determination of

benchmarks and hence the expected value of the impact of an initiative. The review is hence restricted to

commenting on value for money failures where the inappropriate sequencing of initiatives definitely demonstrates

that value for money is at risk.

2.7.3 Choice of outputs, milestones and activities

In section 2.2Scope and Coverage of PFMRP we noted that whilst the key result areas and outputs relate to

PFM reform at both central and local government levels the choices of outputs, milestones and activities did not

sufficiently address two significant areas of weakness identified by PEFA, namely:



Effectiveness of internal controls for non-salary expenditure, where commitment control systems are

generally lacking or they are routinely violated and where the core set of rules for processing and

recording transactions are not complied with on a routine and widespread basis.

Timeliness and regularity of accounts reconciliation.

We also noted that a considerable part of the reform programme is in areas where PEFA believes the

performance deficiencies to be less critical. These initiatives are worthwhile in that they contribute to

improvement in PFM. However, they should only be considered as good choices if the critically deficient areas of

PFM are already being covered.

Further in sub-section 2.2.3PFMRP IV addressing current PFM weaknesses, we noted that during our review of

PFMRP initiatives and their outcomes certain deficiencies in PFM have been identified. These deficiencies are

mostly in areas supported by PFMRP IV. This does not mean that there are not issues elsewhere. Our review

has obviously mainly focussed on PFMRP IV supported areas unless specifically guided elsewhere by our terms

of reference. Therefore further choices of outputs, milestones and activities and tighter control over the quality of

execution of those chosen should have been made to ensure that the types of weakness in sub-section

2.2.3PFMRP IV addressing current PFM weaknessesdo not arise. The implications of the activities of the

PFMRP IV creating weaknesses in PFM are further discussed in section 3, Assessment of the factors affecting

progress and good implementation.

We also found instances in the reform programme where the choice of milestones and associated activities are

inconsistent with a reform programme. Mention has previously been made in sub-section 2.5.5 A reform

programme or a funding programme,of the need to ensure that initiatives create sustainable reform and do not

simply fund recurrent expenditure. The choice of such initiatives usually leads to failure once the funding is

withdrawn. Choosing to fund capital asset acquisition, such as acquiring or erecting a building, is equally if not

more incompatible with a reform programme. As an investment activity the acquisition of a capital asset should

not be considered a reforming activity. Indeed, it also requires future recurrent expenditure for the maintenance

and operation of the capital asset acquired. This again is not a reform activity. The size of the cost of such

investment can also skew the funding of a reform programme, as is the case for PFMRP IV. This is discussed in

section 2.10 An analysis of budget execution per key result area, component and source of funding.

2.8 Impact of Phase IV capacity building and studies

Mention has already been made in section 1.2Terms of Reference of the difficulties we faced in undertaking this

part of our revised terms of reference.

2.8.1 Impact of capacity building and training

In order to assess the impact of capacity building and training one needs to have identified and measured

benchmarks in the performance areas targeted by that training. Sometime after the training has been delivered

those benchmarks can be measured again and the impact of the training assessed. Unfortunately, such

benchmarks have neither been identified nor measured. This is a challenge that must be addressed by

programme management in the future. Whilst we are thus unable to make any specific assessments of impacts

from the many training initiatives funded by the programme we make impact related comments in the following

table for major training initiatives that should have been already completed:



Table 11 Training initiatives and comments on impact

Training initiative Comment on impact

2.2.2 Sixty MDAs, 21 RSs and 133 LGA trained in MTSPBM by Dec 2014

This training is delayed. The budget manual has not been officially approved hence training cannot take place. Percentage of MTEF budgets are meeting the MTSPBM standards is a good impact measure.

2.2.7. Phased training to MDAs, RSs and LGAs Budget Committees on resource prioritization and planning

Training of LGA committee members undertaken in Mar 2015.No training delivered to MDAs. Percentage reduction in deviation of actual expenditure from approved budget is not a good impact measure. Budget committees are more concerned with budget preparation than budget execution.

3.2.1. 600 staff of MDAs and LGAs trained on cash management using standardized materials by June 2015

346 MDA staff trained but zero LGA staff. Impact is difficult to assess since output 3.2 contains no output/outcome measure for cash management improvement.

3.3.3 Capacity of 50 Public Debt management staff enhanced to undertake DSA on external, domestic debt and contingent liabilities by June 2014.

There has been no activity on this milestone. The output does contain output measurements that could determine impact once the delayed training has taken place.

3.4.2 Training to the MDAs, RSs and LGAs accounting officers to develop awareness on IPSAS Accrual by June 2014

The production of the 2013/14 consolidated statements on an accrual basis indicates the positive impact of this training.

3.4.3 Capacity building to 250 staff from MDAS and RSs and Embassies to enhance skills in IPSAS accrual by 2014

Again the production of the 2013/14 consolidated statements on an accrual basis indicates the positive impact of this training.

3.4.6. 250 government accountants in MDAs /LGAs trained in IPSAS accrual and accrual modules for Epicor by September 2013

We have rated this milestone as not having been achieved since there is no evidence of expenditure on this training and no evidence was made available of the training having taken place. Despite this the 2013/14 consolidated statements in accrual basis were produced.

4.1.10. 550 internal auditors and other stakeholders trained in risk management process and risk based audit by June, 2016

This training target has already been achieved in advance of the target date. The output measure in the M&E framework is the number of trained staff. This certainly is not a measurement on which to base an assessment of impact.

4.2.3. 300 Auditors trained on Risk Based Audit and 200 in IT audit by 2014

This milestone is delayed and incomplete. Only 200 auditors have been trained on risk based audit. Again the output measure in the M&E framework is the number of trained staff. This certainly is not a measurement on which to base an assessment of impact.

4.2.10. 600 Auditors trained on audit commanding language (ACL) and other audit based software by 2014.

This milestone is delayed and incomplete. Only 400 auditors have been trained on ACL. Again the output measure in the M&E framework is the number of trained staff. This certainly is not a measurement on which to base an assessment of impact.



Training initiative Comment on impact

5.2.2. ACGEN staff capacity enhanced by December 2014

ACGEN trained 381 users on new version of EPICOR in FY 2014/15. This appears to have had a positive impact, the upgraded version 9 is in place and working.

6.1.3 PMO - RALG staff and Finance Management Officers at RS to be trained in tax revenue plans and budgets to spearhead LGAs tax reviews and reforms. June 2014

Training was undertaken by Mzumbe University, Aug 2014. The required impact, albeit an indirect one, is an increase in LGA own source revenue as a percentage of GDP. This impact has yet to be measured.

2.8.2 Impact of studies

In order to assess the impact of the various studies undertaken as part of PFMRP IV one needs to have

identified and measured benchmarks in the performance areas targeted by these studies. Sometime after each

study has been delivered and the steps taken to implement the outcomes those benchmarks can be measured

again and the impact of each study assessed. Unfortunately, such benchmarks have neither been identified nor

measured. This is a challenge that must be addressed by programme management in the future.

Ten studies were included in the revised terms of reference on which we were asked to make impact

assessments. Only five reports have been given to the team for review. In the following table we make

comments on the impact of those studies.

Table 12 Studies and comments on impact.

Study Comment on impact

A study on local government authorities (LGAs) “own-source” revenue collection

The final report of this study is very comprehensive and provides many good recommendations that should have a positive impact. We particularly note the clarity of distinction between local and central government revenue collections.

Study on integration and harmonisation of MDAs revenue collection systems

This study produces a good report with useful recommendations which if implemented would appear to have a positive impact. It is interesting to note that in the report a 2009 study report is mentioned which provided many of the recommendations made in this 2013 report. This highlights that impact is only achieved where studies result in actual steps of implementation.

A study on mapping of transfer of funds to LGAs

The Sep 2013 output of this study is a good report with concise recommendations based on clear facts. This provides a very good base for both the revisions to the “LGDG System Implementation and Operations Guide”, and the “LDGD Annual Assessment Manual” issued in Nov 2014.

Mapping, modelling and simulation on Government of Tanzania financial management systems

This study results in a less well prepared report. It documents a number of systems but we believe that this information was readily available. The report does not address the central question for us i.e. What data needs to be shared and by whom? It assumes that an EIA is the way forward without exploring the variety of other options that should be considered. It is of no surprise that no further steps have been taken pursuant to this report.



Study Comment on impact

2013 Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) Assessment Mainland Tanzania (Central Government)

This study, or more strictly speaking assessment, is most certainly very important to the Government of Tanzania in its oversight of its PFM. It is prepared consistently across nations to identify where the various levels of strength and weakness are in the 28 government performance measurement areas. We have used it previously in this review in sub-section 2.2.2Key result areas addressing PEFA identified PFM weaknesses to compare key result areas and high level outputs with critical weaknesses in PFM identified by PEFA. PFMRP IV has rightly used improvements in specific PEFA score as evidence of achievement.

PEFA reports are subject to PEFA Secretariat scrutiny and quality control. Whilst the PEFA report is no doubt a very important source of critical assessment it is worth noting that the 2013 assessment lists 11 out of the total 28 performance indicators that it believes were incorrectly scored in the 2009 assessment. This is a significant margin of error and highlights the need for overall PFM expertise to be used in the interpretation of results and their impact on the choice of reform activities and priorities.

2.9 An analysis of budget execution per key result area, output and milestone

As appendices we offer the following detailed analyses of financial performance:

Appendix 7 – Budget compared with actual expenditure for key result areas, outputs and milestones.

Appendix 8 – Budget compared with actual releases for key result areas, outputs and milestones.

Appendix 9 – Releases compared with actual expenditurefor key result areas, outputs and milestones.

In summary for the whole reform programme the comparisons between budgets, releases and actual expenditure

are shown in the following table:

Table 13 PFMRP IV comparison of budget, releases and actual expenditure

(TZS 000s) 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Budget 33,518,000 46,398,322 37,056,265

Releases 23,427,995 29,128,053 14,518,292

Actual Expenditure 17,258,339 18,916,905 5,659,940

The actual expenditure for 2014-15 in the above table and appendices 6 and 8 mostly only captures the first

quarter expenditure of the budget period. The PFMRP Secretariat only includes data and makes follow-ups

when they receive reports from the component managers. The secretariat does not have access to real time data

from the IFMIS. It is our view that the releases and expenditure therefore in the 2014/15 data probably only

includes that reported as at December 2014.



In summary the variances for each KRA and the whole reform programme are shown in the following tables:

Table 14 Variance between budget and actual expenditure

Key Result Area 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

KRA 1 Revenue Management -58% -42% -87%

KRA 2 Budgeting and Planning -91% -83% -100%

KRA 3 Budget Execution, Accountability and Transparency

-79% -61% -80%

KRA 4 Budget Control and Oversight -28% -64% -73%

KRA 5 Change Management & Programme Management

-56% -44% -96%

KRA 6 LGA Reform Sub-Programme -57% -77%

Whole PFMRP IV -49% -59% -85%

Table 15 Variance between budget and releases

Key Result Area 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15




-41% -28% -54%



-36% -21% -73%

KRA 6 LGA Reform Sub-Programme 0% -43%


Table 16 Variance between releases and actual expenditure

Key Result Area 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15




-65% -47% -57%



-31% -28% -83%

KRA 6 LGA Reform Sub-Programme -57% -60%




Whilst we have major reservations over the accuracy of the 2014-15 figures in the previous tables of variances,

the data does show that there is a continuing and consistent under release and under spend on all reform

programme activities. This is no doubt a reflection on the way that development activities and funding are

administered. Current GoT rules and regulations do not distinguish between the budgetary control exercised

over development and recurrent activities even though the natures of the two activities are obviously different. A

major difference is in procurement. For development the procurement period and the length of time over which a

contract is executed is often extended. The expiry of funding at the end of a financial year is problematic. There

are mechanisms that can be employed that will allow warrants not to elapse or other carry-over arrangements

that can allow development funding not to be lost at the end of financial year. It would probably be very

beneficial for PFMRP to examine this issue in the future.

2.10 An analysis of budget execution per key result area, component and source of funding

This analysis is presented in Appendix 10 – Finances for components by source. There is evidence of extensive

under release or late release of funds both by GoT and the development partners. For GCU, in 2013/14 financial

year, they received a portion of their funds some two days prior to the close of the financial year implying that

although the money was marked as released it could never be used. The financial year closed before any

activities could be undertaken. Delay in funds has also been noted by several other stakeholders. It is among the

critical factors affecting use of released funds. The summary situation is shown in the following table of data

extracted from Appendix 10 – Finances for components by source.

Table 17 PFMRP IV budget, releases and expenditure to date

Budget

(TZS 000’s)

2012-to date

Funds Released (TZS 000’s)

2012-to date

Expenditure

(TZS 000’s)

2012-to date

Total for PFMRP IV 128,067,753 72,732,259 45,476,446

Total Government of Tanzania Contribution 61,308,415 19,549,837 17,517,405

Total Development Partner Contribution 66,759,338 53,182,422 27,959,041

This table illustrates the critical situation where only 36% of budgeted expenditure has actually been undertaken.

This appears to contradict the observation we made previously in sub-section 2.7.1Progress in achieving the

higher outputs and general goals by output and milestone, where we stated that it appears that the reform

programme is making a reasonable level of progress. This can surely not be the case when the reform

programme is so dramatically underfunded. By way of explanation we make the following comments in addition

to our previous observation that the 2014-15 expenditure figures are incomplete:

In times of financial constraint less expensive alternatives may be identified. We did not find, however,

any specific evidence of this.

The budget may be overly generous. There are many instances where milestones have been

completed without the expenditure of the full budget. This could, of course, also be interpreted as

potential evidence of economies being found.

There are many instances where milestones have been achieved or are in progress where no funds

have been released. We take this as evidence of the ministries and departments of the component

managers having found internal resources to complete the milestones. This is good, positive evidence

of the successful mainstreaming and ownership of the reform programme.



The above table does not show the extent that delays in development partner contribution releases contribute to

the failure to undertake expenditure, particularly procurement, when faced with tight end of the financial year

deadlines.

It is also important to note that of the GoTTZS19.5 billion release and TZS17.5 billion expenditure TZS11 billion

has been in respect of the provision of office accommodation i.e. TZS10 billion for the NAOT and TZS1 billion for

Accountant General zonal offices. We have previously mentioned that fixed asset acquisition is a form of

investment and not strictly a reform expenditure. Thus only 37% of the money (i.e. TZS 6.5 billion) released by

the GoT has been a true contribution to reform.

2.11 A broad review of the nature of activities financed by the PFMRP IV

There are a number of considerations:

1. The extent that PFMRP IV recognises and facilitates the priority PFM reforms. The definition of priority is

subjective. Therefore, as a starting point we will take the latest PEFA. The PEFA scores have been

recognised with the monitoring and evaluation framework of PFMRP IV as an important measure of the

success of the reforms. We found that, as previously described in sub-section 2.2.2Key result areas

addressing PEFA identified PFM weaknesses, whilst all key result areas and outputs can be generally

regarded as contributing to improvement of PFM there are differences in degree of appropriateness.

Outputs 1.1, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 5.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.6 all directly address

critical weaknesses identified by PEFA. The remainder do not. In fact, two critical weaknesses,

effectiveness of internal controls for non-salary expenditure, and timeliness and regularity of accounts

reconciliation, are not directly addressed by PFMRP IV.

2. As previously mentioned in sub-section 2.5.3Outputs and outcomes versus inputs the majority of

milestones identify an input to the reform rather than an associated output or outcome. It is this failure to

identify outputs and outcomes that has made it difficult for both the reform programme generally and this

review in particular to assess impact.

3. As indicated in the previous section, a major part of the GoT’s funding contribution has been taken up by

the acquisition of fixed assets. These should not have been chosen as reform activities.

4. We must highlight the need for activities included in the reform programme to be fully considered before

they are included. We have been unable to establish the clear objectives and resulting benefits that were

identified prior to the inclusion of the transition from a cash to an accrual basis of accounting in the

reform programme. We believe that the transition from cash to accrual should be undertaken to establish

a clearer understanding of the financial position so that real costs can be determined for the optimal

allocation of resources and so that expenditure and income is recognised at the time that goods or

services are received or delivered. This means that current assets and current liabilities are fully and

promptly identified ensuring that payment arrears and revenue/tax collection arrears are known and

controlled. This would make the transition from cash to accrual a truly reforming exercise rather than the

technical accounting exercise that it is currently.

5. There are those activities included in PFMRP IV which are funded from a reform programme when in fact

they are recurrent in nature. These activities should only be included in a reform programme when and

only when the reform includes a strategy for making the activity and the funding thereof sustainable. The

support to the Office of the Internal Audit General and the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority are

prime examples of this.

6. There should be a clear separation of the activity and intended impact of the improvement for different

PFM cycles. These means that the activities for central and local government should be separate with

benchmarks and targeted outputs that stand alone. They have been mixed in the past but the

establishment of KRA 6 is an appropriate step in addressing this situation.



2.12 A broad review of the impact of PFMRP IV on other national reforms, MDGs and general

poverty reduction

It is difficult, if not impossible to assess the general impact of the reform programme on other national reforms,

MDGs and poverty reduction. This is because the public financial management processes at different levels of

government provide the backbone for the financial planning, execution, accounting and review of all activities of

the public sector. For financial resources to be allocated correctly, funding to actually be released, internal

controls to be secure and all financial information to be accurate, the PFM processes have to be working

effectively. The fact that there are weaknesses leads to some degree of ineffectiveness of each and every other

reform. Thus improvements in PFM directly impact all of the other reforms. The degree of impact is debatable.

PFMRP IV and the other reforms have no specific benchmarks against which such impact can be measured.

PFMRP IV and its relationship with the BRN initiative and its identification of major constraints are considered

separately in section 4.2 BRN – Big Results Now.



3 Assessment of the factors affecting progress and good implementation

When undertaking this review and consulting with the many stakeholders we found the general perceptions are

that:

The reform programme is extremely important, indeed critical to the future development of public

financial management in the Government of Tanzania.

The reform programme is a success story with a history of achievement.

The reform programme is regarded as under good management and control.

In this section of the report we examine the factors affecting progress and good implementation in more detail.

3.1 Impact of the management, coordination, and institutional settings of theprogramme

The main institutions tasked with ensuring that the reform programme keeps its focus and achieves its planned

outcomes are:

The Joint Steering Committee (JSC) – This is a joint committee of GoT and Development Partners that

makes the high-level policy decisions concerning the activities, priorities and allocations of funding for

PFMRP IV. The Deputy Permanent Secretary PFM holds the chair. The JSC is expected to meet at

least every six months.

The Project Management Committee (PMC) – This is the committee that takes the more detailed

decisions concerning activities and budgets. It is also chaired by the DPS PFM. The committee relies

on technical advice from Technical Working Groups (TWGs) concerning the detailed content of

milestones, supporting activities and appropriate funding. It is intended that the PMC should meet every

three months.

Technical Working Groups (TWGs) – There should be a TWG for each key result area meeting at least

every three months to examine in detail the technical execution of each key result area. Each TWG

should make recommendations to the PMC for changes in milestones, supporting activities and

associated funding.

Programme Manager (PM) – This is a mainstreamed position with the Director of Planning in MoF as

PM. This mainstreaming is intended to ensure that the programme is owned and held as part of normal

GoT activity.

PFMRP Secretariat – This is team of staff that assist in programme management and oversight. The

secretariat provides secretarial support to the JSC, PMC, TWGs and the PM. The team comprises a

co-ordinator as leader, a communications specialist, a procurement specialist, a monitoring and

evaluation specialist, and a finance specialist.

We make the following comments on the reform programme’s impact and co-ordination in respect of these

institutional settings:

1. The JSC, PMC and TWGs do not meet as frequently as intended by the programme’s operations

manual. We are advised that the PMC has a strong informal dialogue that is able to solve issues as

and when they arise without the need to formally meet.

2. Whilst the operations manual indicates that there is a TWG for each key result area we understand that

this is not in effect the case. The TWGs work on a less formal basis to consider issues and make

recommendations.



3. The situation concerning the quality review and assurance of PFMRP outputs is uncertain. The TWGs

should have sufficient PFM expertise to ensure that such outputs conform to good practice. A number

of PFMRP IV outputs have been found by the review not to be in line with good practice.

4. The mainstreaming of the PM position in effect means that the Programme Manager is a part-time

position with the Programme Co-ordinator taking on more of a programme management role since that

is a full-time dedicated position.

5. The DPS PFM is the Permanent Secretary Treasury’s representative in supervising the overall conduct

of PFMRP IV. We understand that the position was created after the start of the PFMRP to specifically

deal with reform programme issues. However, the approval of the distribution of funds and hence the

effective control over execution rests with the DPS Treasury.

6. Observations concerning the positions within the PFMRP Secretariat are discussed in section

3.4.Performance of the PFMRP Secretariat and the PFM Joint Steering Committee

3.2 Impact of the various funding mechanisms on the implementation

There are three types of funding for PFMRP IV. They are:

Government of Tanzania direct funding to the programme.

Development Partners contributions to a basket of funds.

Direct support by individual Development Partners.

The majority of funding falls into the first two categories. The GoT funding usually falls far short of the levels that

are promised (see Table 13 PFMRP IV comparison of budget, releases and actual expenditure) with releases

sometimes being made late in the financial year making utilisation impossible. The Development Partners’

releases to the basket are more consistent but sometimes also suffer from delays making their utilisation difficult.

On a number of occasions during the review we encountered situations where institutions receive funding from

both the PFMRP IV and externally direct from Development Partners. The NAOT is a typical example of this.

Whilst it is possible to account for expenditure on inputs to the NAOT reforms it is difficult to attribute outcomes

to one or other of the funding sources.

3.3 Review of monitoring tools and programme management systems

These considerations are interlinked with the other programme management arrangements but for clarity we will

address the following in this section:

The monitoring and evaluation framework.

The progress reports.

The joint supervision mission reports.

The monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework and supporting financial report is a well-constructed and

generally useful tool for monitoring the progress of the reforms. It should form the backbone of the monitoring

process. To that end we would expect the M&E framework to be consistently prepared and utilised constantly

throughout the implementation of PFMRP IV. We find, however, that milestones are dropped or replaced without

clear explanation. There are inconsistencies in the numbering and referencing of milestones. This is particularly

a problem with the recently separated KRA 6.

The progress reports should be prepared every quarter but are produced on a six-monthly basis. The latest

progress report is for the period ended 31st December 2014. This is apparently regarded as unofficial until it is

approved by the JSC. We wonder why this is the case since this report is a product of the reform programme

and as such should only require the approval of the Programme Manager or the DPS PFM at most. We note



that progress is often explained by notes simply stating that a milestone is “achieved”. In order to assess the

actual performance against planned this should include details as to when the achievement was made. The

M&E framework does not identify who is responsible for ensuring that the milestone and associated activities are

undertaken i.e. the component manager. We found many examples of milestones where the ownership is

unclear.

In both the progress reports and the annual joint supervision reports there are many milestones that are

described as “on track” when the activities under the milestone have not even started. These superfluous

assertions tend to skew the overall assessment of the progress of the programme with a large number of “on

track” milestones that simply are not. This situation is exacerbated by the lack of information in the M&E

framework of linkages and dependencies between milestones. Such linkages would quickly show where many of

the “on track” observations are incorrect.

The use of the M&E framework in the production of progress and joint supervision mission reports is incomplete.

The practice appears to be that once a milestone is regarded as complete it is dropped from the framework. This

has allowed, on occasion, milestones that we believe to be incomplete to be dropped from reports, apparently in

error. It also allows for milestone numbers to be reused with associated confusions. We also noted instances

where milestones that we would consider more measurable being dropped with associated less measurable

milestones retained.

We note that the financial reports are dependent on the information provided by component managers to the

secretariat. The reform programme is intended to be mainstreamed. As such it should allow the programme

management to fully access the GoT’s financial systems. This means that the secretariat should be able to

access the GoT’s IFMIS and extract up to date financial data in respect of each and every component manager

from the system. This would enable the Programme Manager and the DPS PFM to be fully and promptly briefed

by the secretariat on programme budget execution.

3.4 Performance of the PFMRP Secretariat and the PFM Joint Steering Committee

It took a long time before all members of the secretariat were in position. Bearing in mind that the PFMRP programme started in July 2012, for almost the entire first half of the accounting year, there were no secretariat members. The finance expert and a communication specialist were employed in November 2012, just about the end of the first half of the accounting year. The procurement specialist was employed in January 2013 and acted as a programme coordinator from February 2013 until May 2013. Effectively from May 2013, the procurement specialist was appointed as a substantive programme coordinator and hence he doubled his duties in an acting role as a procurement specialist until April 2015 when the substantive procurement specialist was appointed.

We note that an active decision was taken not to recruit a PFM Adviser within the secretariat. We question the wisdom of that decision since we observe a number of occasions where reform opportunities are being missed through the lack of an overall PFM view e.g. the current narrow accounting focus of the cash to accrual transformation, and the production of reform programme outputs that do not conform to good PFM practice (see 2.2.3PFMRP IV addressing current PFM weaknesses).

The contracts for secretariat staff do not allow retention of secretariat personnel with institutional knowledge as they are offered only two year terms that do not correspond with the duration of PFMRP phases. For example, all secretariat staff serving in PFMRP III, except the programme coordinator, were not retained with the corresponding loss of knowledge capital.

It is difficult to make an overall assessment of the performance of the secretariat since they do not have individual detailed time-bound work plans against which they themselves and the Programme Manager can measure achievement. The current annual work plans do not provide the necessary level of detail. We found that generally stakeholders were happy with the secretariat’s performance and did not come across any specific area where performance was of concern. In respect of our own expectations, however, a number of



observations need to be made. We had expected the secretariat to keep files of meeting papers, minutes, resolutions and the like for all JSC, PMC and TWG meetings, and have them available for use. These are apparently not maintained and certainly not made available. We also expected the secretariat to have copies of all component managers detailed and costed work plans for the achievement of each of their milestones. Again these were not available for reference. These documents are essential to enable the secretariat to advise the Programme Manager and the DPS PFM on the detailed progress of the implementation of the reforms. It appears that the secretariat has a more reactive role bringing to programme management’s attention issues in arrear, rather than a pro-active role in supporting programme management’s more immediate management and coordination of the reform programme’s activities. The JSC meets approximately every six months, subject to the constraints of identifying mutually convenient meeting dates. The JSC appears to be performing adequately in monitoring and coordinating the progress of the reform programme. We believe the original intention of meeting more frequently i.e. on a quarterly basis, is a good one. The only major challenge facing the JSC, which could be met more effectively, is a more active quality and assurance review of reform programme products and outputs. We are of the opinion that some of the reform programme outputs do not sufficiently conform to good PFM practice. The JSC should take some responsibility in ensuring that this does not happen.

3.5 Stakeholder management

A very large part of the success of a reform programme rests on the effective management of stakeholder relationships. Stakeholders not only need to be kept informed, they also need to be actively managed. There should be an active identification by the secretariat, probably with the day-to-day tracking responsibility resting with the communications specialist, of individual key stakeholders and the programme management’s agreed strategy for managing and influencing each.

The importance of this stakeholder planning can be illustrated by the identification of the following major reform initiatives where a reform product is awaiting higher level approval of a completed product. With proper stakeholder preparation and management, the higher level should be expecting, indeed demanding the urgent approval of these initiatives avoiding wasteful delays. Examples are the delays in approving:

Milestone 1.4.1 National framework for managing development co-operation.

Milestone 2.2.1Medium-term strategic planning and budgeting manual (MTSPBM).

Milestone 3.1.11 National procurement policy.

Milestone 5.4.2 Ministry of Finance Communication Strategy.

Milestone 6.2.3 LGAs budget allocation formulas.

These types of delay and the inability to secure appropriate stakeholder commitment leads a number of stakeholders that we consulted to question whether the reform programme should continue to be placed with the Ministry of Finance. The possibility of the programme being led from the President’s Office has been suggested.

In our view the Ministry of Finance is the most appropriate place for the reform programme. In this report we mention the challenges in maintaining the appropriate core public financial management focus and assurance of the quality of reform programme outputs. We believe that only the Ministry of Finance has the institutional capacity to meet those challenges.

It should be understood that in making recommendations for the secretariat to undertake the day-to-day administration and monitoring of the stakeholder management strategy we are not expecting secretariat staff to manage all stakeholders. Part of the development of the strategy is to identify stakeholders that can influence others to the benefit of the programme.

On the funding side, the PFMRP has the development partners as their participating stakeholders. The DPs are allowed to participate in the budgetary process where they indicate their areas of interest to funding as well as the outcomes from the activities. A DP representative has also been accorded a position as Co-Chairperson of the Technical Working Group (TWG). The JSC provides a forum for both DPs and Government to meet and agree on various aspects of the programme.



On the ground, the programme does identify their intended beneficiaries and interested stakeholders who are kept in the frame of activities’ implementation progress. However, there is no stakeholder strategy developed by the PFMRP programme management. The only stakeholder strategy in place is the one prepared for the communication department under the Ministry of Finance.

3.6 Risks to the achievement of PFMRP IV outcomes

The main risks are:

1. Funding - There is general agreement amongst all stakeholders consulted that the greatest risk to the

achievement of PFMRP IV intended outcomes is one of fully available finance.

From our review we would highlight two additional risks that potentially could severely affect the continuing value

of achievement by PFMRP IV. They are:

2. Sustainability - There is need for the reform programme to ensure that its initiatives are sustainable.

Where new functions are directly financed there should be associated activities to secure ongoing

financing.

3. Quality - There needs to be an increased focus on the quality of outputs. If good practice is not

captured in the programme outputs issues will arise in the future compromising the long-term value of

the reforms.

A detailed risk assessment is given in Appendix 11– Risk analysis. In this appendix each risk is described, rated

and an individual management strategy provided.



4 Emerging Public Financial Management Issues

4.1 Treatment of oil and gas revenues

The intentions for the treatment of oil and gas revenues are set out in the Oil and Gas Revenues Management

Bill, 2015. The main features of the proposed act are:

1. The establishment of an Oil and Gas Fund.

2. The maintenance by the Bank of Tanzania of two bank accounts, the Revenue Holding Account and the

Revenue Savings Account.

3. TRA and the National Oil Company are collectors of the oil and gas revenues to be paid into the fund.

4. The Minister for Finance is responsible for the overall management of the fund.

5. The Bank of Tanzania is the operational manager of the fund.

6. The Paymaster General is the accounting officer of the fund.

7. A Portfolio Advisory Board is established to advise on the investment of the Revenue Savings Account.

8. Fiscal rules are established for the operation of the fund and the conditions for its use in budget support

through the Consolidated Fund.

The overall intention of the proposed Act is very good from a fiscal control perspective. It should allow the oil

and gas revenue to be used for the long-term benefit of government service delivery, potentially far beyond the

revenue generating life of the oil and gas resources. There are, however, a number of observations that need to

be made from a public financial management perspective. They are:

1. The establishment of the Oil and Gas Fund. One would expect the legal status of the fund to be more

clearly established. For example, whether the fund should be regarded as a special fund under section

12 of the Public Finance Act.

2. The operation of the Oil and Gas Fund could be more clearly specified. The responsibilities for

collection of the fund revenues clearly sit with the TRA and the National Oil Company. The

mechanisms and frequency of transfers from these bodies to the fund is unclear. Section 18.(1) simply

requires this to be done in a transparent and accountable manner. No doubt the intention is for this be

dealt with by regulations issued under section 23. This should certainly include the requirement for

notifications of the deposit of such funds to the Paymaster General as the accounting officer. The

responsibility for the withdrawal of funds is less certain. The conditions attached to the withdrawal of

funds are clearly specified in the fiscal rules for the fund. However much less clear is the responsibility

for authorising and initiating each withdrawal. The withdrawal from the fund could be authorised through

the normal budgetary processes and subject to Parliamentary appropriation. The act could be read to

infer that authorisation for withdrawal is simply made through the ‘Fiscal rules’ being met. It could be the

Minister’s responsibility as supervisor of the fund, or it could be the responsibility of the Paymaster

General as the accounting officer. Indeed, it could be that the Bank of Tanzania has responsibility for

authorising and initiating withdrawals as operational managers of the fund. This should be clearly set

out in the act.

3. The Act does not include any provisions for the preparation of financial plans and forecasts for the fund.

These forecasts and budgets should be part of the overall fiscal planning of the government since the

fund can and will directly impact the availability of funds in the Consolidated Fund. These budgets and

forecasts should also be used to monitor the performance of the fund.

4. The Bank of Tanzania is required, under section 20, to maintain the books of account and to present

financial statements for the fund for audit. This fund is not a Bank of Tanzania fund, it is a Government



of Tanzania fund. Following usual and good practice the accounts should be maintained by the

accounting officer. Also as is usual practice one would expect the Accountant General to facilitate and

quality control the production of these statements. This is particularly the case when the accounting

officer is the Paymaster General. Part of the process of the proof of the integrity of these accounts will

be their reconciliation with those produced by the Bank of Tanzania as bankers and investment agents.

5. Section 20 also directs the Controller and Auditor General in the timing of his audit and the delivery of

reports. These are not consistent with the National Audit Act. Both the National Audit Act and this act

contain provisions that infer that their provisions override any other.

6. In section 17(1)(e)(iii)(aa) it is stated that “in the event the Revenue Saving Account has no sufficient

fund to that level, direct budget allocation is made”. Whilst this is not the usual wording for statutory

expenditure it would appear that this is the intention. Whereas in section 17(1)(e)(iii)(bb) it is stated that

“in the event the National Oil Company has special needs for investment that requires money over 0.1%

of the GDP, such money is made from the Fund available through the normal budgetary process”. This

wording indicates a normal authorisation for a withdrawal of funds by means of appropriation by

Parliament. This highlights the need for clarity on the mechanisms for withdrawal of monies from the

fund.

4.2 BRN – Big Results Now

The ‘Big Results Now’ initiative identified six national key result areas:

Table 18 BRN's National Key Result Areas6

National Key Result Area Big Results

1 Agriculture

25 commercial farming deals for paddy and sugarcane

78 collective rice irrigation and marketing schemes

275 collective warehouse based marketing schemes

2 Education Pass rate of 80% for primary and secondary school students

Improve students’ mastering of 3R in Standard I and II by implementing

skills assessment and training teachers

3 Energy Increase generation capacity from 1,010 to 2,260 MW

Access to electricity to 5 million more Tanzanians

Eliminate EPP reliance

4 Transportation Passage of 5 million tons per year through the Central Corridor

Increase port throughput by 6 million tons, rail by 2.8 million tons

Reduce road travel time from 3.5 to 2.5 days

5 Water Sustaining water supply to 15.2 million people

Restoring water supply to 5.3 million people

Extending water supply to 7 million new users

6 Resource mobilisation Increase tax revenue by TZS 3 trillion

Implementation of PPP projects valued at TZS 6 trillion

6BIG RESULTS NOW! (BRN) Presentation to PER Annual Review Meeting 4th October 2013



The PFMRP IV does not specifically focus on five of these six national key result areas. Resource mobilisation,

however, is a significant part of the PFMRP IV’s Key Result Area 1, which deals with domestic revenue

mobilisation for both central and local government. The general picture is one of using the PFMRP to improve

the public financial management process and hence contribute to and facilitate the achievement of the ‘Big

Results’.

The major constraints to the achievement of these ‘Big Results’ have been identified7 as:

1. Budget alignment and resource mobilisation

2. Procurement

3. Regulatory Permits

4. Legal and Court Processes

5. Skilled Staff

It can be seen from our review of PFMRP IV that major contributions to improve and eliminate the negative

aspects of the first, second and fifth constraint are a particular focus and source of achievement. This will have

positively contributed to the BRN initiative.

7BIG RESULTS NOW! (BRN) Presentation to PER Annual Review Meeting 4th October 2013



5 Recommendations for the future for the Public Financial Management

Reform Programme, Phase IV.

In looking at the potential future of the PFMRP in Tanzania the review considers and elaborates on

improvements in the following four areas:

The content of the reform programme.

Institutional arrangements.

Funding mechanisms and financial performance

Monitoring and evaluation, and reporting formats.

5.1 Improvements in the content of the reform programme

Our recommendations in respect of improvements in the reform programme content are split into two types. The

first is a list of recommendations concerning general principles in the choice and design of initiatives included in

the reform programme. The second is a set of specific areas that this review believes needs to be included to

secure effective public financial management arrangements for the Government of Tanzania.

As general principles we make the following recommendations:

1. Initiatives should be separately identified, monitored and managed for separate PFM processes and

cycles i.e. GoT, LGA and Zanzibar should be clearly separate from each other.

2. Care should be taken in the choice of initiatives so that the width, complexity and ambition of the

programme is managed to ensure sufficient attention is given to the priority initiatives that address the

core PFM processes.

3. To facilitate the measurement of the impact of initiatives, especially training, benchmark measurements

should be undertaken prior to and at some time post the initiative being undertaken. The first part of

any future reform programme must be measurement of a set of carefully considered and

comprehensive benchmarks.

4. The KRAs should correspond closely with the PFM cycle. In future the initiatives should be organised to

address, reform and improve discrete parts of the cycle. This ensures ownership by component

managers and tends to eliminate duplication. In section 2.4The Key Result Areas, Outputs and the

PFM cycle we identify a potential set of key result areas that could implement this recommendation.

5. Outputs, milestones and associated initiatives should be designed to create sustainable reform and not

to simply fund recurrent expenditure. To become a true reform programme the steps taken within the

reform should include the implementation of strategies to make activities sustainable within the

programme’s lifetime.

6. Linkages and dependencies between milestones should be established to ensure that the critical paths

for the reform can be more easily identified. This also ensures that these critical milestones are

properly identified and hence appropriately managed.

7. Output and milestone priorities should be identified. This is an important part of stakeholder expectation

management and assists in mitigating funding risk. It is understandable and acceptable to focus on



improving PEFA scores but the focus should always be on core PFM improvement. This benefits the

whole of GoT.

8. The PFMRP should undertake a general review of all milestones and activities and eliminate those

where the need and achievement of value for money is less certain.

9. Milestones should ideally relate to measurable outputs. Where they do not a related output milestone

should be established. It is this failure to identify measurable outputs and outcomes that has made it

difficult for both the reform programme generally and this review in particular, to assess impact.

10. Choosing to fund capital asset acquisition, such as acquiring or erecting a building, is incompatible with

a reform programme. As an investment activity the acquisition of a capital asset should not be

considered a reforming activity.

We continue with the following specific recommendations concerning PFMRP IV content:

11. The programme should pay more attention to effectiveness of non-salary expenditure internal controls

and timeliness and regularity of accounts reconciliation. These are identified by PEFA as being critical

areas of poor PFM performance.

12. The PFMRP should include initiatives to look at ways to include all aspects of the PFM cycle in the

transition from cash to accrual so that the benefits of this transition can improve the whole cycle. The

challenge is to transform the other processes within the PFM cycle to secure the real benefits to

resource utilisation that the transition from cash based to accrual based financial management should

generate. Accounting for execution must be compatible with budgeting in order to facilitate effective

subsequent review and oversight and optimise resource allocation and budgetary control. It is

recommended that the transition from cash to accrual should be undertaken to establish a clearer

understanding of the financial position so that real costs can be determined for the optimal allocation of

resources and so that expenditure and income is recognised at the time that goods or services are

received or delivered. This means that current assets and current liabilities are fully and promptly

identified ensuring that payment arrears and revenue/tax collection arrears are known and controlled.

This would make the transition from cash to accrual a truly reforming exercise rather than the technical

accounting exercise that it is currently.

13. The PFMRP should also include an initiative that looks at the statutory financial statements, their

purpose, their need and how they should be produced. Since the Government of Tanzania intends to

be a regional leader in the adoption of accrual based accounting it must include in the reform

programme the necessary legislative review that ensures that the positions of the various funds and

controlled entities of the various levels of government can be appropriately consolidated to both produce

meaningful reports to the legislature, shareholders and public whilst at the same time meeting

international accounting and reporting standards.

14. The PFMRP should introduce an initiative that strengthens and clarifies the Accountant General’s

position as GoT’s accountant. In particular, this should address contradictions with the role of the

Commissioner for Budget. It should re-establish the Accountant General as the author of reliable, quality

budget execution financial data.

15. Similarly, we recommend that the PFMRP includes an initiative that addresses the reduction of the

independence of the Controller and Auditor General and National Audit Office of Tanzania as a result of

the recent changes in budget scrutiny and approval processes.

5.2 Improvements in institutional arrangements

We make the following recommendations in respect of improvement in performance of the PFMRP IV

institutional arrangements:



1. The DPS PFM should take a more active and prominent role in overall PFMRP management and

guidance. Any overlaps and confusions with the role of the DPS Treasury should be eliminated. The

DPS PFM should take on a pro-active role in ensuring that the reform programme is not undertaking

activity that results in inconsistency with good PFM practice.

2. There is a need for a capable PFM Adviser. We question the wisdom of the decision not to recruit to

that position. We observe a number of occasions where reform opportunities are being missed through

the lack of an overall PFM view e.g. the current narrow accounting focus of the cash to accrual

transformation, and the production of reform programme outputs that do not conform to good PFM

practice

3. The JSC should meet every three months and take a much more active role in the quality review of

reform programme outputs to ensure that the reform programme is not promoting activity that is

inconsistent with good practice.

4. There should be a very clear ownership of each milestone by a component manager. That ownership

should be recorded in the M&E Framework document.

5. The PFMRP Secretariat staff should prepare individual detailed time-bound work plans against which

they themselves, the Programme Manager and the DPS PFM can measure achievement.

6. The PFMRP Secretariat should keep files of meeting papers, minutes, resolutions and the like for all

JSC, PMC and TWG meetings. The secretariat should also retain copies of all component managers

detailed and costed work plans for the achievement of each of their milestones. These documents are

essential to enable the secretariat to advise the Programme Manager and the DPS PFM on the detailed

progress of the implementation of the reforms.

7. The PFMRP Secretariat should have a pro-active role in supporting programme management’s

immediate management and coordination needs for the reform programme. This should include the

DPS PFM ensuring that the secretariat’s finance specialist has access to up to date data from the IFMIS

on the financial performance of the component managers’ use of funds.

5.3 Improvements in funding mechanisms and financial performance

The PFMRP Secretariat only includes data and undertakes follow-up when reports from the component

managers are received. In the previous section we have recommended that the finance specialist be given

access to real time data from the IFMIS. The secretariat and programme management will then be able to

monitor financial performance more pro-actively.

As previously mentioned in this report the data shows that there is a continuing and consistent under release and

under spend on all reform programme activities. This is probably a reflection of the way that development

activities and funding are administered. Current GoT rules and regulations do not distinguish between the

procedures for budgetary control over development and recurrent activities, even though the natures of the two

activities are obviously different. A major difference is in procurement. For development the procurement period

and the length of time over which a contract is executed is often extended. The expiry of funding at the end of a

financial year is problematic. There are mechanisms that can be employed that will allow warrants not to lapse

at financial year-end or some other carry-over arrangements made that allow development funding not to be lost

at the end of financial year.

1. We recommend that the DPS PFM as part of PFMRP IV supervise an initiative that looks into and

recommends a solution to this problem.



A review of budget estimates showed they may be overly generous resulting in overestimation. As such we

recommend that the budget should be set at levels that resemble the attainable outputs of activity

implementation.

During the review when interviewing component managers and requesting evidence of achievement we found

that for some it was quite difficult to distinguish between achievement supported by PFMRP IV resources and

those resources provided directly by development partners.

2. We certainly recommend that all development partners be encouraged to become part of the PFMRP,

and preferably basket fund participants, provided of course that the initiatives being supported are

appropriately relevant.

It is probable that this situation might be an illustration of the need for Milestone 1.4.1 National framework for

managing development co-operation to be completed to ensure appropriate co-ordination of development

partner support in the future.

5.4 Improvements in monitoring and evaluation, and reporting formats

We make the following recommendations in respect of improvement in performance of the PFMRP IV monitoring

and evaluation, and reporting formats:

1. The monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework and supporting financial report is a well-constructed

and generally useful tool for monitoring the progress of the reforms. We recommend that the M&E

framework to be consistently prepared and utilised constantly throughout the implementation of PFMRP

IV. It should appear in its entirety in each progress and supervision report. We would recommend the

addition of component manager, linkages and interdependencies, and level of priority information to that

given in Appendix 6 – Progress in the PFMRP IV Outputs.

2. We would recommend more careful use of the term “on track” in progress and supervision mission

reporting. In both the progress reports and the annual joint supervision reports there are many

milestones that are described as “on track” when the activities under the milestone have not even

started. These superfluous assertions tend to skew the overall assessment of the progress of the

programme with a large number of “on track” milestones that simply are not.

3. We recommend that progress reports be prepared on a quarterly basis.

4. A very large part of the success of a reform programme rests on the effective management of

stakeholder relationships. Stakeholders not only need to be kept informed, they also need to be actively

engaged and managed. We recommend that a much more pro-active stakeholder management

strategy be adopted by the programme management and be facilitated by the PFMRP Secretariat.



Appendix 1 – Terms of Reference

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR INDEPENDENT MID-TERM REVIEW OF PUBLIC FINANCE

MANAGEMENT REFORM PROGRAM PHASE FOUR (PFMRP IV)

1.0 Introduction

The government has been implementing the Public Financial Management Reform Program (PFMRP)

since 1998 with the objective of enhancing Public Financial Management, Transparency and

Accountability. PFMRP is implemented in line with other on-going reform programmes in the Public

Sector. Also PFMRP complements efforts to realize national policy objectives stated in Tanzania

Development Vision 2025 and MKUKUTA/MKUZA.

Between 1998 and 2012, three phases of PFMRP have been implemented and the current fourth

phase is being implemented for the period 2012/13 to 2016/17. The last three phases of PFMRP

implementation had the following objectives:

PFMRP PHASE I: 1998 – 2004

The objectives of this phase were to control expenditure, introduce aggregate fiscal discipline and

contribute to stable macro-economic growth. The phase focused on minimizing resource leakage,

strengthening financial control and enhancing accountability by reforming the budget process and

introducing Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS).

PFMRP PHASE II: 2004 – 2008

The objective of phase II was to sustain achievements of phase I and progressively modernize the

processes, procedures and systems involved in PFM through implementation and use of ‘best practice’

tools, techniques and methodologies to improve revenue forecasting and resource allocation for

strategic priorities.

PFMRP PHASE III: 2008 – 2011

Phase III intended to ensure greater predictability and availability of medium term resources to

executing agencies. The thrust was towards getting the tools, techniques, methodologies and systems

that were introduced in the previous phase to work efficiently and effectively in an integrated manner.

During implementation of the previous three phases, the Government has registered notable

achievements among others including the following: enactment of Public Audit Act No. 11 of 2008 for

enhancing operational independence of the National Audit Office; enactment of Public Finance Act No.

6 of 2001 and its amendment in 2010 and Public Procurement Act No. 21 of 2004 as amended in 2011

to enhance transparency and accountability; under the amendment of Public Finance Act in 2010, the

Internal Audit General’s Department was established. Under the same amendment, the Assistant

Accountant General Office to oversee LGAs finances was established. More achievements under this

phase included timely submission of CAG annual audit reports; adoption of Government Financial



Statistics (GFS) codes 2001 and Classification of Functions of Government (COFOG); introduction and

expansion of financial management systems to automate various key PFM processes including IFMS,

LAWSON, CS-DRMS, SBAS; use of EPICOR by all sub-treasuries in MDAs and 86 LGAs;

strengthening capacity of Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee to execute its oversight function;

identifying and closing down dormant bank accounts in order to improve cash management; and

provision of capacity building to staff involved in public finance management.

Despite these achievements PFMRP faces a number of challenges namely; inaccuracy in

Macroeconomic and fiscal forecasting, inadequate capturing of linkages between development

spending and the recurrent cost of the development budget, low predictability of budget execution,

existence of differing external and domestic debt systems, problems with program and contract

management and delayed response to audit recommendations.

PFMRP PHASE IV: 2012 – 2017

In order to address the challenges observed in previous phases, the Government developed PFMRP IV

Strategy to be implemented for five years from July, 2012 to June, 2017. PFMRP IV is part of

Government efforts to pursue a national development agenda that seeks to inspire sustained economic

growth and reduce the high incidence of poverty. In this regard PFMRP IV seeks to contribute to

implementation of Tanzania Development Vision 2025, MKUKUTA, Millennium Development Goals

(MDGs), Five Year Development Plans and other development initiatives.

Specifically, PFMRP IV aims at strengthening and improving public financial management systems in a

more coordinated manner in order to address the challenges experienced. Furthermore, PFMRP Phase

IV aims at enabling reforms in the five key areas of Revenue Management; Planning and Budget

Management; Budget Execution, Transparency and Accountability; Budgetary Control and Oversight

and; Change Management and Program Monitoring and Communication. Phase IV is designed to attain

more effective and efficient budget formulation, implementation and control in order to contribute to

broad-based economic growth as well as a vibrant private sector development.

PFMRP IV is in its 3rd year of its implementation. So far the programme has realized achievements

including the following: installation of Aid Management Platform (AMP) which is a web-based aid

management information system. Carrying out several studies which include Non Tax Revenue and

own source study in LGAs for mobilization of more revenue for both Central and Local Government,

2013 PEFA study for Central government which revealed a number of weaknesses in PFM; conducting

Intergovernmental transfers assessment and developing an Action Plan. Other achievements include

publishing Budget Execution Report, Citizen Budget and Citizen Auditing Reports each year and

enhancing NAOT capacity. Currently NAOT auditing quality has been elevated to level 3 of AFROSAI-E

capability model; EPICOR system has been upgraded from version 7.3.5 to version 9.05 with 7

modules have been installed of which 6 modules have been activated. Network connectivity to all Sub

Treasuries has facilitated better expenditure control and enabled timely production and consolidation of

financial statements and reports.

In order to assess PFMRP implementation progress and chart the way forward, Government of

Tanzania and Development Partners have agreed to commission an Independent Mid Term Review

(MTR). Accordingly, MOF wishes to engage a consultant to undertake this review. The results of the



mid-term review will principally be used by the key PFM stakeholders to improve implementation of the

program in an efficient and effective manner during the second half of program implementation.

2.0 OBJECTIVES

The objective of MTR is to provide a comprehensive independent analysis at mid-term of the program

and provide an opportunity to critically identify potential program design problems, assess progress

towards the achievement of the program objective and outcomes, identify the challenges, identify and

document lessons learned, and make recommendations on how PFMRP IV can successfully meet its

objectives and targets by the program end. It will evaluate the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and

sustainability of program strategies and interventions and provide recommendations to further improve

these program qualities. MTR will also identify emerging PFM issues related to gas economy and BRN

that will inform future PFM programs.

3.0 SCOPE OF THE MID-TERM REVIEW

The scope of Mid-Term Review will cover all components and activities undertaken in the framework of

the program. The review team will compare planned outputs of the program to actual outputs and

assess the actual results to determine their contribution to the attainment of the program objectives.

The evaluation will diagnose problems and suggest any necessary corrections and adjustments and

identify current areas where attention is needed. It will evaluate the efficiency of program management,

including the delivery of outputs and activities in terms of quality, quantity, timeliness and cost

efficiency.

4.0 METHODOLOGY

The Mid-Term Review will be conducted by an independent consultant on the basis that its essential

objective is to assess performance of the program and to document both successes and failures and to

provide a basis for improvement during the second half of the program’s lifespan. Methods will include:

1. Review existing documents related to PFMRP, including but not limited to:

(i) PFMRP IV Strategy, MoU, and Operational Manual

(ii) PFMRP Phase III Completion report

(iii) PFMRP IV annual progress report (Fiscal Year 2012/13 to 2013/14);

(iv) PFMRP IV Joint Supervision Mission reports (Fiscal Year 2012/13 to 2013/14)

(v) PEFA reports 2009 and 2013;

(vi) Public Finance Act 2001 as revised in 2004;

(vii) Controller and Auditor General Annual Reports for relevant years

(viii) Studies and reports established under PFMRP IV- a list of which is provided in

Annex A.

(ix) Reforming Tanzania Public Sector- an assessment and future direction.

(x) BRN strategic documents

(xi) Phase IV Joint Supervision Mission Reports

2. Make interview with key stakeholders including MOF Senior Officials; all component

managers implementing the program; beneficiaries of the programmes (trainees, etc.);

Bank of Tanzania; Ministry of Energy and Minerals; Office of the Chief Secretary, Ministry



of Health and Social Welfare; Ministry of Education; Reform Coordination Unit of the

President’s Office; Tanzania Revenue Authority; selected Regional Secretariats; LGAs;

selected Civil Societies.

3. Making observations of PFMRP IV systems and software’s installed to assess quality

environment.

4. Make field visit to sample program sites with the purpose of interviewing program

beneficiaries.

The consultant will be required to indicate the methodology to be applied in undertaking the

assignment, with a clear indication and justification for the techniques to be used. The methodology

should include a work plan for performing the assignment and the required resources to achieve the

expected output of the assignment.

5.0 TASKS OF THE CONSULTANT

Tasks under this consultancy assignment will include:

(a) Reviewing and evaluating implementation of the program achievements against plan and

objectives and providing recommendations to the Government of Tanzania on how to fine-

tune or re-design the program, its target and indicator formulation or its approach if

necessary to improve delivery of expected outcomes and impacts.

(b) Reviewing the extent to which implementation of the program has been inclusive of

relevant stakeholders and to which it has been able to create collaboration between

different partners; and identifying opportunities for stronger substantive partnerships. This

should include also stakeholders that have not, or only to a limited extent, been

recipients/participants to the PFMRP IV programme so far.

(c) Analyzing which factors and constraints have influenced program implementation including

technical, financial; managerial, organizational, institutional and socio-economic policy

factors in addition to other external factors unforeseen during design.

(d) Assessing program results and PFM impacts, in terms of development outcomes,

achievement of MDGs, with focus in the areas of Aggregate Fiscal Discipline, strategic

allocation of resources; efficient service delivery.

(e) Identify emerging PFM issues in the event of potential gas reserves fructifying in the

medium to longer term and the PFM implications thereof.

(f) Assessing the quality and adequacy of the financial planning instruments to check how

they relate to government’s approved budget and financial statements and compatibility or

not.

(g) Reviewing the monitoring tools and system currently being used if they provide the

necessary information, involve key partners; use existing information; their efficiency and

cost-effectiveness and if additional tools are required.

(h) Given the high number of capacity building activities and trainings on the programme, the

consultant should provide an assessment of the impact and cost-effectiveness of these

activities, as well as recommendations on how to make them more relevant if necessary,

taking into account the PFM capacity building activities carried out in addition to the ones

funded under PFM RP.



(i) Similarly, given the high number of studies and diagnostic reports carried out under the

programme, the consultant should assess what has been their impact so far in terms of

policy making, legislation/regulation drafting, etc.

(j) Assessing critical risks identified, including the ones outside the immediate control of the

program’s management, and suggesting risk ratings and possible risk management

strategies to be adopted.

6.0 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CLIENT (i.e. Ministry of Finance)

MOF will provide support as follows:

a) Assist with logistics concerning missions including meetings,

b) Provide relevant background information and documents to the successful consultant;

c) Provide comments on all draft deliverables.

7.0 OUTPUT/DELIVERABLES

The deliverables of the assignment will be:

(i) An Inception Report two weeks after the start of the mission. The inception report

should contain a brief outline on how the consultant intends to carry out the

assignment. The report shall summarize the methodology to be used, detailed work

plan and any other issue of importance that may require the attention of the Client (i.e.

Ministry of Finance) at this stage. The consultant shall present the inception report to

key stakeholders including Development Partners.

(ii) Draft Mid-Term Review Report. To be submitted two weeks before the end of the

assignment. The report will include recommendations on the implementation of the

program. The report shall be logically structured, contain evidence based findings,

conclusions, lessons and recommendations. The draft report shall be presented to all

key stakeholders who will provide comments on the Draft Report for incorporation in

the final report.

(iii) A final Mid-Term evaluation report: The final evaluation report, incorporating comments

made on the draft report should be presented both in hard copy and an electronic

version. The report shall be written in Microsoft Word for Windows and should be

presented in a way that enables publication without further editing. The executive

Summary shall include the main conclusions about the extent to which the program

has fulfilled its objectives, what are lessons learnt, has worked well and suggested

improvements for future program.

9.0 LEVEL OF EFFORT

It is estimated that this work will require 120 person days.

10.0 TIMEFRAME

The assignment is planned to take place between January and March, 2015.

11.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERTISE



The Mission will consist of a two-member team of consultants with the following minimum qualifications:

General minimum qualifications:

(a) Recent knowledge of result-based management evaluation methodologies

(b) Recent knowledge of participatory monitoring approaches

(c) Substantive experience in reviewing and evaluating similar programs/projects, preferably those

involving PFM;

(d) Demonstrate ability to assess complex situations, succinctly distil critical issues, and draw

forward-looking conclusions and recommendations;

(e) Knowledgeable of participatory monitoring and evaluation processes, and experience in

evaluation of technical assistance PFM with major donor agencies;

(f) Minimum of Masters Degree in related fields.

(g) Fluency in written and spoken English.

(h) Highly knowledgeable of evaluation processes, and experience in evaluation of donor funded

programs;

Team Leader

Will possess in depth understanding and experience in PFM. He/she will have the overall responsibility

of organizing and completing the review, and submitting the final report.

(a) Should possess at minimum, Masters degree in economics, business administration,

program management or relevant post-graduate university level education with a minimum

of 10 years experience in the Monitoring and Evaluation of major program and/or projects;

(b) The suitable candidate should have adequate experience, knowledge and skills in Public

Finance Management (PFM) of at least 8 years;

(c) Sound experience in using MTEF and other tools for Government planning, budgeting,

financial management and reporting;

(d) Sound communication skills both verbal and written and ability to document clearly for

internal and external stakeholders;

(e) Ability to undertake regular field visits and interact with different stakeholders, especially

Component Managers to build relationship both at individual and institutional levels;

(f) Experience of using Logical Framework Analysis and Result Based Management (RBM)

Frameworks.

Assistant Consultant

(a) The Consultant will have the same qualification as the Lead Consultant except less

experience of at least 5 years experience in similar assignment.

(b) Be fluent in Kiswahili.

12.0 REPORTING

The consultants shall work with the Ministry of Finance and will report to the Deputy Permanent

Secretary- DSPFM. On a day-to-today basis the consultants will work closely with the Director of

Planning Division.



13.0 COUNTER-PART STAFF

The Ministry of Finance shall assign one counter-part staff during the whole period of the assignment

who will receive on the job-training for capacity building and knowledge transfer. The counterpart staffs

will be responsible to the consultant but shall not be accountable for the report that will be submitted to

the client. The Ministry of Finance shall be responsible for the counterpart’s staff’s related costs during

the whole period of the assignment.



Annex A: List of studies carried out under PFMRP IV

Study/report Main objective Plan Status update

KRA 1- Revenue Management

A study on Local

Government

Authorities (LGAs)

‘‘own-source’’

revenue collection

To assess the existing major

revenue sources and their

potential as well as the

collection system/procedures

rules and regulations available

in order to identify gaps and

options for improvements;

To identify new sources of

revenue and recommend

improvements methods in the

revenue collection system or

the tax administration to

overcome tax evasion,

collection efficiency,

enforcement and therefore

voluntary tax compliance.

Draft report in

November 2013

Stakeholder

consultations in March

2014.

Final report and action

plan to be finalised in

July 2014.

Report

Study on integration

and harmonisation of

MDAs Revenue

Collection Systems

To examine the existing

revenue collection and

management systems of non-

tax revenue in relation to tax

revenues and recommend a

modality for integrating revenue

records and collection systems

Draft report shared to

internal stakeholders in

Nov 2013.


plan expected to be

discussed in July 2014.

Report

KRA 2- Budgeting and Planning

A detailed analysis of

To undertake a detailed

analysis of budget reallocation

warrants (virement between

Report



budget reallocation

warrants in Tanzania

for the last four years

votes) in Tanzania for the last

four years in order to identify

key budget execution issues

and suggest recommendations,

including policy changes, to

minimize budget reallocations

Interim report is ready

for discussion with

stakeholders foreseen

for July 2014

Review of resource

allocation formula for

Local Government

Authorities in

Tanzania

To review LGAs’ resource

allocation formulas for

recurrent and development

expenditures to provide LGAs

with greater stability and

transparency in their budget

allocations and facilitate more

effective and accountable

financial planning and

budgeting processes

Contract negotiation in

process for consultant.

Assignment to begin in

July 2014

Report

KRA4- Oversight and Control

Study of the national

budget

To study the magnitude of the

problem and financial impact of

the budget performance to the

individual MDAs and LGAs and

the consolidated national

economy at large.

Report

Survey on

composition and

effectiveness of

internal audit

committees in the

LGAs in Tanzania

To facilitate/enable the Office

of the Internal Auditor General

(IAGD) to understand the

current status of audit

committees in LGAs, and to

inform practical strategies that

will be aimed at enhancing the

effectiveness of audit

committee in LGAs.

Final report submitted

Report

Survey on

effectiveness of

Internal Audit

Functions in LGAs

To conduct baseline survey on

internal audit function in LGAs

so as to identify and document

their current status as well as

recommend practical

interventions for strengthening

internal audit function in LGAs

Final report submitted

Report



KRA5- Programme Management, Change management and Cross-cutting issues

A study on mapping

of transfer of funds to

LGAs

To carry out a critical review of

the existing processes and

systems that are currently

being used to allocate, release

and transfer funds from both

Government and external

sources to LGAs with a special

attention on the predictability,

completeness, timeliness and

transparency of funds transfer.

Final report in

September 2013.

Action plan agreed at

technical level in Dec

2013 and incorporated

in FY2014/15 budget

Report

Mapping, modelling

and simulation on

Government of

Tanzania Financial

Management

Systems

The mapping of the

government’s ICT systems

related to financial

management should lead to a

proposal on a long-term

Enterprise Integration

Architecture (EIA) for all

applications and processes

Draft final report in

March 2014


plan to be discussed in

June 2014

Report

Crosscutting

2013 Public

Expenditure and

Financial

Accountability

(PEFA) Assessment

Mainland Tanzania

(Central

Government)

To assess the PFM system

performance of the

Government of Tanzania using

the PEFA assessment

methodology and establish a

baseline for the PFMRP IV,

which started mid-2012, and to

gauge progress in

strengthening performance

since the last PEFA

assessment conducted during

2008-2010.

Report



Appendix 2 – Consultant tasks from the terms of reference and associated report

content

(a) Reviewing and evaluating implementation of the program achievements against plan and objectives and

providing recommendations to the Government of Tanzania on how to fine-tune or re-design the program, its

target and indicator formulation or its approach if necessary to improve delivery of expected outcomes and

impacts.

This first task is in effect a high level overview and is addressed by the whole report.

(b) Reviewing the extent to which implementation of the program has been inclusive of relevant stakeholders

and to which it has been able to create collaboration between different partners; and identifying opportunities

for stronger substantive partnerships. This should include also stakeholders that have not, or only to a

limited extent, been recipients/participants to the PFMRP IV programme so far.

The report highlights the need for the reform programme management to establish a stakeholder management

process (section 3.5). This section points out that the stakeholders that do not appear to have been sufficiently

engaged are those at the higher level. These stakeholders if appropriately managed should be demanding

change rather than delaying it.

(c) Analyzing which factors and constraints have influenced program implementation including technical,

financial; managerial, organizational, institutional and socio-economic policy factors in addition to other

external factors unforeseen during design.

The whole report is an analysis of the factors and constraints on programme implementation. These constraints

are analysed and assessed throughout the main analysis section of the report i.e. chapters 2, 3 and 4, ranging

from their impact on: the design of the programme; implementation; emerging public financial management

issues; and programme management.

(d) Assessing program results and PFM impacts, in terms of development outcomes, achievement of MDGs,

with focus in the areas of Aggregate Fiscal Discipline, strategic allocation of resources; efficient service

delivery.

The purpose of this task is to assess at an interim stage the impact of PFM reform achievement on these areas.

The report in chapters 2, 3 and 4 with further detail in Appendices 4 to 9 assesses programme results at all

levels for all areas. It is important to take note that this is not a final evaluation of the programme.

(e) Identify emerging PFM issues in the event of potential gas reserves fructifying in the medium to longer term

and the PFM implications thereof.

This task is specifically addressed in chapter 4.

(f) Assessing the quality and adequacy of the financial planning instruments to check how they relate to

government’s approved budget and financial statements and compatibility or not.

As clarified at our initial client meetings we understand these to be the financial planning instruments of the

reform programme itself and its management. These are considered in chapter 3.



(g) Reviewing the monitoring tools and system currently being used if they provide the necessary information,

involve key partners; use existing information; their efficiency and cost-effectiveness and if additional tools

are required.

This is addressed in chapter 3 and is specifically considered in section 3.3.

(h) Given the high number of capacity building activities and trainings on the programme, the consultant should

provide an assessment of the impact and cost-effectiveness of these activities, as well as recommendations

on how to make them more relevant if necessary, taking into account the PFM capacity building activities

carried out in addition to the ones funded under PFM RP.

This task is specifically addressed by section 2.8 with a caveat expressed in section 1.2.

(i) Similarly, given the high number of studies and diagnostic reports carried out under the programme, the

consultant should assess what has been their impact so far in terms of policy making, legislation/regulation

drafting, etc.

Again this task is specifically addressed by section 2.8 with a caveat expressed in section 1.2.

(j) Assessing critical risks identified, including the ones outside the immediate control of the program’s

management, and suggesting risk ratings and possible risk management strategies to be adopted.

At a high level this is the topic for section 3.6. These are the key risks. A detailed analysis of risk is given in

Appendix 11– Risk analysis. In this appendix each risk is described, a rating given and an individual

management strategy provided.



Appendix 3 – Documents

Five year Work Plan

PFMRP IV Annual progress report 2012/13, 2013/14

Draft mid-term report 2014/15

Updated M&E framework

Five year work plan

PFMRPIV Strategy report

PFMRP Strategic Plan

Report on Performance of Cross Cutting Reforms-November 2013 (Annex I &II)

Strategic Design Document- LGA PFM Reform Support Final Report

PEFA report 2009

PFMRP III completion report

Joint supervision report 2012, 2013

Final AWP & Budget 2013/14, 204/15 PFMRP IV Narratives

PFMRP Consolidated Budget 2013/14 Final JSC (a, b, and c), 2014/15

Work-plan PFMRP five Year and Budget-Revised for 2013/14, 2014/15 Final Revised JSC

Work-plan PFMRP five Year and Budget 2012/13 with AfDB fund

Final Cash Flow Projections-Narratives

Cash Flow 2012/13, 2013/14, and 2014/15

PFMRP IV DP Commitment and Disbursements Schedule FY 2014/15

PFM LGA Budget 2014/15

Regional & LGA PFM Support Programme- Results Milestones and Activities Matrix

PFMRP One year MTEF Consolidated Final with AfDB Bank

Study on Mapping of Transfer of Funds to Local Government Authorities (LGAs) 2013 Final Report

Study on local Government Authorities (LGAs) Own Source Revenue Collection

Study on Integration and Harmonization of MDAs Revenue Collection Systems

Study on Mapping, Modelling and Simulation on Government of Tanzania Financial Management

Systems

Local Government Development Grant (LGDG) System: Implementation and Guidelines

Local Government Development Grant (LGDG) System: Annual Assessment Manual

Consolidated Financial Statements for Year Ended 30th June 2013

Consolidated Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30th June 2014

Report of the Controller and Auditor General on the Consolidated Financial Statements of the GOT

for the Year Ended 30th June 2014

Draft Report on Baseline Survey: The Composition and Effectiveness of Audit Committees in Local

Government

Guidelines for the Preparation of Annual Plan and Budget for 2015/16

Implementation of 5 year Development Plan 2011/12-2015/16



Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) Assessment: Mainland Tanzania (Central

Government)

Annual Work Plan & budget FY 2015-16

Mid-year progress report 2014/15

TWG timetable 2015

Cash flow projections narratives

Procurement 2015

PFMRP consolidated budget

Cash flow 2015-16

Review study document of GoT ICT infrastructure

EFMs strategy document

Annual budget reports 2012/13, 2013/14, 2014/15

PFMRP MTEF FISM 2012/13, 2013/14

Budget 2013/14, and 2014/15

Annual joint mission supervision Missions Reports (Aide memoire) for 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15

Mid-year progress report for June-Dec 2012 and 2013

Mid-year review Mar 2015 documents

CAG 2013-14 Audit report (Power-point presentation)

Amendment of Operations Manual as approved by JSC in Oct 2014- Final

Amendment of Operations Manual for approved by JSC in Nov 2014- Final

PMC Minutes for Meeting held on 22nd may 2014

Review of annual procurement plan for year 2014-15

Revised PFMRP IV M&E Framework 2014-15

JSC, PMC Agenda doc

Procurement plan 2014-15

Procurement Audit reports- Final report NAO, Final Report PPRA and Final Report MoF 2013/14

Reviewed

AWP & Budget FY 2014/15 PFMRP IV Narrative

PFMRP Consolidated Budget 2014/15

Cash Flow Projections-narratives

Cash flow 2014/15

PPRA Annual Progress Report

PFMRP 1st Quarter Report 2014/15

First Quarter Receipts Expenditure 2014-October 2014

PFMRP Mid Year Progress Report (M&E Framework)

Semi Annual Progress Report (PFMRP Jan 2015)

PFM-PAF 2015 –procurement

PFMRP Budget Ceiling revised 2015

PPRA Monitoring Template for Planned Activities

PFMRP Financial Reporting- 3rd Quarter

PFMRP Financial Reporting-Annual 2013/14

PPRA Annual Progress Report 2013/14



Financial Report (PPRA)2013

PPRA Annual Report (PFMRP) -Form no 3

PFMRP 2nd Quarter Progress Report (PPRA-KRA3)

Amendment of PFMRP IV GoT Memorandum of Understanding 202/13-2016/17

Core Reforms Review 2013

Joint Donor Assessment of Underlying Principles November 2013- Conclusions

Joint Donor Assessment of Underlying Principles November 2014- Conclusions

Report of the Controller and Auditor General on The Consolidated Financial Statements of the GoT

for year ended 30th June 2014

Draft Report on Strategy for Management of Electronic Financial Management Systems

Report on Review of Got Electronic Financial Management Systems Infrastructure

Statement of Reallocation warrants within votes No. 1&2 of 2014/15

Citizens reports FY 2011/12, 2012/13

Guidelines for developing and Implementing Fraud Risk Management Framework in the Public Sector

2015

Guidelines for Enhancing Internal Control frameworks in the Public Sector 2015

General Report in the Performance and Specialized Audits for period ending 31st March 2015

Joint Assistance Strategy for Tanzania December 2006

Aid Management Platform: Analysis of ODA Report for FY2010/11 & 2011/12, 2012/13

Reforming Tanzania Public Sector Report: An Assessment and Future Direction, November 2013



Appendix 4 – Stakeholders consulted

Name of Person Position Institution

1 Dr.Servacius B. Likwelile Permanent Secretary and Pay Master General

Ministry of Finance(MoF)

2 Dr. H. H. Mwinyimvua DSPFM Ministry of Finance(MoF)

3 MsabahaMsabaha Acting Director of Planning MoF Ministry of Finance

4 Sebastian Ndandala Coordinator PFMRP Secretariat

5 Alexander Lweikila Communication Specialist PFMRP Secretariat

6 Ben Mayobu Procurement Specialist PFMRP Secretariat

7 Denis Biseko World Bank GoT Budget Support World Bank

8 Jean Jose Padou Public Financial Management Advisor CIDA

9 Stanley Haule Assistant Director Financial Management Information System

DFMIS-MoF

10 Dr.LawrentShirima CEO Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA)

11 Peter Shilla Director information Systems PPRA

12 Winfrida Samba Contracts Performance Manager PPRA

13 Robert Kitalala Head Procurement Management Unit PPRA

14 Hanna Mwakalinga Director Corporate Services PPRA

15 Awadhi Suluo Acting Director, Capacity Building and Advisory Services

PPRA

6 Christopher Mwakibinga Chief Internal Auditor PPRA

17 Dr. Frederick A. Mwakibinga Commissioner Public Procurement Policy Division- MoF

18 Prof MussaJuma Assad Controller and Auditor General National Audit Office

19 Athumani S. Mbuttuka Deputy Auditor General National Audit Office

20 Malima M. C. Nkilijiwando Head Planning Unit National Audit Office

21 S.O. Mukhandi Assistant Director-Local Government Finances, Local Government Division

Prime Minister’s Office- Regional Administration and Local Government

22 UpendoMangali Local Government Finances, Local Government Division

Prime Minister’s Office- Regional Administration and Local Government

23 Mette Melson Co-Chair Development Partners -Counselor (Economics and Public Financial Management)

DANIDA

24 ViveckMisra Chair Development Partners - Public Financial Management Advisor

DFID

25 Aran Corrigan Senior Governance Advisor Embassy of Ireland

26 Allen Killewo Financial Systems & Audit Advisor Embassy of Ireland

27 Richard Mkumbo Commissioner for Planning Division Department for Planning Division (DPD)-MoF

28 J Cheyo Commissioner of Budget MoF

29 Mwanaidi A. Mtanda Accountant General Office of the Internal Auditor General

30 Victor D. Tesha Assistant Accountant General/LG Office of the Internal Auditor General

31 Kifile Aziz Assistant Accountant General /System Office of the Internal Auditor General

32 Stanley Mlula PCSA Office of the Internal Auditor General

33 BathalomeoLyamuya REV Office of the Internal Auditor General

34 Simon J. Mangu Ag. CA/FMG Office of the Internal Auditor




General

35 GodloveKinyunyu Ag. SDU (A) Office of the Internal Auditor General

36 MwajumaMbogoyo Assistant Accountant General Office of the Internal Auditor General

37 David Dotto Ag. CMU Office of the Internal Auditor General

38 M. Paschal Office of the Internal Auditor General

39 Kalugendo Acting Chief Accountant Consolidation Office of the Internal Auditor General

40 Mohammed A. Mtonga Internal Auditor General Internal Auditor General Division

41 Ms. Vicky Jengo Ag AIAG (B&P) Internal Auditor General Division

42 Dickson Austin AB (AIAGCRM) Internal Auditor General Division

43 Lightness Mality IA (QA) Internal Auditor General Division

44 Elikira Mathew PA II (QA) Internal Auditor General Division

45 MwanyikaMsemroki AIAG-LGA Internal Auditor General Division

46 Aidan Eyakuze Executive Director Twaweza

47 ApolinaryTamayamali Reform Coordinator Reform Coordination Unit

48 Alex John Haraba Assistant Commissioner PPPD

49 Vivian Klein KfW

50 Philipp Schattenmann GIZ

51 Achim Blum GIZ

52 LoiseLaliberte Canada

53 Joseph Nyamboha JICA

54 Lars M Johansson Sweden

55 Victor Mollel EU Delegation

56 Simon Moshy PFM DP Coordinator

57 Bertha Malambugi Head of Planning Unit Treasury Registrar Office

58 AbiskyNalaki Planning Officer Treasury Registrar Office

59 Gerald T. Nzalalila Planning Officer Treasury Registrar Office

60 Godfrey Kaijage Financial Management AfDB

61 B. Shallanda Policy Analysis Department

62 Wilbrod C. Nkweto Principal Finance Management Officer Policy Analysis Department

63 YoswamNyongera Government Procurement Agency

64 MukajunguKamuzora PFMRP Focal Point EFD External Finance Department

65 AndambikeMwalolo Economist External Finance Department

66 JustunKomba External Finance Department

67 Omar Mungima Aid Management Platform External Finance Department

68 Alfred Dede DHRM Human Resource Management Division- MoF

69 Guy Anderson Public Financial Management Advisor AFRITEC

70 TawfikRamtoolah Public Financial Management Advisor AFRITEC

71 Ibrahim K Liguo Treasury Registrar Office

72 Frank Mtyama Government Budget Division

73 George Kamyama PSV Government Asset Management Department

74 MohamediMdoka SV Government Asset Management Department

75 Martin Sapanjo PPRA

76 Gilbert C. Kamunde PPRA

77 Ernest Laitun MoF

78 IngiahediNduma Chief Government Communication Government Communication Unit

79 Ramadhani O. Kissimba Government Communication Unit

80 Adolf Ndunguru Manager Tanzania Revenue Authority

81 Gloria Ngoitiko Accountant Tanzania Revenue Authority

82 Pius Mponzi Assistant Budget Commissioner Government Budget Division




83 HariethChamuriho Assistant Director Government Assets Management Division

84 Sixbert H. Qamdiye Assistant Director Government Assets Management Division

85 Michael Lizigah SV Government Assets Management Division

86 HappygodLongino SV I Government Assets Management Division

87 SyprianIraba PFMRP III Focal Point MoE Ministry of Education

88 I. M Matovu District Executive Director Bagamoyo

89 Amir Kiluwasha Acting Treasurer Bagamoyo

90 Hildrgard H. Mselle Planning Officer Bagamoyo

91 TatuSelemani District Executive Director Kibaha

92 TheopisterMrango Acting District Treasurer Kibaha

93 Pascal M. Karomba Chief Accountant RAS Coast

94 Simon M. William Salary Accountant RAS Coast

95 Emmanuel S. Kwayu Accountant RAS Coast

96 Frank Y. Mchomvu Procurement Officer RAS Coast

97 Elly S. Mtilwa Accountant RAS Coast

98 SimaiSimai Focal Point Zanzibar AccGen Zanzibar



Appendix 5 – IPSASs selected extracts

Extracts from:

IPSAS 33 First-time Adoption of Accrual Basis International Public Sector Accounting Standards

(IPSASs) Exposure Draft, Final Pronouncement, January 2015

IPSAS 1, Presentation of Financial Statements

Comparative Information

Where a first-time adopter elects to not present comparative information, its transitional IPSAS financial

statements following the adoption of accrual basis IPSASs or its first IPSAS financial statements

presented in accordance with this IPSASs shall include:

(a) One statement of financial position, and an opening statement of financial position at the date of

adoption of accrual basis IPSAS;

(b) One statement of financial performance;

(c) One statement of changes in net assets/equity;

(d) One cash flow statement;

(e) A comparison of budget and actual amounts for the current year as a separate additional financial

statement or as a budget column in the financial statements if the first-time adopter makes its approved

budget publicly available; and

(f) Related notes and the disclosure of narrative information about material adjustments as required by

paragraph 142.

IPSAS 24, Presentation of Budget Information in Financial Statements

Paragraph 55 is amended and paragraph 55A is added as follows:

Effective Date

55. When an entity adopts the accrual basis IPSASs of accounting as defined in IPSAS 33, First-time

Adoption of Accrual Basis International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSASs) for financial

reporting purposes subsequent to this effective date, this Standard applies to the entity’s annual financial

statements covering periods beginning on or after the date of adoption of IPSASs.

55A. Paragraph 55 was amended by IPSAS 33, First-time Adoption of Accrual Basis International Public

Sector Accounting Standards (IPSASs) issued in January 2015. An entity shall apply that amendment for

annual financial statements covering periods beginning on or after January 1, 2017. Earlier application is

permitted. If an entity applies IPSAS 33 for a period beginning before January 1, 2017, the amendment

shall also be applied for that earlier period.



Appendix 6 – Progress in the PFMRP IV Outputs


Output

Output performance

indicators

Indicator Baseline 2011

Indicator Target 2017

Milestones Reported

achievement Extent achieved Comments

KRA 1 Revenue Management:

Strengthened systems, processes and procedures for improving the operational capability of the revenue collection by June 2016

1.1: Improved quality of forecasting of fiscal aggregates for three years on a rolling basis

Aggregate revenue out-turn compared to original approved budget (PEFA: PI-3)

Actual domestic revenue collection was below 92% of budgeted domestic revenue estimated in no more than one of the last three years. (PEFA: C)

Actual domestic revenue collection is below 94% of budgeted domestic revenue in no more than one of the last three years. (PEFA: B)

1.1.1 Undertake a study to identify ways of improving tax revenue forecast and action plan by June 2014 [Originally milestone stated ‘Study on forecasting targets and actual revenue collection by Jun 2013’]

Sep 2012 JSM – Needed revision.

Sep 2013 JSM – Pending

Dec 2014 MYPR – Achieved

Not achieved - the milestone was not undertaken as it was effectively replaced by a similar activity identified in TRA’s corporate plan. However another activity was undertaken instead where training to 15 staff on macroeconomic diagnostic was conducted in December 2013.

A measurable input milestone.

There is a potential for assistance to be given to the Policy Analysis Department (PAD) in the development of a model for use in revenue forecasting.

Increase in number and quality of participating MDAs and LGAS with

Less than 5% of participating MDAs and LGAS providing accurate, realistic revenue

50% of participating MDAs and LGAs providing accurate, realistic revenue

1.1.2 A team of trainers in revenue forecasting developed by June 2014 (milestone to be reviewed in line with

Sep 2012 JSM – On track


Dec 2014 MYPR –

Achieved - A team of 5 trainers was trained in May 2014.

Insufficiently specified measurable input milestone.




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


staff capable providing accurate, realistic revenue projections

projections in 2010/11

projections by 2017

recommendations from the study)

Not reported

1.2: The Government improves efficiency in domestic revenue mobilization both at the policy and the administration levels by updating legal instruments towards international best practices

Increase in collection of Total and non-tax revenues as percentage of GDP

Total revenue collection was 16.5 % of GDP in 2010/11

Total revenue collection will be at least 17.8% of GDP by 2013/14

1.2.1 The study on Non Tax Revenue (NTR)-“Integration and Harmonization of Revenue Collection Systems” completed by November 2013



Dec 2014 MYPR – On track

Achieved- the study was undertaken and a report produced in July 2013.


Non-tax revenue was 1.2% of GDP in 2010/11

Non-tax revenue will be at least 1.9% of GDP by 2013/14

1.2.2 Action plan to implement the recommendations from review of non-tax collection developed by June 2015 [Original target Jun 2014]

Sep 2012 JSM – Nil – Subsequently developed milestone


Dec 2014 MYPR – On track (but target date moved to Jun 2015)

Achieved –Action plan developed in January 2015.


1.2.3 Costed action plan incorporated in FY2015/16 for implementation


Uncertain - Activity undertaken under each Ministry to actualize the action





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


Sep 2013 JSM – New milestone

Dec 2014 MYPR – Pending 1.2.2

plan recommendations.

1.2.4 Submission of a bill to Parliament to enact Tax Administration Act for the purpose of establishing a common tax procedure among different taxes collected by Tanzania revenue authority (TRA) by Feb 2014


Sep 2013 JSM – At risk

Dec 2014 MYPR – Not reported

Achieved – Tax Administration Act and VAT Act passed in November 2014.


1.2.5 Review Laws, rules and Regulations for Local Government revenue system to improve LGA’s own sources in line with best practices by June, 2016.

Sep 2012 JSM – At risk – With 1.3.6



In progress - Zero draft of LGA finance act developed before Dec 2014.


1.2.6 Take policy action to improve revenue mobilisation from natural resource



Delayed – All activities not yet completed

An unmeasurable input milestone.




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


sectors by June 2014 Dec 2014 MYPR – On track

1.2.? The action plan to implement the recommendations from review of non tax collection developed and implemented by 2016 [Deleted milestone]


Sep 2013 JSM – Deleted milestone

Deleted – Reason not established

A measurable input milestone deleted.

1.2.7 Computerized revenue collection to at least 50% from MNRT[participating MDAS and LGAs] by 2016




Uncertain – Some revenue collection systems have been computerised but the percentage of total collection is not reported.

A measurable output milestone.

Tax exemptions as a percentage of GDP

2.2% Target :

2012: 1.9%

2013: 1.6%

2014: 1.2%

1.2.8 Review the current system of tax exemptions with the value-added Tax (VAT) regime and amend the VAT Act with a view to be in line with international best practices by November 2014




Achieved -VAT Act was passed in November 2014.


Indicator targets not converted to milestones.




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


1.3: Strengthened capacity of local government authorities to collect revenue by 2015

Local Government Own source revenue to GDP

Actual revenue collection by LGAs 2010/11: TZS 158,280 million and 0.46 % of GDP

Local Government Own source revenue will be 1.5% of GDP

1.3.1 Completed assessment and evaluation of revenue potential for all major own sources of revenue to all LGAs by June 2014 [Original target June 2013]

Transferred to 6.1.1

1.3.2 Local Authorities Tax administration teaching and practice modules established and TOT completed for all finance management staff at the regional level by June 2014. [Original target June 2013]


1.3.3 PMO - RALG staff and Finance Management Officers at RS to be trained in tax revenue plans and budgets to spearhead LGAs tax reviews and reforms. June 2014 [Original target June 2013]





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


1.3.4 Four (4) Revenue Accountants, 3 Council management team members and 1 FMO from each LGA and RS are trained on own source revenue management by June 2014.


1.3.5 Establishment of known and clear revenue data base by each source of revenue, presence of trained personnel and a clear follow up arrangement at PMORALG and RS levels by June, 2015 [Original target June 2014]


Local Government legislation reviewed by 2016 (Act No. 7, 8 and 9)

The last amendment of the Local Government Finances Act No.9 of 1982 was done in year

Local Government Finances Act No. 9 reviewed by 2014

1.3.6 Completed study on the effectiveness, relevancy and sufficiency of the provisions of the Local Government Finances Act No. 9 by June,





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


2002. The act does not adequately address issues of equity, change of technology and other administrative issues to enhance local revenue mobilization considering the present and future LGAs circumstances.

2014

1.3.7 A bill for an act to amend the Local Government Finances Act No.9 of 1982 is finalized and submitted to the Cabinet by Nov 2014 [Original target Feb 2014]


1.3.8 Improvement of Financial Management in LGAs by June 2015


1.4: Increase of donor funding that flows through the exchequer system by 2016

Percentage of disbursement of direct project fund portfolio via the exchequer

20% 50% 1.4.1 National framework for managing development co-operation (Development Cooperation Framework, DCF) reviewed, disseminated and put in operation by March 2014 [Original target Dec 2012]


Sep 2013 JSM – Delayed


Achieved but delayed – Drafting was undertaken 2013/14. Stakeholder consultation between Jul and Dec 2014.

Still waiting for consideration of the drafted framework to be included in the





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


IMTC agenda.

1.4.2 Revised [JAST and] AMP user guideline clearly communicated to both parties by Dec 2014 [Original target Dec 2012]

Sep 2012 JSM – Needed revision



Achieved but delayed – Training delivered Feb 2015 followed by the upgrade for July 2015.


1.4.3 Analysis of trends of the direct project fund portfolio disbursed via the exchequer system published and shared annually by June 2015




Achieved – The reports have been produced for each year since 2013 but the reports take a year to prepare.

On the face of it an insufficiently specified output milestone. It appears to actually refer to the production of analysis reports which is a measurable output milestone.

KRA 2 Budgeting and planning:

Strengthened capacity of planning and budget management, including results and program based budgeting, within MOF, MDAs and LGAs by June 2016.

2.1: Strengthened capacity of MDAs, RSs and LGAs in implementing program

Presence of Programs-based budget classification (PI-5)

The 2008/09 budget formulation and execution is based on administrative and GFS –

The budget formulation and execution will be based on administrative , economic and functional

2.1.1. All sub programs, objectives and performance indicators defined by Dec 2012



Dec 2014 MYPR – Delayed

Partially achieved – The indicators were defined but it has been agreed that they require further revision.


The 2013 JSM should have reported this milestone as delayed.




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


based budgeting by June 2016.

compatible economic classification. There is no COFOG-based functional classification and budget documentation and reporting system (PI-5C)

classification

(Using at least the 10 main COFOG functions), using GFS/COFOG standards or a standard data can produce consistent documentation according to those standards

(PI-5B)

2.1.2. Chart of accounts Modified to accommodate program based budgeting by August 2013

Sep 2012 JSM – Achieved



Achieved – The coding structure was modified to accommodate the change from EPICOR 7 to 9.


2.1.3. MTEF reviewed to make program based budget compatible by September 2016




Delayed – Undertaken for 8 pilot ministries but role out to all ministries not yet agreed with AFRITAC.

A measurable input milestone as the MTEF is changed.

2.1.4. Progress on the PBB Action Plan implementation annually




Not achieved – A formal annual review of performance is not undertaken.

An insufficiently specified output milestone.

Increase in number of MDAs and RSs with skilled staff for

In 2011, there are no staff in MDAs and RSs with necessary skills to

95 % of MDAs and RSs have staff with necessary skills to implement

2.1.5. Completed phased training for all MDAs and RSs by Sept 2016 [Original target 2014]



Dec 2014 MYPR –

At risk – On hold waiting for the roll-out of milestone 2.1.3.





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


implementing a program based budgeting

implement program based budgeting

program based budgeting

On track

2.1.6. Completed phased training for all LGAs by Sept 2016 [Original target 2014]



Dec 2014 MYPR – Pending

At risk – On hold waiting for the roll-out of milestone 2.1.3.


2.2: Increased effective utilization of Planning and budgeting tools by 2016

Percentage increase in number of MTEF budgets meeting the MTSPBM requirements by 2016

In 2011, less than 75% of MTEF budgets are meeting the standards of MTSBM

98% of MTEF budgets are meeting the MTSPBM standards

2.2.1 MTSPBM reviewed by Dec 2014 [Original target Jun 2013]




Delayed – A draft manual has been completed but is delayed by the lack of formal approval.


2.2.2 Sixty MDAs, 21 RSs and 133 LGA trained in MTSPBM by Dec 2014 [Original target Jun 2014]



Dec 2014 MYPR – Delayed with revised target date

Delayed – Training cannot take place on an unofficial manual.


2.2.3 Reviewed MTSPBM to be applied during FY 2014/15 [Original


Sep 2013 JSM –

Partially implemented – It cannot be fully implemented since

An unmeasurable output milestone.




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


target 2013/14] On track


milestone 2.2.1 has not been achieved. The unofficial manual is being used to influence the content of the annual guidelines.

2.2.4 Annexes to budget book volume II for Executive Agencies completed by June 2014




Delayed – This requires a software change that has not yet taken place.


Uncertain as to how this milestone relates to the achievement of the overall output.

Orderliness and participation in the annual budget process by 2016 (PI-11)

i) A comprehensive budget calendar exists but delays are sometimes experienced. MDAs have 6 – 8 weeks to submit their budget

ii) A comprehensive budget circular and budget

i)A clear annual budget calendar exists, is generally adhered to and allows MDAs enough time (at least six weeks from receipt of budget circular) to meaningfully completes their detailed estimates on

2.2.5 Action plan on implementation of recommendations on budget legal framework completed by xxx (revised date) [Original target Jun 2013]




Achieved – Budget Act passed in Oct 2014.


2.2.6 At least 10 PER Main Dialogue meetings held by June 2016



On track – PER Champions Group created with a secretariat. 7 PERs so far.





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


preparation guidelines are issued but the MDAs ceilings are not always approved by cabinet before issue (B)

time

ii) A comprehensive and clear budget circular is issued to MDAs which reflect ceilings approved by cabinet or equivalent prior to the circular distribution to MDAs(A)


Expect to exceed the target by June 2016.

Percentage reduction in deviation of actual expenditure from approved budget

In 2011, the percentage of deviation of actual recurrent expenditure MDAs budget at vote level compared to approved budget but excluding salary

adjustments, contingency and debt service was at 13.7%

Actual expenditure deviated from budgeted expenditure by an amount equivalent to not more than 10%

2.2.7. Phased training to MDAs, RSs and LGAs Budget Committees on resource prioritization and planning




At risk but partially achieved. No training delivered to MDAs. Training of LGA committee members undertaken in Mar 2015.

Anunmeasurable input milestone that has no deadline.




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


Quality and timeliness of in-year budget report (P-24) by 2016

Comparison to budget is possible only for main administrative headings. Expenditure is captured either at commitment or at payment stage (not both)

Reports are prepared quarterly (possibly excluding first quarter), and issued within 8 weeks of end of quarter

There are some concerns about the accuracy of information, which may not always be highlighted in the reports, but this does not fundamentally

Classification allows comparison to budget but only with some aggregation. Expenditure is covered at both commitment and payment stages.

Reports are prepared quarterly and issued within 6 weeks of end of quarter

There are some concerns about

the accuracy, but data issues are generally highlighted in the reports and do not compromise overall consistency/usefulness (B)

2.2.8. Mechanism for quality assurance of Quarterly Budget Performance Reports (level of detail, timeliness, accuracy, consistency and usefulness to decision makers, as well as for budget transparency to citizens) established by June 2013


Sep 2013 JSM – On track but needs clarification re ‘mechanism for quality assurance’.


Deleted – The component management decided it was inappropriate to monitor themselves.

Anunmeasurable input milestone.

This was not on track for 2013 JSM and is not reported on in the latest MYPR.

This deletion indicates that effective management of the quality of these performance reports is at risk.

Increase budget credibility (Minimise deviations in Aggregate Out-turn and Composition Variance)

2.2.9. Budget reallocation warrants published by September every year.




Achieved – As per the revised budget calendar this is published in June each year.


2.2.10. Government approves actions for improving budget credibility based on a review of reallocation


Sep 2013 JSM –

Not achieved – The reallocation for the four years is available and published but the





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


undermine their basic usefulness (C+)

warrants in the past four years - by June 2014

New milestone


review to establish potential improvements has not been undertaken and is unscheduled.

2.3: Strengthened capacity of LGAs for MTEF preparation by 2015

Comprehensiveness of information included in budget documentation (PI-6)

Currently there no sufficient information on LGAs revenue planning and budgeting which is included in the budget documentation.

Supportive and verifiable revenue data and information to be included in the LGAs budget documentation.

2.3.1. Proposal for budget information to be included in the Budget guideline to be submitted to National Budget Guideline committee by October annually


2.3.2. Recommendations of various studies on LGAs budget allocation formulas reviewed by January 2014


Various studies in fiscal transfers and decentralization process in Tanzania

Currently budget allocation formula follow, population, land area and poverty level,

Budget allocation formula reflects resource needs, distances from service

2.3.3. Agreement on improvement of LGAs budget allocation formulas among the Sector Ministries (PMO-RALG, MOF, PO-PSM and Sectors)





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


indicates that Budget allocation to LGAs reflects a more inequitable distribution of resources to LGA, and that the allocation formulae are not fully applied. There is a need to revisit all the existing budget allocation formulae to clearly reflect equitable allocation of financial resources by June 2016.

facilities, special area diseases, number of projects to be implemented, number of orphans etc.

completed by June, 2014

2.3.4. All LGAs budget allocation formulae reviewed by June, 2014


2.3.5. All reviewed LGA budget allocation formulae applied in the budget preparation during 2014/15 for the FY 15/16 budget.


2.3.6. Monitoring arrangements in place for measuring deviations in actual releases against all formula-based allocations to LGAs for FY 15/16.


2.4: Quality and comprehensiveness of budget

Public Access to key fiscal information

2.4.1. Public Access to key fiscal information: Timely publication of key fiscal information as




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


documentation as well as public access to key fiscal information (shifted from KRA 5.4)

listed below:

a. Budget guidelines published by December every year




Achieved for the past 3 financial years.


2.4.1. b. Executive budget proposal (Vol. I to IV) as submitted to Parliament published by June every year




Achieved for the past 3 financial years. Vol. II does not yet include the Executive Agencies


2.4.1. c. Approved budget (all volumes) published by September every year [Originally milestone stated ‘The approved national budget is published on MoF website by September









Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


each year’]

2.4.1. d. Quarterly budget execution report published within a month after end of quarter.






2.4.1. e. Year-end budget execution report published by October every year [Originally milestone stated ‘A year-end report (budget outturn) comparing the actual budget execution to the enacted budget is published on MoF website by October each year.]






2.4.1. f. Citizen’s budget published by November every year








Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported



2.4.2. Action plan for improving quality and comprehensiveness of budget documentation based on PEFA assessment developed – by December 2013




Delayed – Component manager indicates that the PFMRP Secretariat is expected to prepare this plan.This appears to have not been undertaken.


2.4.3 Changes in quality and comprehensiveness of budget documentation reflected in 2014-15 budget documentation




Delayed – Component manager is expecting the PFMRP Secretariat to co-ordinate input from the various MoF departments involved.This appears to have not been undertaken.





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


KRA 3 Budget Execution, Accountability and Transparency:

Improved utilization of public resources in a more effective, efficient and transparent manner by June 2016

3.1:Strengthened public sector procurement by June 2015

Number of Public procurement regulations issued

Number of Skilled procurement staff

None( to be established after baseline study)

None( to be established after baseline study)

% increase in number of Public procurement regulations issued

% increase in number of skilled Procurement personnel in PEs

3.1.1. Action plan for implementing PPA is developed by Dec 2014 [Original target Dec 2012]




Not achieved - No action plan available. Responsibility for milestone uncertain.


3.1.2. New public procurement regulations prepared and issued by June 2013




Achieved. One would expect this milestone to be dependent on the completion of the previous milestone. However the regulations were completed and published in Dec 2013.


3.1.3. Procurement training needs assessment exercise completed by Dec 2014. [Original target was Jun 2013]




Achieved for LGAs. The TNA was completed in Aug 2014.

Achieved but delayed for GoT. The TNA was


There should be separation of MDAs and RSs results from LGAs results in separate milestones to




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


completed in May 2015.

show actual achievement.

3.1.4. [300] procurement staff trained on public procurement by June 2017 as per TNA


Sep 2013 JSM – Pending 3.1.3


In progress - Plans have been developed for two phases. The first for LGAs and the second for GoT. Expected to start phase 1 in Aug 2015.


3.1.5. Strategy to develop Procurement Management Unit (PMU) structures in Public Sector by June, 2015 [Originally milestone stated ‘Strategy on public procurement human resource developed and disseminated by Jun 2015]


Sep 2013 JSM – On track, milestone revised


Achieved but of uncertain status. A report with recommendations was produced in July 2013. Next steps appear yet to be developed.


3.1.6. Procurement and supplies staff database maintained and updated by December, 2015



At risk but in progress. Database has been developed and is being





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported



populated.

Presence of procurement policy draft by June, 2013

None National procurement policy developed and disseminated to stakeholders

3.1.7. National procurement policy draft finalized by Dec 2014 [Original target Jun 2013]




Delayed - A procurement policy has been drafted (before Nov 2014) but the PPPD has yet to be asked to present the policy to the IMTC.


3.1.8. Stakeholders’ comments incorporated by June, 2013




Achieved - Stakeholder comments incorporated in the policy to be presented to IMTC.


PPPDs’ capacity enhanced by June, 2013

None i) Motor vehicle and office equipment acquired

3.1.9. PPPDs’ capacity enhanced by June 2017 [Original target was Jun 2013]




Uncertain - The milestone to be measured has not beendefined.


ii) Short training for 20 members of PPPD staff

3.1.10. Twenty (20) members of PPPD staff equipped with


Sep 2013 JSM –

Partially achieved - 14 staff being involved in





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


conducted skills on public policy formulation, implementation and evaluation by June, 2014

On track


international training and study tours.

National procurement policy and procurement law synchronised

None

Public Procurement Act 2011 reviewed

3.1.11. National procurement policy developed and shared by December, 2014




Delayed. As for 3.1.7. a draft procurement policy has been drafted (before Nov 2014) but the PPPD has yet to be asked to present the policy to the IMTC.


Stakeholders acquainted with the National procurement policy

None

800 Stakeholders acquainted with the National procurement policy

3.1.13. Printing and uploading the NPP on the website by June, 2015




Delayed. NPP not yet approved.


National procurement policy strategy in place by December,

None National procurement policy strategy implemented

3.1.12. National procurement policy strategy developed and implemented by June 2015



Dec 2014 MYPR –






Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


2013 On track

3.1.14. National procurement policy and procurement law synchronised by June, 2015






3.1.15. Monitoring the implementation of the National procurement policy by June, 2015




Delayed. NPP not yet approved


3.1.16. Evaluation and feedback of the implementation of the National procurement policy by June, 2016




At risk. NPP approval delayed.


3.1.17. 1000 Stakeholders acquainted with the national procurement policy by June, 2016



At risk. NPP approval delayed.





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported



3.1.18 Strategy on raising stakeholders’ awareness on contract award, complaints/disputes developed and implemented by Jun 2016 [New milestone]

Dec 2014 MYPR – New milestone on track

In progress. Several stakeholders’ meetings held. Strategy document not made available.


3.2:Strengthened capacity of MDAs, RSs and LGAs in cash management by 2015

Increase in number of staff with adequate skills on cash management

10 staff with cash management skills

610 staff with cash management skill

3.2.1. 600 staff of MDAs and LGAs trained on cash management using standardized materials by June 2015 [Original target was Jun 2014]




Partially achieved – 346 staff trained from MDAs. The LGA training remains outstanding.


Decrease in the aggregate number of bank accounts operated by LGAs by 2015.

The aggregate number of bank accounts operated by LGA are 4,736 in 2011

3938 bank accounts will be closed by December 2013

3.2.2. Six bank accounts operated by each LGAs by December 2013




Achieved – The LGAs have been restricted to six bank accounts in 2012/13.


Strengthen monitoring of payment

3.2.3. ACGEN to present a monthly report on payment

Sep 2012 JSM – Nil – Subsequently developed

Achieved with effect from Dec 2013.





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


arrears arrears to ceiling committee effective Dec 2013

milestone



3.3: Strengthened public debt management capacity by 2015

Recording and management of each cash balance, debt and debt guarantees (P1-17) by 2016

i) The various databases containing debt data are currently in the process of being merged. Data quality is considered fair and minor reconciliation problems occur. For the data entered in CS DRMS, statistical reports are regularly produced (B)

ii) The balances of several government bank accounts in commercial

i) Domestic and foreign debt records are complete, updated and reconciled on a monthly basis with data considered of high integrity. Comprehensive management and statistical reports (cover debt service, stock and operations) are produced at least quarterly (A).

ii) Calculations and consolidation of

3.3.1 The agreed actions arising from the Feb. 2012 World Bank debt management report shared with key stakeholders by July 31, 2012 (Milestones to be reviewed)




Achieved – WB debt Management Report shared with key stakeholders in financial year 2013/14.


3.3.2 Debt management policy developed and shared by June 2014 [Original target was Jun 2013]




Achieved – Debt Management Policy developed in June 2015.


3.3.3 Capacity of 50 Public Debt management staff enhanced to undertake DSA on external, domestic



Dec 2014 MYPR –

Not achieved and not on track – There has been no activity on this milestone.





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


banks are not consolidated, though there is a plan to do so (D).

iii) Contracting of loans and issuing guarantees is approved by Minister of MOF in line with rules, but there are no ceilings (C)

most government cash balances take place at least monthly, but the system used does not allow consolidation of bank balances (C).

iii) Central Government’s contracting of loans and issuance of guarantees are made within limits for total debt and total guarantees (B).

debt and contingent liabilities by June 2014.

On track

3.3.4 Review of Government Loans, Guarantees and Grants Act by June 2014




Delayed in progress – the Government Loans, Guarantees and Grants Act was reviewed and the proposed amendments were prepared in June 2015. It is still waiting for IMTC approval.


3.3.5 Debt Management department established by June 2016




In progress – The approval for the establishment of the department was given in May 2014. It is expected the department will commence operations in July 2015.


Management of risk emanated

Quarterly detailed report

3.3.6. Quarterly monitoring of

Sep 2012 JSM – Nil – Subsequently

Not Achieved – Not yet





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


from Contingent liabilities created by PA & OB's by June 2017

on public debt published on disclose on its website with information on both domestic and external debt, all outstanding loans guarantees granted by the GOT, all liabilities of those PA&OBs owned by the GOT, and outstanding borrowings by PA&OBs from the Public Pension Funds with GOT guarantee

contingent liabilities of PA&OBs

developed milestone


Dec 2014 MYPR – On track given as 3.4.6

undertaken.

3.3.7. Annual monitoring of guarantees approved by GoT for PA&OBs and for PPP financed projects



Dec 2014 MYPR – On track given as 3.4.7

Not Achieved – Not yet undertaken.


3.3.8. Detailed and quarterly debt report prepared and published.




Achieved – The quarterly reports are prepared a month after end of each quarter and is available in the MoF website. Latest report is for March 2015


3.4: Improved Quality and i) Central i) Central 3.4.1 Completed Sep 2012 JSM – Uncertain – A measurable input




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


integrity and content of government financial statements and the migration from IPSAS cash to IPSAS accrual accounting for all government accounts is progressing in accordance with plans.

timeliness of annual financial statements (PI-25)

Government final accounts include revenue, expenditure and bank balances, and since 2007/08 data on most financial assets and liabilities are disclosed with few exceptions. (B)

ii) Financial Statement are submitted for external audit within 6 months of the end of fiscal year. (A)

iii) Cash basis IPSAS has been applied since 2007/08. (B

Government final accounts disclose full information on revenue, expenditure and bank balances, financial assets and liabilities (A)

ii) Target for 2013 -125 staff and 2014-125

iii) Financial Statements are submitted for external audit within 6 months of the end of fiscal year. (A)

IPSAS applicable to all financial statement

review of the IPSAS guideline issued by PMORALG in 2008/09 to accommodate the recent IPSAS updates by June 2013

On track



ACGEN agreed transfer of milestone to PMO-RALG during 2012/13

milestone.

3.4.2 Training to the MDAs, RSs and LGAs accounting officers to develop awareness on IPSAS Accrual by June 2014 [Original target was 2013]

Sep 2012 JSM – Started



Delayed but achieved. Training delivered in Jan 2015.


Certainly delayed Dec 2014 MYPR is in error.

3.4.3 Capacity building to 250 staff from MDAS and RSs and Embassies to enhance skills in IPSAS accrual by 2014




Achieved. Training delivered.


3.4.4 Public Finance Act of 2001 and Regulations reviewed to address migration to IPSAS accrual by June 2016




Uncertain – Draft revisions and regulations have not been produced.





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


3.4.5 Consolidated template of financial statements to include MDAs, RSs, LGAs, Controlled entities &GBEs developed by June 2016 [Original target was by 2016]




Achieved - A template developed and used for 2013/14 financial statements.


Stage of the transition confirmed against approved action plan.

Reports of the Auditor General confirm improvement

The decision to transition all government accounts to full accrual accounting has been made but detailed action plan has not been finalized or approved.

2009-10 Government accounts received an adverse opinion.

Central Government final accounts include revenue,

IPSAS Accrual migration action plan has been completed approved and is in process of execution.

Implementing migration plan as targeted.

Quality and integrity of government financial statements is improved as evidenced by the reports of the Auditor General

3.4.6. 250 government accountants in MDAs /LGAs trained in IPSAS accrual and accrual modules for Epicor by September 2013



Not achieved – No money spent and no evidence of training having been given made available.


3.4.7. Plan for migration towards IPSAS Accrual accounting is completed by December 2013.



Achieved but the plan is not widely shared and only used by the ACGEN for internal review.


3.4.8. Plan is approved for execution and stakeholder information sessions have been completed by January 2014.



Dec 2014 MYPR –

Uncertain since the plan is not widely shared and reviewed.





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


expenditure and bank balances, and since 2007/08 data on most financial assets and liabilities are disclosed with few exceptions. (B)

Financial Statement are submitted for external audit within 6 months of the end of fiscal year. (A)

Cash basis IPSAS has been applied since 2007/08. (B)

Financial Statements are submitted for external audit within 6 months of the end of fiscal year. (A)

Not reported

3.4.9. All legislative and policy supports decisions have been identified by December 2014.




Uncertain since the policy support decisions made have not been widely shared.


3.4.10. Milestones for the transition have been identified and approved (e.g. Public Finance Act.2001 and Regulations amendments) by October 2014




Uncertain since the policy support decisions made have not been widely shared.


Latest MYPR should state pending 3.4.4

3.4.? Plan to integrate all RSs and LGAs operations into the centralised IPSAS accrual architecture is completed and PMO RALG is fully engaged as a stakeholder by Dec 2014 [Deleted milestone]



Milestone deleted. A measurable input milestone.

3.4.11. Consolidated Sep 2012 JSM – Considered on A measurable output




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


accounts with IPSAS Accrual by June 2017.

Nil – Subsequently developed milestone



track by ACGEN but the plan against which to measure performance is not shared.

milestone.

3.4.12. ACGEN to compile and produce financial statements disaggregated on the basis of economic classification and by sectors




Uncertain – ACGEN asserts that this is a Budgeting Department milestone.


Production of outturn financial statements should be the responsibility of the ACGEN.

3.5: Improved accountability in management of Government Assets for supporting migration to IPSAS Accrual

Number of MDAs which are now reporting their financial position through IPSAS Accrual

Number of MDAs which have been

None

20 MDAs( 28%) have been valued and uploaded in EPICOR

% increase of MDAs reporting their financial position through EPICOR asset management module by 2016 (Targets to be set after migration action plan towards

3.5.1. Uploading of 70 additional MDAs in EPICOR by Jun 2017 [Original milestone stated ‘Uploading of 16 MDAs in Epicor by Dec 2012 first revised to Jun 2016]



Dec 2014 MYPR – On track with revised target

On track – 42 MDAs have been uploaded.


3.5.2. Asset management (tracking) software


Sep 2013 JSM –

Achieved – Software installed in 2013/14. The





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


IPSAS Accrual Accounting is completed)

% increase of MDAs valued and uploaded in EPICOR by June 2016 (Targets to be set after migration plan towards IPSAS Accrual Accounting is completed)

installed, tested and users are trained on use of software by June 2014. [Original milestone stated ‘Asset management (tracking) software acquired by Mar 2013’]

On track


training was undertaken in two phases 2013/14 for awareness creation and 2014/15 user training for regional stock verifiers.

Latest MYPR states on track but target date has passed. Therefore milestone is either achieved or delayed.

3.5.3. GAM capacity enhanced on asset management function by June 2016. [Original milestone stated ’40 staff (25 regional heads (RSVs) and 15 from HQ) trained on asset management by Dec 2013.]




Achieved – GAM has received equipment, facilities and training .


3.5.4. Asset Management Policy prepared and submitted by June 2015




Delayed – Draft policy is with GAM awaiting development of implementation strategy.


3.5.5. Valuation of Sep 2012 JSM – Achieved - 51 A measurable output




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


Government assets in 34 MDAs and RSs completed by June 2017 [Original target Jun 2016]

On track



MDAs have been completed.

milestone.

3.5.? Progress against target reported annually [Deleted milestone]



Milestone deleted. An unmeasurable output milestone.




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


KRA 4 Budget Control and Oversight:

Improved adherence and enforcing of MDAs and LGAs to financial internal controls, rules, laws, regulations and audit recommendations by June 2016

4.1: Increased coverage and quality of the internal audit functions by 2016

Percentage increase in unqualified opinion in the external audit report for MDAs and LGAs

54% of MDAs and 65% LGAs obtained unqualified opinion in 2009/2010

65% MDAs and 75% LGAs will get unqualified opinion in 2015/2016

% of IAUs conforming with IAGD guidelines which are based on international standards

4.1.1. Operational plan developed and approved by June, 2013




Achieved - Operational plan was launched Mar 2013. Approved plan was printed Jul 2013.


4.1.2. Internal audit manual/guidelines, standards and quality assurance improvement programme, which complies with international standards and best practices, will be in place by June 2013




Achieved - IA charter, code of ethics, and manual developed and distributed 2012/13 Quality assurance improvement programme printed and distributed Dec 2012 Audit committee guidelines printed and distributed Dec 2013.


4.1.3. 450 Internal auditors trained Quality Assurance and Improvement


Partially achieved and partially delayed- 375 committee





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


Programme Procedures Manual by Jun 2016 [Original target Jun 2015



members from MDAs and RSs trained during 2014/15. No training given to internal auditors so far.

4.1.4. Independent quality assurance assessment of (Internal Audit Units) IAUS in MDAs and LGAs completed by June 2016




Not achieved – This milestone’s activities are concerned with delivery of training and purchase of equipment not an independent assessment of quality assurance.

A measurable output milestone as stated but compromised by a set of activities of an input nature.

Effectiveness of internal audit (PI-21)

i) Internal audit function exists in most MDAs, and it is estimated that 20 percent of staff time is allocated to system based reviews and high risk areas (C)

ii) Reports are

i) Internal audit is operational for all Central and Local government entities, and generally meet professional standards.

ii) At least 50% of staff time is

4.1.5. Effective IAU and audit committee established and internal auditors conduct compliance audit and evaluate effectiveness of internal control in MDAs and LGAs by June 2016




Uncertain – The activities under this milestone are all training and workshop activities. There are no activities to measure effectiveness.


4.1.6. The Pilot stage Sep 2012 JSM – Delayed – A measurable input




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


issued for Most MDAs but these are not copied to NAOT (C)

iii) To some degree actions are taken by management on major issues but often with delays (C)

allocated to system based reviews and high risk areas.

iii) Reports adhere to a fixed schedule and are distributed to the audited entity, Ministry of Finance and NAOT (B)

iv) Action by management on internal audit findings will be taken within one month after issuing a report and should be comprehensive across Central and Local government entities (B)

of Computerised Audit will be finalized by Jun 2015 [Original target Jun 2014]

On track



TeamMate has been purchased and 15 champions have yet be trained as trainers.

milestone.

4.1.7. Computerised Audit in place by Jun 2017 [Original target Jun 2016]



Dec 2014 MYPR – Pending with revised target

At risk – Due to delay in 4.1.6.


Technical Audits conducted for 20

70 Technical Audit

4.1.8. Technical Audits are conducted for 70


On track – 48 technical audits for





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


Projects in 2011 conducted by 2016

Projects by June, 2016 [Original target Jun 2014]



projects have been carried out so far.

Ensure agreed corrective measures in response to audit findings are taken

31 (10%) IAUs in MDAs and LGAs have submitted quarterly reports with reference to CAG follow-up

% of MDAs and LGAs have submitted quarterly reports with reference to CAG follow-up

4.1.9. Implementation status of corrective measures for internal and external audits (CAG recommendations) submitted by all the IAUs in MDA/LGA to IAGD on quarterly basis by June 2014


Sep 2013 JSM – new milestone


Delayed – Database to track audit recommendations is not yet completed. Improved format for quarterly reports has been developed and distributed.


Why is this milestone not linked to milestone 4.2.9?

Is what is essentially the same work being undertaken twice?

Improve adherence to financial regulations and controls - Continue to monitor compliance with IA benchmarks

Number of staff equipped with skills on risk-based audit

Capacity enhancement

100 staff trained in risk based internal audit

550 internal audit staff are trained in risk based audit

4.1.10. 550 internal auditors and other stakeholders trained in risk management process and risk based audit by June, 2016




Achieved – 527 heads of department and audit committee members trained on risk management . 424 IAs trained on





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


on guidelines for Fraud Risk Management, Internal Control, Risk management Monitoring and Evaluation

risk based audit.

300 Accounting Officers, Head of Departments, Audit Committee members and internal Auditors on the guideline for Fraud Risk management, Internal control, Risk Management Monitoring and Evaluation

4.1.11. To train 300 Accounting Officers, Head of Departments, Audit Committee members and internal Auditors on the guideline for Fraud Risk management, Internal control, Risk Management Monitoring and Evaluation by June 2017




On track –The activities indicate only 200 persons to be trained. Training has been given during 2014/15 to 100 people on fraud risk management and internal control.

A measurable output milestone. The number of officers to be trained may need revision.

Study recommendations to inform next course of action

4.1.12. Study to assess the ICT needs for effective internal audit management and control by June 2015.




Delayed - The activity is being proposed to be changed to creation of awareness. JSC approval is awaited.

A measurable output milestone being changed to a measurable input.




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


4.2: Strengthened External audit functions by 2016

NAOT reaches AFROSAI-E

Level 3

Level 2

NAOT did not reach at level 3 in 2010 as planned because of lacking two criteria. Out of 10 criteria, NAOT cleared 8 criteria. Other 2 criteria are (1) NAOT staff should not be Civil Servants, and (2) Appointment of CAG by the Parliament. The 2005 assessment scored NAOT as level 1.

A committee was formed to conduct legal review and will submit a report on needs of legal

NAOT to reach Level 3 by 2016

80% of Auditors to have be accommodated in own offices

800 Auditors trained on Risk Based Audit and 400 in IT audit

Five value for money audit reports to be produced each year by NAOT staff without technical assistance from external consultant

4.2.1. The committee report on needs of legal amendments (existing laws) to contribute towards reaching level 3 submitted to the attorney General and awareness by December 2012.

[This achieved milestone replaced by one below]



This milestone was apparently achieved according to JSM reports but the achievement is actually at risk as described in the next milestone.


4.2.1 [New] Maintain and enhance CAG independence by Jun 2016

Dec 2014 MYPR – New milestone on track

At risk – The independence of the CAG has been compromised from a budget/financing perspective by the Budget Act 2014 which introduces a MoF budget review.





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


amendments to reach at level 3.

The committee members visited South Africa, Kenya and Uganda.

Increase in number of NAOT staff capable of issuing audit reports as per international technical and professional practices

Capacity of NAOT audit service strengthened by 2016

Is this indicator target actually meant to be an unmeasurable milestone?

Value for Money Audits to be conducted by NAOT staff with minimum technical support by external Consultant

One VFM report is produced by NAOT staff each year without technical assistance by external Consultant

4.2.4. Three [Two (2)] Value for Money audit reports to be produced each year by NAOT staff without technical assistance from external consultant by 2014



Dec 2014 MYPR – On track with increased number i.e three

Achieved – NAOT has an average of producing 5 to 6 performance reports each year without technical assistance.





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


Adoption and application of International auditing Standards in all audit assignments

100 Auditors trained on Risk Based Audit

200 auditors trained on International standards on auditing (ISSAIs, IPSAS.ISSAIs,IFRS,ISA)

800 auditors trained on International standards of auditing and Full adoption of International audit standards

4.2.3. 300 Auditors trained on Risk Based Audit and 200 in IT audit by 2014




Delayed – 200 auditors trained on risk based audit by Dec 2014.


Latest MYPR states on track but information shows milestone to be delayed.

4.2.5. 600 [originally 300] Auditors trained on international standards of auditing and full adoption of International Audit Standards by Jun 2016 [Original target 2014]



Dec 2014 MYPR – On track with increased targets

At risk – 300 auditors were trained by Dec 2014.


Most Auditors are accommodated in Auditees premises

4.2.2. 100% of auditors are moved from auditee premises to NAOT offices by 2015 [Original milestone stated ‘50% of auditors to be accommodated in NAOT own offices by 2014’]




Delayed and partially achieved – Currently some 85% of auditors are out of auditee premises.


Number of All 86 MDA, 134 All MDA, LGAs 4.2.6. Closing of Sep 2012 JSM – Uncertain – A An unmeasurable




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


MDAs. LGAs and Parastatals reached for financial audit

LGAs and about 122 Parastatals were covered by Financial Audits.

and Parastatals are covered by Financial Audits by 2016

books of accounts for Parastatals harmonized and audit modalities agreed by 2016 [Original target 2014]

On track


Dec 2014 MYPR – On track with revised target.

forum on the topic was held with CEOs of parastatals in Dodoma in Dec 2014.

input milestone.

Scope, nature and follow-up of external audit (PI-26) by 2016

i) In the last three years, the audit report, including consolidated financial statements of government, was presented to the legislature six months after the receipt of financial statements (B)

ii) No electronic system currently exists to consolidate and easily access data regarding outstanding audit findings and

i) Audit reports are submitted to the President within 9 months (per the Public Audit Act) of after the end of the financial year.

ii) Fully operational and easily accessible database to support Government’s efforts to reduce outstanding matters (findings and recommendatio

4.2.7. Audit methodology in line with ISSAIs guidelines adopted by June 2013




Achieved – Guidelines put in place during 2013/14


4.2.8. Scoping study to ascertain the parameters of the outstanding matters database is completed by Nov 2015 [Original target Nov 2012]




Achieved – As per next milestone.


4.2.9. Establish a database that will separate findings (monetary and non monetary) and recommendations



Dec 2014 MYPR –

Achieved – A database has been developed and established.


Is this an overlapping milestone with milestone 4.1.9?




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


recommendations, including their age.

ns) .

including by age, and record follow up actions (i,e matters closing) by December 2013.

On track

Increased application of ICT in auditing and connectivity (by Wide Area Network ) of NAOToffices

20 staff trained on ICT application in auditing

600 Auditors trained on Audit Commanding Language (ACL) and other audit based software

4.2.10. 600 Auditors trained on audit commanding language (ACL) and other audit based software by 2014. [Originally targeted 200 auditors then 300 by 2014]



Dec 2014 MYPR – On track with new target

On track and delayed – NAOT reports that more than 400 auditors have been trained in the last three years.


Target date needs revision. The NAOT indicates that it should be 2016.

NAOT offices are not connected

NAOT Headquarters is connected by all 21 regional offices using WAN by 2016

4.2.11. NAOT Headquarter is connected to 10 Regional offices using WAN by 2014




Achieved - 11 offices connected during 2013/14 with a further 8 during 2014/15.


It appears that this milestone needs revision since activity is ongoing.

One Team Mate module (Electronic working papers) is applied in auditing

All five Teammate modules applied in auditing by 2016

4.2.12. Two of five Team Mate modules applied in auditing by Jun 2016 [Original target Oct 2014]



Dec 2014 MYPR –

On track – Total modules to be applied will be four of five and the pilot audits will be for 26 entities for FY





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


On track with revised target

2014/15 starting in Oct 2015.

4.3: Improved transparency on audit reports (central, local and parastatal levels) to strengthen scrutiny and accountability.

“Citizen Audit Report”(simplified audit reports accessible by the general public) are published

4 Consolidated audit reports (central, local, POABs and VfM/Performance) are publicly available on the NAOT website after tabling.

NAOT set up a booth at Trade Fair (SabaSaba) and Public service week where general audit reports are distributed to visitors.

All General audit reports are accompanied by a ‘citizens audit report’ (short summary of the key audit findings and recommendations, in both Swahili and English) and are available in a timely manner (within 4 weeks after tabling) on the NAOT website and at NAOT offices all over the country by 2016.

4.3.1. Citizen audit reports available for the 5 [revised from 4] General audit reports by Jun 2017[Original target June 2013] and onwards on annual basis.




Achieved and ongoing – Combined citizen reports have been prepared for 2011/12 and 2012/13 so far.


4.4: Improved performance of parastatals

Increase in number of Parastatals implementing

2 Parastatals (TRL & TPA) were implementing

All Parastatals will be implementing Performance

4.4.1 Ten Pilot Parastatals Signed Performance contracts with TR by Dec 2014


Sep 2013 JSM –

Achieved with delay





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


by June 2016. performance contracts by June 2016

Performance contract in 2009

Contracts by June 2016

[Original target Jun 2013]

Pending

Dec 2014 MYPR – Achieved with delay

Oversight of aggregate fiscal risk from other public sector entities (PI-9) by 2016

Increase compliance rate on TR’s Act by Parastatals by June 2016

There is weak Monitoring of Parastatals as their final number is still to be established and their consolidated overview is missing.

Compliance rate on TR’s Act by Parastatals is below 70% in 2010/11 (PI-9: D)

All Parastatals will submit fiscal reports including audited account to TR and consolidates overall fiscal risk issues into an Annual TR Financial Statements (B)

Compliance rate on TR’s Act will be 100% by June 2016

4.4.2 Database on Parastatals set up and functioning by Dec 2014




Partially achieved – The TRIMS database has been developed but is not fully populated and hence not fully functional.


4.4.? Monitoring framework for parastatals set up by Jun 2014 [Milestone combined with 4.4.3]


Deleted milestone

4.4.3 [M&E] mechanism for measuring Parastatals compliance rate set up [by June 2014], reviewed and implemented by June 2015.




Delayed – Tenders for the development of this mechanism were opened on the 15th July 2015.


Increase in revenue from

Revenue from Parastatals was 0.55 % of total

Revenue from Parastatals will be 4% of total

4.4.4 New TR's Bill presented to the Parliament by June


Delayed – A study tour undertaken as a precondition set





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


Parastatals as

percentage of approved domestic revenue collection

approved domestic revenue collection in 2010/11

approved domestic revenue collection by June 2014

2014 Sep 2013 JSM – Delayed


by IMTC for the submission of this bill to Cabinet has yet to be completed.

4.4.5 150 Parastatals’ Acts Reviewed to be in line with the New TR Act by June 2014




Delayed – This milestone is largely dependent on the completion of milestone 4.4.4


4.4.6 TR’s Office capacities enhanced by Jun 2015 [Original target Jun 2014]




Ongoing – This milestone concerns human resource capacity building currently through the training of management analysts and department heads.


4.5: Strengthened capacity of oversight functions of Parliamentary

Number of PAC members trained

Evidence of PAC members making follow-up on financial audit recommendatio

4.5.1. Capacity building interventions to PACs conducted annually [The word annually added to original milestone]



Dec 2014 MYPR –

Uncertain – NAOT reports that various pieces of training have been conducted but the annual aspect has





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


Accounts Committee in Tanzania Mainland

ns in the respective MDAs and LGA

On track not been confirmed.

4.6: Improved public procurement performance by PEs by 2015

Average level of compliance of

i) all procuring entities (for follow-up audits) and ii) the top 20 procuring entities with the (revised) Procurement Act 2011

Competition, value for money and controls in procurement (PI – 19)

Old target (63%+75%)/2=68%

i. 66 % of tenders under open tendering process

were advertised in fiscal year 2006/2007 (B)

Target will be based on new set of indicators +20% of baseline (new BL by October 2012)

i) Accurate data on the method used to award public contracts exists and shows that more than 75% of contracts above the threshold are awarded on the basis of open competition(A)

4.6.1. Annual PPRA audit results confirm positive trend on a yearly basis [Originally milestone was under output 3.1]




On track - 50 PEs procurement Audits undertaken in FY 2014/15 with another 50 PE Audits ongoing

An imprecise measurable output milestone.

ii. Using less competitive procurement methods is allowed with

ii) Other less competitive methods when used are justified in

4.6.2. Revised procurement implementation and monitoring tools issued by March 2014



Achieved – Procurement implementation monitoring tools (standard bidding


Latest MYPR states




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


justification. PPRA audits in 2008/09 show that the great majority of contracts now use the correct methods (B)

iii. A comprehensive complaints mechanism operates, but for unknown reasons the number of complaints has declined (B)

accordance with clear regulatory requirements (A)

iii) A process (defined by legislation) for submission and timely resolution of procurement process complaints is operative and subject to oversight of an external body with data on resolution of complaints accessible to public scrutiny (A)

[Original target was Dec 2013] [Originally milestone was under output 3.1]


documents and revised procurement guidelines) were reviewed in line with PPA 2011 and regulations in FY 2013/14.

on track but should apparently have stated achieved.

4.6.3. New Public Procurement Act, 2011, Regulations and Tools disseminated to major PEs and other key stakeholders by December 2015




Achieved – PPA 2011, disseminated to 82 Board of Directors, 44 Accounting officers, 42 other staff for PEs and 261 staff from 43 MDAs and 9 LGAs.


4.6.4. Procurement plans aligned with MDAs, LGAs and parastatal Institution Strategic plans by June 2015


Sep 2013 JSM – Not reported


Uncertain - This has been required by the PPA 2011 but we are not certain if the plans are actually aligned.


4.6.5. Value for money procurement enhanced through Framework contract in


Sep 2013 JSM –

On track – Terms of reference and MTEF activities and inputs have





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


procurement of common use items and services by June 2017

On track


been submitted to PPPD and PFMRP Secretariat.

4.6.6. PPRA operational and outreach capacity strengthened by June 2014




On Track – Renovation of building for coastal zone finalized by 30th June 2014. Building of two other zonal offices in FY 2014/15. Recruitment of 50 new staff in final stages.


Increase in number of PEs using e-procurement system (PMIS)

Currently, 203 PEs are using PMIS (Procurement Management Information System)

393 PEs will have a functional PMIS and pilot e-procurement system will start functioning by Nov 2016.

4.6.7 All (393) PEs will have a fully functional PMIS as a reporting tool for procuring entities to report back to PPRA by Nov 2014




Partially achieved and delayed- PMIS fully functional in 364 PEs with 733 registered users. 369 officers trained.


4.6.8 e-procurement will start functioning as pilot stage by Nov 2016



Dec 2014 MYPR –

Delayed- ToRs for consultancy for preparation of detailed e-procurement prepared and





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


On track approved. Consultant being sought. Study tour done by Board in India on e-procurement experiences.

Increase in number of PEs reached for procurement audit

Currently 330 PEs have already been audited.

In June 2012 all 393 PE’s will be audited, then beyond F/Y 2012/2013 will be “Follow-up Audits

(should be repeatedly process especially on Top 20 PE’s

4.6.9. Completion of audits of one-third of all PEs annually (current total PEs: 493) [Originally milestone stated ‘393 PEs audited by Jun 2012’]




Delayed - 50 PEs procurement Audits undertaken in FY 2014/15 with another 50 PE Audits ongoing.


4.6.10. Follow up audit of 100 PEs to be done annually by 2016




On track - 50 PEs procurement Audits undertaken in FY 2014/15 with another 50 PE Audits ongoing.


4.6.11. Annual Procurement Performance Evaluation Report prepared and published annually



Dec 2014 MYPR –

Achieved- the Annual Procurement Performance Report published for FY 2014/15.





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


Not reported

4.7: HCMIS is entrenched in service delivery points in selected sectors and its sustainability attained

HCMIS ownership at SDP for effective accountability, HR Management, Budget expenditure and Payroll in the relevant sectors.

Human error and checks and balances reinforced in the management of payroll through improved systems.

4.7.1. User requirements, gap analysis and Infrastructure requirements identified for 160 SDP undertaken by October 2014




Uncertain – The 160 service delivery points have not been identified.


Latest MYPR states on track but target date has passed. Milestone must be either delayed or achieved.

4.7.2. Installation of HCMIS at 160 SDP by June 2016




Uncertain – The 160 service delivery points have not been identified.





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


KRA 5 Change Management and Programme Management:

Improved management practices with increased accountability and leadership to better manage performance of PFMRP

5.1: Coordinate integration, interfacing and rationalization of government financial systems.

Interface central and local Government financial management system and tools

MDA /LGA IFMIS systems are not harmonized and or integrated and are not being centrally managed. Stand alone software continues to be acquired and implemented.

DFISM with overarching technical control for all government IFMIS systems is fully staffed and operational.

ICT Infrastructure capable of supporting approved systems architecture is in place

All Government financial systems (SBAS, PlanRep, RIMKU, IFMS) have been integrated and interfaced and financial data is

5.1.1. ICT mapping exercise showing location and owners of all and peri-financial software commenced with inception report published by December 2012. (refer PAF 2012)




Achieved but delayed - Mapping Study undertaken March 2014.


5.1.2. Stakeholder coordination meetings held to gather input and agree on cross functional responsibilities for financial systems planning held on by December, 2012




Achieved- it was reported that stakeholder meetings had taken place during 2013/14


5.1.3. Sequenced, prioritized and costed action plan to bring all GoT financial and peri-financial software under one common government financial




Achieved but delayed – Costed action plan reported as having been developed during the first half of 2014/15





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


smooth exchanged between systems.

162 LGAs, 25 RSs and 3 institutions under PMO RALG connected with IFMIS by Dec.2015

systems architecture with supporting technical, infrastructure and management structures completed and approved by the GoT by June, 2013

5.1.4. Integration/ Interfacing plan is engaged and series of planned actions are being executed and completed by October, 2015




Not Achieved - Not yet undertaken.


133 LGAs are connected to the IFMS

167 LGAs, 25 RSs and 3 institutions will be connected to the IFMS

5.1.5. IFMS infrastructure installed to new 35 LGAs, RSs and PMORALG institutions and connected to central server at Dodoma and MoF by Dec 2014 [Original target was 34 LGAs etc. by Jun 2013]




Delayed – Installation consultants not yet contracted.


Latest MYPR states on track but target date has passed. Information given shows milestone is delayed.




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


Evidence of analytical reports generated from the system available at MDAs and LGAs level

133 LGAs, 21 RSs and 3 PMORALG institutions could produce.

Operation Reports, and

Management Reports

162 LGAs, 25 RSs and 3 Institutions will be able to produce;

Operation Reports

Management Reports

Final account reports (Financial Statements), and

Other reports like Council financial and development report s (CFR & CDR), MKUKUTA strategies implementation report by target, etc.

5.1.6. MoF IFMS (EPICOR) linked to PMO-RALG IFMS to the immediate capture of the Approved Budget and all Exchequer transfers to RSs and LGAs respectively by June 2014 [Original target Jun 2013]




Achieved – Connection was made in 2013 and captures approved budget and all exchequer transfers to RSs and LGAs


5.1.7. Completed capacity building to key users of IFMS from all LGAs, RS and PMORALG institutions by June 2014 [Original target Jun 2013]




Not Achieved – Activity not yet undertaken


5.1.8. Audit of IFMIs in LGAs conducted by June 2015




Not Achieved - Activity not yet undertaken


5.2: Utilization of EPICOR modules

Upgraded version of EPICOR with

EPICOR module are not fully

Upgraded EPICOR with ten modules in-

5.2.1. EPICOR system upgrade completed by


Achieved- Upgrade to version 9 undertaken in FY





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


Increased from seven to ten

ten modules in-place. The new modules are:

Multi – Site Management.

Replication Server License.

Advanced Financial Report Designer

utilized place December 2014 Sep 2013 JSM – Achieved


2012/13

5.2.2. ACGEN staff capacity enhanced by December 2014




Achieved – ACGEN trained 381 users on new version of EPICOR in FY 2014/15



5.2.3. Training for IFMS end users on the upgraded modules conducted by December 2014.




Ongoing but delayed – ACGEN is currently undertaking end user training on the upgraded module.



5.2.? EPICOR is able to provide real-time information to all LGAs on flow of funds by Jul


Sep 2013 JSM –





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


2015. [Milestone deleted]

Milestone deleted

5.3: All software development and module upgrades are coordinated with the overarching plans for ICT integration.

Number of systems that are linked into an IFMIS platform and available for common use

ICT Planning is single purpose and not coordinated with other harmonization activities

All software development is integrated within a fully rationalized ICT architecture.

5.3.1. FISM is operationalized and controls are put in place to manage software acquisition and development by 2015. [Original target Dec 2012]






5.3.2. FISM staff capacity enhanced by June, 2015.






5.4: Improved communica-tion and public access to key fiscal information to stakeholders

Public access to key fiscal information:

1. Annual budget documentation,

2. In-year budget execution

The government makes available to the public 5 out of 6 types of information, but two of them are not complete: in-year budget execution reports and contract awards.

The government makes available to the public 5 out of 6 types of information- (A)

Special surveys undertaken within the last 3

5.4.? The approved national budget is published on MoF website by September each year

Subsumed under milestone 2.4.1

5.4.? Published citizen’s budget by November each year

Subsumed under milestone 2.4.1

5.4.? A year-end Subsumed under




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


reports,

3. Year-end financial statements,

4. External audit reports,

5. Contract awards,

6. Resources available to primary service delivery units (PI-10)

Resources available to primary service providers are not published (A)

Special surveys were undertaken within the last three years, but their results and methodologies used have not been seen (D)

years have demonstrated the level of resources received in cash and in kind by either primary schools or primary health clinics covering a significant part of the country OR by primary service delivery units at local community level in several other sectors (C)

report (budget outturn) comparing the actual budget execution to the enacted budget is published on MoF website by October each year.

milestone 2.4.1

5.4.1 Support the Budget Division and Policy Analysis Division to publish the relevant budget documents and fiscal information.


Sep 2013 JSM – Revised milestone


Ongoing – Started later than expected due to funding delays. Expect to publish 2015/16 documentation in this year.


5.4.2 MoF Communication Strategy developed and implemented by June 2013




Delayed – Strategy has been developed but awaits official approval.


Latest MYPR states on track but target date has passed. Information given shows milestone is delayed.

5.4.5 Fiscal information and


Achieved – Publish a summary report





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


budget transparency publication cycle developed and implemented by Jun 2014 [Milestone deleted and then reinstated]

Sep 2013 JSM – Not reported milestone deleted


every quarter.

Milestone appears to have been reinstated.

5.4.3 [or 6] Develop an action plan to modernise MoF website (structure, content and user friendliness) by June 2015 [Originally milestone stated ‘MoF website timely updated by Jun 2017’]




Delayed – Funding allocated in 2015/16


5.5: Coordination and Standardization of PFM Training Achieved.

Number of trained staff in PFM

Quality of service delivery from trained staff.

........... of staff trained.

Presence of trained staff providing quality service.

5.5.1. Training mapping exercise completed by December 2012



Dec 2014 MYPR – Not reported on

Achieved but delayed – A mapping exercise for all MDAs and 14 RSs & 42 LGAs completed during 2013/14.


5.5.2. Capacity building plan developed and result measurement


Sep 2013 JSM –

Mostly achieved but delayed – Each component was expected to

A measurable input milestone but only if the milestone is tied to one component




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


framework shared with key stakeholders by Feb 2014 [Original target Jun 2013]

On track

Dec 2014 MYPR – Pending on 5.5.3

prepare their own training plans. The MoF DAHRM submitted a plan for all of MoF during 2013/14.

manager not dispersed between several with the possibility of different levels of achievement.

5.5.3. An impact assessment of PFM training is conducted to measure staff performance following various trainings by June 2015 [Originally milestone stated ‘2 tracer studies conducted to measure impact of training and documented by Jun 2014 and Jun 2016.]


Sep 2013 JSM – Pending to be revised


Delayed – Tenders for the work by a number of consultant firms are currently being evaluated. Since the necessary benchmarks have not been previously established it is expected that this will be more of a benchmarking exercise than an assessment of impact.


5.6: PFMRP component managers are being guided by detailed multi-year

Program components are completed in sequence based on priority and

PFMRP component activities are not always derived from and/or described within

PFM activities are governed by multi-year component operating plans that provide

5.6.1. All activities are presented for inclusion in PFMRP annual work plan are presented within the context of a detailed multi-year



Dec 2014 MYPR –

Achieved on an annual basis. – Work plans are produced.





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


operating plans.

the reform is keeping pace with the agreed milestones

the context of detailed component operating plan

Relevance, sequence and costs are difficult to assess

context for relevance, sequence and cost.

operating plans annually [Original target Jun 2013]

Achieved

5.7: PFM activities are effectively planned and implemented

Component managers have capacity to develop and manage strategic operational plans.

Component managers have developed capacity in the use RBM methodology

Component managers have not had the necessary level of capacity development in strategic planning and results based management

150 staff from KRAs trained on change management and strategic planning.

60 staff trained on RBM methods

5.7.? Capacity building plan developed and shared with key stakeholders by Dec 2012 [Milestone deleted]


Sep 2013 JSM – Milestone deleted


5.7.1. Training on Change Management and Strategic Planning completed by Dec 2014 [Original target Dec 2013]



Dec 2014 MYPR – Delayed with new target date

Achieved on an annual basis. The last course was May/Jun 2015


5.7.2. Results Based Management training has been delivered to 60 PFM RP Component managers by Jun 2014 [Original



Dec 2014 MYPR –

Achieved but delayed - Target date extended to Jun 2015.

Training was


Latest MYPR states on track but target




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


target Jun 2013] On track with new target date (sic)

undertaken Mar/Apr 2015

date has passed. Information given shows milestone is delayed.

5.8: Effective coordination of activities and support provided to the program implementers

Secretariat support is facilitating program performance.

Under resourced secretariat with short term contract

Functional secretariat providing a range of needs based program supports

5.8.1 Secretariat procurement process completed by July 2012



Dec 2014 MYPR – Achieved with delay

Achieved but delayed – The final member of the Secretariat was recruited Feb 2015.


2013 JSM states on track but target date had passed. Information given shows milestone was delayed but achieved late.

5.8.2 Secretariat work plan is completed annually alongside the PFMRP annual work plan [Milestone originally stated ‘Secretariat work plan is completed and approved by JSC by Dec 2012’]




Achieved on an annual basis as part of MoF Planning Department’s annual plan.


5.8.3 PFMRP coordination secretariat facilitated


Sep 2013 JSM –

Uncertain – Facilitation through provision of office





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


annually On track


materials has been achieved but insufficient funding to facilitate M&E, communication work and capacity building.

5.9: PFM Program oversight and review is being guided by clearly defined milestones derived from an agreed M&E framework

Performance expectations for each component are clearly defined and understood by all stakeholders.

Performance expectations are not clear and the absence of context makes qualitative aspects of program oversight difficult.

Approved M&E framework sets out clear and relevant performance expectations

5.9.1. Annual review and amendment of the M&E framework to ensure ongoing congruence and relevance annually starting November 2012




Achieved – The M&E framework is updated annually.


The framework is updated annually but it is not used to provide comprehensive progress reporting.

5.10: All major PFM reforms have been coordinated with and informed by the relevant government and DP stakeholder

Stakeholders have knowledge of reforms and change initiatives that will impact on them or their units and are collaborating

Coordination of major reforms with stakeholder groups is not prioritized. Significant information and capacity gaps exist.

Major PFM reforms are all supported by a communication / collaboration strategy which ensures that all stakeholders have the opportunity to

5.10.1. PFM information session completed to disseminate results of: ICT mapping exercise, ICT Harmonization Integration Plan by March 2013




Not achieved – The mapping exercise was undertaken, but could not be used to produce the integration plan and no information sessions have been held.





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


groups or supporting implementation.

Stakeholders have adequate time to develop the necessary adaptive capacity.

Change resistance is minimized

provide input and to receive necessary information in time to adapt to the change.

5.10.1a. IAG action plan, ACGEN’s Plan to transition to Accrual Accounting




Uncertain – The ownership of this milestone is unclear.


5.10.2. Dec.31st each year minimum of one PFM reform information day conducted for CSOs, DPs and GoT during Public Service day annually




Not achieved – Milestone was only transferred to GCU in 2014/15 without funding.


5.11: PFMRP implemented efficiently and effectively through result based management approach.

Comprehensive annual work plan and budget

Progress report on place on 15th day after end of quarter

Strong and effective

Approved by August annually

Progress report in place

Weak dialogue structure

6 meeting

Work plans and budgets are approve by June annually

Funds are released by July 1/annually

Periodic report prepared quarterly

Presence of

5.11.1. PFMRP implemented according to annual work plan and milestones are being met




Considered by the Secretariat as achieved by virtue of the Components’ Managers reporting . However the Secretariat believes it has no capacity to follow up.





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


dialogue structure Number of coordinated dialogue meeting

strong and effective dialogue structure as per MoU.

Working Group and Joint Steering Committee meetings are attended by KRAs decision makers

KRA teams are meeting monthly schedule.

Donor representatives are well informed on reform initiatives.

5.11.2. Annual supervision missions are conducted by Sept 30 of each year commencing 2012




Partially achieved – The JSC missions for 2012 and 2013 were held. The 2014 mission is overdue.


5.11.3. Independent program evaluations are completed towards end 2014/2015




Delayed – Independent review undertaken in Jul/Aug 2015.


5.11.4. Dialogue structures are working as evidenced by combined DP/GoT surveys/independent evaluations to ensure effective program implementation. [Original milestone specified ‘Survey 1 – March 2013 / Survey 2 – March 2015’]




Partially achieved – Surveys have not been undertaken only the current independent review.


5.11.? Surveys to ensure that teams

Sep 2012 JSM – Milestone deleted. A measurable output




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


(KRA teams, JSC members) are actually working are completed, Mar 2013, Mar 2015 and result informed to JSC for action. [Milestone deleted]

On track

Sep 2013 JSM – Deleted combined with 5.11.4

milestone.

5.12: National systems and processes for intergovernmental transfers to LGAs streamlined and rationalized

System and processes are documented with target timelines for each process step.

No overall view of systems and processes for intergovernmental transfers. Flow of funds and information on the same is not in parallel and tied to one system.

Effectiveness and efficiency of the system has increased

X XX Number of key actions implemented

5.12.1. TORs (for Streamlining and rationalizing National systems and processes for intergovernmental transfers to LGAs) completed by July 2012.




Achieved. A measurable input milestone.

5.12.2. Mapping commences September 2012




Achieved – The final report was produced in Sep2013.


Share of Non-salary (OC+DEV) funds released

In 2010 it took 7days for funds to reach MDAs and RSs (after

(Target to be set after mapping exercise)

5.12.3. Review and mapping of the systems and processes for


Sep 2013 JSM –

Achieved – The final report was produced in Sep 2013.





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


to RSs and LGAs by end Q3, as percentage of the Resources budgeted and available (OC+DEV) for the year

receipt of complete set of fund request).

42.1% of resources available to RSs and LGAs at Q3

Decreased number of days of fund transfer time to RSs LGAs and MDAs

70% of resources available to RSs and LGAs at Q3 by 2014

intergovernmental transfers initiated with inception report finalised by October 2012

On track


5.12.4. Comprehensive and sequenced action plan on a recommendation of the mapping exercises on the intergovernmental transfers finalized by June 2013.


Sep 2013 JSM – Delayed pending 5.12.3


Achieved –Action plan appears to have resulted in LGDG Implementation and Operations Guide and Annual Assessment Framework


5.12.5. Reports to be produced annually by end September.

Sep 2012 JSM – Delayed and not achieved

Sep 2013 JSM – Delayed pending 5.12.4


Uncertain – No evidence of readiness to report provided.


5.13: Strengthened Public Financial Management

5.13.? Milestones developed and agreed after discussion with Zanzibar and thereafter decide on


Milestone replaced.





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


Reforms in Zanzibar by 2016

the support by Sep 2012 [Replaced by milestone 5.13.1]

5.13.? Zanzibar PFMRP strategy developed by Jun 2014 [Replaced by milestone 5.13.1]


Milestone replaced.


5.13.1. Support to jointly (DPs, ZNZ and MoF) agreed Strategic plan on PFM reform in Zanzibar



Dec 2014 MYPR – Delayed.

Delayed - Strategic plan not yet agreed. Norway has expressed intent to join the DP basket to fund Zanzibar PFM.





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


KRA 6 LGA Reform Sub Programme

6.1: Strengthened capacity of local government authorities to collect revenue by 2015

Local Government own source revenue to GDP

Actual revenue collection by LGAs 2010/11: TZS 158,280 million and 0.46 % of GDP

Local Government own source revenue will be 1.5% of GDP

6.1.1 Completed assessment and evaluation of revenue potential for all major own sources of revenue to all LGAs by June 2014

Transferred from 1.3.1



Achieved - Teams completed surveys of 20 LGAs Mar 2014.


6.1.2 Local Authorities tax administration teaching and practice modules established and TOT completed for all finance management staff at the regional level by June 2014.





Delayed. This is being passed to external consultants.


6.1.3 PMO - RALG staff and Finance Management Officers at RS to be trained in tax revenue plans and budgets to spearhead LGAs tax reviews and reforms. June 2014




Achieved . A measurable input milestone.

6.1.4 Four (4) Transferred from Delayed - This is A measurable input




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


Revenue Accountants, 3 council management team members and 1 FMO from each LGA and RS are trained on own source revenue management by June 2014.

1.3.4



expected to be conducted during the period of this review.

milestone.

6.1.5 Establishment of known and clear revenue data base by each source of revenue, presence of trained personnel and a clear follow up arrangement at PMORALG and RS levels by June, 2015





Delayed - The database software is known as iTax. The training took place between 15 Jun and 3 Jul 2015. The trained personnel have the software to install each database. These databases will still need to be populated.


Linked to 6.4.1

Local Government legislation reviewed by 2016 (Act No. 7, 8 and 9)

The last amendment of the Local Government Finances Act No.9 of 1982 was done in year 2002. The act

Local Government Finances Act No. 9 reviewed by 2014

6.1.6 Completed a study on the effectiveness, relevancy and sufficiency of the provisions of the Local Government Finances Act No. 9 by June




Dec 2014 MYPR –

Achieved but delayed - Internal study submitted to stakeholders week commencing 29 Jun 2015.





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


does not adequately address issues of equity, change of technology and other administrative issues to enhance local revenue mobilization considering the present and future LGAs circumstances.

2014 Achieved

6.1.7 A bill for an act to amend the Local Government Finances Act No.9 of 1982 is finalized and submitted to the Cabinet by Nov 2014





Delayed - Final drafting of bill in progress.


6.1.8 Improvement of financial management in LGAs by June 2015





Uncertain – The activities undertaken under this milestone and the extent of its achievement are unclear.


6.2: Strengthened capacity of LGAs for MTEF preparation by

Comprehensiveness of information included in budget documentation

Currently there no sufficient information on LGAs revenue planning and budgeting which

Supportive and verifiable revenue data and information to be included in the LGAs

6.2.1 Proposal for budget information to be included in the Budget guideline to be submitted to National Budget Guideline


Sep 2012 JSM – To be reviewed

Sep 2013 JSM –

On-going achievement.





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


2015 (PI-6) is included in the budget documentation.

budget documentation.

committee by October annually

Achieved

6.2.2. Recommendations of various studies on LGAs budget allocation formulas reviewed by [Dec 2012 which will include recommendations to be made by the fiscal decentralisation task force in LGRP II by] June 2014. [The M&E framework under LGRP II included performance indicator to measure application of formulae based allocations to actual fund transfers.]




Achieved - The final report was submitted in Feb 2015.


6.2.? All LGAs update their strategic plans and align their budget with updated strategic plans for 2015/16 [New milestone introduced by Dec 2014 MYPR]


Uncertain - The component manager was not aware that this was a required milestone.





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


6.2.3. Agreement on improvement of LGAs budget allocation formulas among the Sector Ministries (PMO-RALG, MOF, PO-PSM and Sectors) completed by Jun 2014 [Original target Jun 2013]





Delayed - Study completed and stakeholder meeting held in Feb 2015. Cabinet paper preparation and submission on hold.


Various studies in fiscal transfers and decentralization process in Tanzania indicate that budget allocation to LGAs reflects a more inequitable distribution of resources to LGA, and that the allocation formulae are not fully

Currently budget allocation formula follow, population, land area and poverty level,

Budget allocation formula reflects resource needs, distances from service facilities, special area diseases, number of projects to be implemented, number of orphans etc.

6.2.4 All LGAs budget allocation formulae reviewed by June, 2014





Not achieved. Dependent on previous milestone.


6.2.5 All reviewed LGA budget allocation formulae applied in the budget preparation during 2014/15 for the FY15/16 budget.




Dec 2014 MYPR –

Not achieved. Dependent on previous milestone.





Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


applied. There is a need to revisit all the existing budget allocation formulae to clearly reflect equitable allocation of financial resources by June 2016.

Pending 6.2.4

6.2.6 Monitoring arrangements in place for measuring deviations in actual releases against all formula based allocations to LGAs for FY 15/16.




Dec 2014 MYPR – Pending 6.2.2

PMO-RALG believes this is still with the Budget Division but questions its appropriateness and is seeking a change of funding allocation in the next financial year.


6.3: LGA (and LLGs) receive 40% of development budget allocation within five months of financial year and 90% of development budget within 10 months of financial year by June 2017

6.3.1 Improve the fiscal transfer mechanism and monitoring of Fiscal Transfers from Central Government to LGAs



Delayed but in progress – A web portal has been developed effective from 15 Jul 2015.


6.3.2 Monitoring of resource flows from LGAs to LLGs



Delayed but in progress. The same portal as for 6.3.1 used effective 15 Jul 2015.


6.4: Own revenue

6.4.1 Tax payers database (i-Tax) rolled

Sep 2012 JSM – Nil – Subsequently

Delayed - The trained persons

An unmeasurable




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


mobilization by LGAs doubled in three years by June 2017

out across all LGAs developed milestone


have the software to install the database. These databases will still need to be populated.

input milestone.

Linked to 6.1.5

6.5: PFM capacity in Regional Administration strengthened

6.5.1 Create a cadre of regional PFM champions



Achieved - This should be more appropriately called a team not a cadre. It was formed in Jul 2014.


6.6: Budget execution by LGAs is improved by June 2017

Budget out-turn improved by 20%

Unvouched/improperly vouched expenditure reduced by 50%

No LGA has outstanding imprest end of the year

Procurement compliance

6.6.1 Improve financial management practices in LGAs including bank reconciliation, imprest retirement, compliance in procurement norms through financial benchmarking



In progress – Benchmarking template has been developed in Jun 2015 but benchmarking has yet to be undertaken.


The wording is inappropriate. Improvement cannot be achieved through benchmarking alone.




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


improved by 20%

6.7: Improved financial reporting by LGAs by June 2017

Timely quarterly and annual financial reports

6.7.1 Improved utilization of financial reports from IFMIS by LGAs



Delayed – Approval to tender for consultant given Jun 2015.


At least 90% of LGAs submit appropriate financial statements for CAG audit

6.7.2 All LGAs submit appropriate annual financial report for CAG Audit



Achieved - PMO RALG collected all LGAs 2013/14 financial statements and submitted them on 15 Oct 2014


6.8: 95% of LGAs get unqualified opinion from CAG by June 2017

6.8.1 Implementation of internal and external audit recommendations by LGAs improved



In progress - PMO RALG consolidated all LGAS responses in Apr 2015 and submitted a report to Parliament 14 May 2015


6.9: 80% LGAs meet benchmarks set by IAGD




Output

Output performance

indicators



Milestones Reported


by June 2017

6.10: Fraud prevention and anticorruption measures undertaken

6.10.1 Fraud prevention plan implemented across all LGAs [by end of 2015/16]


Dec 2014 MYPR – Delayed with specified target date

Delayed – Plan yet to be developed. PCCB participate in meeting with LGAs and PMO RALG 6 Jul 2015.


6.11: Key fiscal information made available in public domain

6.11.1 Financial Transparency in LGAs improved



Uncertain due to a lack of clarity as to what actually is targeted to be achieved.


6.12: Local PEFA assessment undertaken

6.12.1 Local PEFA assessment undertaken

Dec 2014 MYPR – New milestone not reported on

Achieved – PEFA undertaken for 12 LGAs. Reports currently circulated for comments.




Appendix 7 – Budget compared with actual expenditure for key result areas, outputs and milestones

Key Result Area (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m)

Output

Milestone 2012-17 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2012 to date % 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Whole of PFMRP IV 173,435,676 33,518,000 46,398,322 37,056,265 41,835,184 24.12 17,258,339 18,916,905 5,659,940 -48.51 -59.23 -84.73

KRA 1 Revenue Management 8,291,000 1,823,000 1,651,837 1,926,350 1,980,050 23.88 766,335 954,088 259,627 -57.96 -42.24 -86.52

1.1 Improved quality of forecasting 1,224,000 216,000 268,597 - 112,200 9.17 59,500 52,700 - -72.45 -80.38

1.1.1 Study to identify and action plan - - - 0%

1.1.2 Team of trainers developed 1,224,000 216,000 268,597 112,200 9.17 59,500 52,700 -72.45 -80.38 100%

1.2 Improve domest. rev. mobilization 819,000 695,000 278,250 317,500 473,889 57.86 281,005 161,560 31,324 -95.31 -67.10 -90.13

1.2.1 Study NTR Collection Systems 452,000 452,000 204,614 45.27 204,614 -54.73 100%

1.2.2 Recommendations action plan - - - 100%

1.2.3 Action plan incorporated - - - 25%

1.2.4 Tax Admin. Bill submission 63,000 63,000 63,000 52,000 82.54 52,000 - -17.46 -100.00 100%

1.2.5 Review LG revenue system laws - - - - 50%

1.2.6 Nat. resource rev. mobilisation - - - 0%

1.2.7 Computerized rev. collection 127,000 127,000 162,250 125,000 192,884 151.88 - 161,560 31,324 -100.00 -0.43 -74.94 25%

1.2.8 Review tax exempt and VAT Act 177,000 53,000 53,000 192,500 24,391 13.78 24,391 - - -53.98 -100.00 -100.00 100%

1.3 Improve LG capacity to collect rev. 5,544,000 551,000 600,930 923,600 981,533 17.70 317,800 435,430 228,303 -67.72 -44.07 -75.28

1.3.1 Assess and eval. Rev. potential 253,000 150,000 102,800 252,800 99.92 150,000 102,800 0.00 0.00 100%

1.3.2 LGAs tax admin. Training 608,000 118,000 343,940 - - - -100.00 -100.00 0%

1.3.3 PMORALG & RS staff tax trained 100,000 100,000 100,000 100.00 100,000 0.00 100%

1.3.4 LGA & RS rev. manag. trained 2,686,000 110,000 - - -100.00 0%

1.3.5 Data base PMORALG & RS 1,757,000 - 498,130 382,560 382,426 21.77 - 332,630 49,796 -33.22 -86.98 80%

1.3.6 LG Finances Act Study 68,000 68,000 74,605 101,124 148.71 31,500 69,624 -53.68 -6.68 100%

1.3.7 LG Finances Bill submitted 72,000 5,000 6,500 36,300 50.42 36,300 - 626.00 -100.00 80%

1.3.8 LGA fin. management improved - 115,995 108,883 ∞ 108,883 -6.13 50%

1.4 DP funds thru exchequer system 704,000 361,000 504,060 685,250 412,428 58.58 108,030 304,398 - -70.07 -39.61 -100.00

1.4.1 Dev. Coop. framework operates 227,000 227,000 88,060 168,000 193,428 85.21 108,030 85,398 - -52.41 -3.02 -100.00 95%

1.4.2 Revised JAST and AMP commu. 194,000 115,000 342,000 212,688 145,000 74.74 - 145,000 - -100.00 -57.60 -100.00 100%

1.4.3 Project Fund Port. Disbursed exch. 283,000 19,000 74,000 304,562 74,000 26.15 - 74,000 - -100.00 0.00 -100.00 100%

Budgets (TZS 000's) Expenditure (TZS 000's) % Variance (Budget/Expenditure) %

Complete



Appendix 7 – Budget compared with actual expenditure for key result areas, outputs and milestones (cont.)


Output


KRA 2 Budgeting and planning 9,627,000 2,167,000 2,014,400 1,427,570 537,647 5.58 187,829 349,818 - -91.33 -82.63 -100.00

2.1 Program based budgeting (PBB) 2,937,000 972,000 873,140 469,050 232,500 7.92 97,410 135,090 - -89.98 -84.53 -100.00

2.1.1 Define sub-progs and PIs 250,000 125,000 218,200 60,150 197,960 79.18 62,870 135,090 - -49.70 -38.09 -100.00 50%

2.1.2 Chart of accounts modified 506,000 190,000 175,000 16,170 3.20 16,170 - -91.49 -100.00 100%

2.1.3 Review MTEF - PBB compatible 1,283,000 255,000 278,900 408,900 - - - - -100.00 -100.00 -100.00 50%

2.1.4 Progress on PBB action plan - - 0%

2.1.5 Phased training MDAs and RSs 436,000 208,000 201,040 18,370 4.21 18,370 - -91.17 -100.00 0%

2.1.6 Phased training LGAs 462,000 194,000 - - -100.00 0%

2.2 Utilization of budgeting tools 6,101,000 1,038,000 1,097,260 657,770 170,728 2.80 - 170,728 - -100.00 -84.44 -100.00

2.2.1 MTSPBM reviewed 374,000 187,000 208,210 335,000 64,860 17.34 - 64,860 - -100.00 -68.85 -100.00 95%

2.2.2 All MTSPBM trained 1,227,000 220,000 542,250 - - - -100.00 -100.00 0%

2.2.3 MTSPBM to be applied - - - - 50%

2.2.4 Annexes to vol. II for EAs 687,000 127,000 128,000 46,700 58,000 8.44 - 58,000 - -100.00 -54.69 -100.00 0%

2.2.5 Action plan on legal framework - - 218,800 23,000 47,868 ∞ - 47,868 - -78.12 -100.00 100%

2.2.6 10 PER main dialogue meetings 1,900,000 195,000 - - -100.00 70%

2.2.7 Budget committees training 1,609,000 269,000 253,070 - - - -100.00 -100.00 50%

2.2.8 QA of qutr. budget reports 304,000 40,000 - - -100.00 0%

2.2.9 Reallocation warrants published - 100%

2.2.10 GoT approves actions - 0%

2.3 LGAs MTEF preparation capacity 379,000 157,000 44,000 300,750 134,419 35.47 90,419 44,000 - -42.41 0.00 -100.00

2.3.1 Guideline includes budget info 65,000 45,000 260,250 42,575 65.50 42,575 -5.39 -100.00 100%

2.3.2 LGA studies budget allocation 54,000 54,000 47,844 88.60 47,844 - -11.40 100%

2.3.3 Agree LGAs allocation formulae 58,000 58,000 40,500 - - - -100.00 -100.00 90%

2.3.4 All formulae reviewed 44,000 - 44,000 44,000 100.00 - 44,000 0.00 0%

2.3.5 Budget allocation formulae used 131,000 - - - 0%

2.3.6 Monitor actual vs formula-based 27,000 - - - 0%

2.4 Budget docs quality & public access 210,000 - - - - - - -

2.4.1 Public access fiscal information 122,000 - - - 100%

2.4.2. Plan for improving budget docs 72,000 - - - 0%

2.4.3 Changes in budget docs 16,000 - - - 0%


Complete



Appendix 7 – Budget compared with actual expenditure for key result areas, outputs and milestones

(cont.)


Output


KRA 3 Budget Exec., Accountblity & Trnsp. 19,622,000 4,525,000 5,982,700 6,161,270 4,463,801 22.75 936,451 2,308,139 1,219,211 -79.30 -61.42 -80.21

3.1 Improved public sector procurement 2,788,000 545,000 876,000 1,697,500 1,024,706 36.75 354,174 407,333 263,199 -35.01 -53.50 -84.49

3.1.1 Action plan for PPA - - - - 0%

3.1.2 New procurement regulations 174,000 - - - 100%

3.1.3 Procurement TNA exercise 413,000 178,000 152,500 166,000 330,039 79.91 178,000 63,346 88,693 0.00 -58.46 -46.57 100%

3.1.4 [300] procurement staff trained - - - - 0%

3.1.5 PMU Strategy 73,000 73,000 82,000 64,525 88.39 64,525 - -11.61 -100.00 100%

3.1.6 Procurement staff database 258,000 26,000 141,500 114,000 215,682 83.60 3,176 141,500 71,006 -87.78 0.00 -37.71 60%

3.1.7 National procurement policy draft - - - - 95%

3.1.8 Stakeholders’ comments incorp. - - - - 100%

3.1.9 PPPDs’ capacity enhanced 665,000 100,000 191,500 111,202 16.72 89,702 21,500 -10.30 -88.77 75%

3.1.10 20 PPPD staff with skills - - 145,000 141,487 ∞ - 141,487 -2.42 70%

3.1.11 National procurement policy 446,000 64,000 256,000 18,771 4.21 18,771 - -70.67 -100.00 95%

3.1.12 Nat. proc. policy strategy 327,000 104,000 181,000 94,000 61,000 18.65 - 61,000 - -100.00 -66.30 -100.00 0%

3.1.13 Printing and NPP on the website - - - - 0%

3.1.14 NPP and law synchronised 114,000 - 208,000 - - - -100.00 0%

3.1.15 Monitoring NPP implementation - - 197,000 - - - -100.00 0%

3.1.16 NPP implement eval. & feedback - - - - 0%

3.1.17 1000 Stakeholders know NPP 318,000 - 400,000 - - - -100.00 0%

3.1.18 Strategy on Stakeholders awareness - 245,000 82,000 ∞ 82,000 -66.53 50%

3.2 Strengthened cash management 4,956,000 602,000 694,500 994,500 790,183 15.94 199,183 294,500 296,500 -66.91 -57.60 -70.19

3.2.1 600 cash management trained 4,956,000 602,000 694,500 994,500 790,183 15.94 199,183 294,500 296,500 -66.91 -57.60 -70.19 50%

3.2.2 6 bank ac/s for each LGA - - - - 100%

3.2.3. Monthly ACGEN arrears report - - - 100%

3.3 Public debt management capacity 2,060,000 1,317,000 - 302,300 - - - - -100.00 -100.00

3.3.1 Debt manage actions shared - - - - 100%

3.3.2 Debt management policy 316,000 263,000 - - -100.00 100%

3.3.3 50 Public debt management staff - - - - 0%

3.3.4 Review of GLG&G Act 254,000 230,000 - - -100.00 95%

3.3.5 Debt management department 1,490,000 824,000 106,800 - - - -100.00 -100.00 95%

3.3.6. Monitoring contingent liabilities - - 42,000 - - -100.00 0%

3.3.7. Monitoring of guarantees - - 153,500 - - -100.00 0%

3.3.8. Quarterly debt report - - - 100%


Complete





Output


KRA 3 Budget Exec., Accountblity & Trnsp. 19,622,000 4,525,000 5,982,700 6,161,270 4,463,801 22.75 936,451 2,308,139 1,219,211 -79.30 -61.42 -80.21

3.4 Improved government fin. statements 1,327,000 482,000 1,902,200 782,500 1,457,454 109.83 280,506 1,060,708 116,240 -41.80 -44.24 -85.15

3.4.1 Review of the IPSAS guideline - - - - 0%

3.4.2 Develop IPSAS accrual awareness 95,000 95,000 39,920 42.02 39,920 -57.98 100%

3.4.3 Capacity building 250 staff - - 152,973 ∞ 152,973 100%

3.4.4 Review PF legislation for accrual 242,000 30,000 84,000 - - - -100.00 -100.00 25%

3.4.5 Consolidated template of fin. stats. 138,000 29,000 800,000 - - - -100.00 -100.00 100%

3.4.6 250 trained IPSAS&Epicor accrual 360,000 153,000 - - -100.00 0%

3.4.7 Plan for migration to accrual 215,000 50,000 808,700 698,500 891,426 414.62 7,813 767,373 116,240 -84.37 -5.11 -83.36 100%

3.4.8. Plan approved & shared 120,000 71,000 65,800 54.83 65,800 -7.32 0%

3.4.9 Legal & policy supports decisions 157,000 54,000 14,000 8.92 14,000 -74.07 0%

3.4.10 Milestones identified & approved - - - - 0%

3.4.11 Consolidated accrual based ac/s - 293,500 293,335 ∞ - 293,335 -0.06 60%

3.4.12 Fin. stats. on econ. class & sector - - 0%

3.5 Improved accounting of gov. assets 8,491,000 1,579,000 2,510,000 2,384,470 1,191,458 14.03 102,588 545,598 543,272 -93.50 -78.26 -77.22

3.5.1 70 additional MDAs in EPICOR 89,000 89,000 184,000 75,570 58,292 65.50 58,292 - - -34.50 -100.00 -100.00 60%

3.5.2 Asset manage. software in use 1,412,000 122,000 579,000 111,000 1,946 0.14 - 1,946 - -100.00 -99.66 -100.00 100%

3.5.3 GAM capacity enhanced 484,000 130,000 220,000 241,500 164,296 33.95 44,296 120,000 - -65.93 -45.45 -100.00 100%

3.5.4. Asset manage. policy submitted 451,000 227,000 138,000 315,400 82,981 18.40 - 82,981 - -100.00 -39.87 -100.00 95%

3.5.5. Valuation 34 MDAs and RSs 6,055,000 1,011,000 1,389,000 1,641,000 883,943 14.60 - 340,671 543,272 -100.00 -75.47 -66.89 100%


Complete





Output


KRA 4 Budget Control and Oversight 70,002,717 15,607,000 26,323,883 11,159,816 23,801,549 34.00 11,273,984 9,495,429 3,032,136 -27.76 -63.93 -72.83

4.1 Increased internal audit function 5,986,000 1,624,000 2,339,000 2,947,616 2,961,262 49.47 373,957 1,420,905 1,166,400 -76.97 -39.25 -60.43

4.1.1 Operational plan approved - - - - 100%

4.1.2. IA improvement prog. in place 1,447,000 414,000 174,427 12.05 174,427 -57.87 100%

4.1.3 450 IAs trained on procedures 389,872 233,072 ∞ - 233,072 -40.22 25%

4.1.4 IAUs in MDAs&LGAs assessment 1,723,000 269,000 342,000 - - - -100.00 -100.00 0%

4.1.5 IAUs and committees established 1,028,000 728,564 1,066,214 ∞ 51,300 773,000 241,914 -24.81 -66.80 25%

4.1.6. Pilot stage of computerised audit 1,018,000 319,000 135,500 85,327 8.38 33,000 52,327 -89.66 -61.38 50%

4.1.7. Computerised audit in place - - 650,000 - - - -100.00 0%

4.1.8. 70 Proect tech. audits conducted 535,000 197,000 228,000 477,150 482,662 90.22 15,537 228,000 239,125 -92.11 0.00 -49.88 70%

4.1.9 IA/CAG corrective measures status - - 25%

4.1.10 550 trained in risk based audit 1,263,000 425,000 433,000 451,650 919,560 72.81 99,693 419,905 399,962 -76.54 -3.02 -11.44 100%

4.1.11 300 trained re fraud risk 275,200 - - - -100.00 30%

4.1.12 Study to assess the ICT needs 147,680 - - - -100.00 0%

4.2 Strengthened external audit function 50,641,000 8,998,000 16,476,470 1,677,446 12,564,274 24.81 7,185,333 4,626,375 752,566 -20.15 -71.92 -55.14

4.2.1 Report on legal changes submitted 497,000 150,000 39,000 189,000 38.03 150,000 39,000 0.00 0.00 100%

4.2.1a Enhance CAG independence 143,800 96,000 0%

4.2.2. 100% moved to NAO offices 44,713,000 7,500,000 15,250,000 10,900 10,038,575 22.45 5,700,000 4,334,375 4,200 -24.00 -71.58 -61.47 85%

4.2.3 Train 300 risk based & 200 IT audit 900,000 300,000 289,570 306,190 34.02 306,190 - 2.06 -100.00 70%

4.2.4 2 VFM audit reports each year 161,000 61,000 76,889 29,939 18.60 29,939 - -50.92 -100.00 100%

4.2.5. Train 300 international standards 431,000 293,000 384,150 293,339 68.06 293,339 - 0.12 -100.00 50%

4.2.6 Parastatals audit modalities agreed 135,000 50,000 177,850 94,000 69.63 50,000 44,000 0.00 -75.26 50%

4.2.7 Audit in line with ISSAIs guidelines 357,000 317,000 322,675 90.39 322,675 1.79 100%

4.2.8 Study re o/s matters database 150,000 150,000 104,500 254,500 169.67 150,000 104,500 0.00 0.00 100%

4.2.9 Establish a database 250,000 - 186,027 90,360 36.14 - 90,360 -51.43 100%

4.2.10 300 trained on ACL 850,000 - 260,750 188,000 188,000 22.12 - - 188,000 -100.00 0.00 70%

4.2.11 NAO HQ connected to 10 ROs 1,977,000 177,000 250,500 230,296 11.65 183,190 47,106 3.50 -81.20 100%

4.2.12 2 of 5 Team Mate modules applied 220,000 - 148,500 643,480 431,400 196.09 - 148,500 282,900 0.00 -56.04 60%

4.3 Better transparency on audit reports 668,000 198,000 220,835 161,410 494,725 74.06 204,190 220,835 69,700 3.13 0.00 -56.82

4.3.1 Citizen audit reports available 668,000 198,000 220,835 161,410 494,725 74.06 204,190 220,835 69,700 3.13 0.00 -56.82 100%


Complete





Output



4.4: Improved performance of parastatals 2,415,000 910,000 1,628,800 1,943,000 1,868,433 77.37 - 1,328,798 539,635 -100.00 -18.42 -72.23

4.4.1 10 sign performance contracts 575,000 - 120,000 257,500 338,384 58.85 - 107,584 230,800 -10.35 -10.37 100%

4.4.2 Database on Parastatals set up - - - - 60%

4.4.3 M&E for compliance rate set up - - 51,000 524,380 54,329 ∞ - 47,782 6,547 -6.31 -98.75 0%

4.4.4 New TR's Bill presented 230,000 230,000 300,500 387,000 267,579 116.34 - 267,579 - -100.00 -10.96 -100.00 95%

4.4.5 150 Parastatals’ acts reviewed 361,000 237,000 274,000 - - - -100.00 -100.00 0%

4.4.6 TR’s Office capacities enhanced 1,249,000 443,000 883,300 774,120 1,208,141 96.73 - 905,853 302,288 -100.00 2.55 -60.95 90%

4.5: Strengthened capacity of PAC 6,323,000 428,000 974,695 683,720 1,513,248 23.93 434,373 830,875 248,000 1.49 -14.76 -63.73

4.5.1 Annual capacity building interventions 6,323,000 428,000 974,695 683,720 1,513,248 23.93 434,373 830,875 248,000 1.49 -14.76 -63.73 50%

4.6 Better PE procurement performances 3,969,717 3,449,000 4,684,083 3,246,625 4,285,275 107.95 3,076,131 1,067,641 141,503 -10.81 -77.21 -95.64

4.6.1 Annual PPRA audit results confirm 66,000 66,000 779,750 1,022,900 428,911 649.87 66,200 362,711 - 0.30 -53.48 -100.00 100%

4.6.2 Implementation and monitoring tools 88,000 88,000 26,000 92,252 104.83 88,100 4,152 0.11 -84.03 100%

4.6.3 New PPA regulations and tools 1,717 1,060,000 129,992 192,300 209,838 12221.20 78,800 60,727 70,311 -92.57 -53.28 -63.44 100%

4.6.4 Procure. & strategic plans aligned - - - - 25%

4.6.5 VFM thru framework contracts 566,000 256,000 400,000 261,752 46.25 55,900 205,852 -78.16 -48.54 50%

4.6.6 PPRA operational with outreach 2,112,000 843,000 2,640,492 1,461,125 2,101,385 99.50 1,819,091 216,254 66,040 115.79 -91.81 -95.48 80%

4.6.7 All PEs have functional PMIS 1,136,000 1,136,000 594,835 82,500 248,784 21.90 33,290 214,494 1,000 -97.07 -63.94 -98.79 90%

4.6.8 e-procurement at pilot stage - - 438,600 - - - -100.00 0%

4.6.9 Annual audits one-third of all PEs - - 23,200 934,750 ∞ 934,750 - -100.00 10%

4.6.10 Annual follow up audit 100 PEs - - - - 75%

4.6.11 Annual Proc. Perf. Eval. Report - - 139,014 7,603 ∞ - 7,603 -94.53 100%

4.7. HCMIS in service delivery points - - - 499,999 114,332 ∞ - - 114,332 -77.13

4.7.1 User requirements for 160 SDPs 114,332 114,332 ∞ 114,332 0.00 0%

4.7.2 HCMIS at 160 SDPs 385,667 - - -100.00 0%


Complete



Appendix 7 – Budget compared with actual expenditure for key result areas, outputs and milestones (cont.) Key Result Area (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m)

Output


KRA 5 Change Management and Programme Management63,128,000 9,396,000 9,906,502 14,135,300 10,315,738 16.34 4,093,740 5,587,307 634,691 -56.43 -43.60 -95.51

5.1 Coordinate integration of fin. systems 3,839,000 823,000 2,378,270 3,265,900 1,687,228 43.95 474,273 1,082,739 130,216 -42.37 -54.47 -96.01

5.1.1 ICT mapping exercise 312,000 312,000 130,698 41.89 130,698 -58.11 100%

5.1.2 Stakeholder coordination meetings 168,000 168,000 230,000 54,788 32.61 3,959 50,829 -97.64 -77.90 100%

5.1.3 Prioritized and costed action plan 1,104,000 5,000 912,000 248,475 22.51 2,835 245,640 -43.30 -73.07 100%

5.1.4. Integration plan implemented 1,104,000 - 450,000 1,230,000 106,554 9.65 - - 106,554 -100.00 -91.34 0%

5.1.5 IFMS in 35 LGAs, RSs and PMORALG 254,000 254,000 1,885,100 277,622 109.30 253,960 23,662 -0.02 -98.74 0%

5.1.6. EPICOR linked PMO-RALG IFMS - - 150,800 - - - -100.00 100%

5.1.7 Capacity building to new key users 84,000 84,000 459,920 542,741 646.12 82,821 459,920 -1.40 0.00 0%

5.1.8. Audit of IFMIS in LGAs conducted 813,000 - 326,350 326,350 40.14 - 326,350 0.00 0%

5.2 EPICOR modules use increased 34,957,000 4,239,000 1,639,847 5,423,000 3,015,518 8.63 1,581,922 1,385,096 48,500 -62.68 -15.54 -99.11

5.2.1 EPICOR system upgrade 442,000 442,000 937,500 593,000 1,216,154 275.15 350,000 866,154 - -20.81 -7.61 -100.00 100%

5.2.2 ACGEN staff capacity enhanced 34,160,000 3,703,000 330,000 160,500 0.47 112,000 48,500 -96.98 -85.30 100%

Office accomodation contructed all zones 4,500,000 1,023,116 1,023,116 -

5.2.3 Training on upgraded modules 355,000 94,000 702,347 615,748 173.45 96,806 518,942 2.99 -26.11 50%

5.3 Software & module upgrades coordinated1,348,000 358,000 902,000 870,000 905,286 67.16 183,027 561,887 160,372 -48.88 -37.71 -81.57

5.3.1 FISM is operationalized 81,000 81,000 482,000 630,000 280,417 346.19 48,417 232,000 - -40.23 -51.87 -100.00 0%

5.3.2 FISM staff capacity enhanced 1,267,000 277,000 420,000 240,000 624,869 49.32 134,610 329,887 160,372 -51.40 -21.46 -33.18 0%

5.4 Public access to fiscal information 317,000 266,000 623,500 494,900 538,925 170.01 154,500 321,951 62,474 -41.92 -48.36 -87.38

5.4.1 Support Budget Division & PAD - 350,400 161,100 102,051 ∞ - 102,051 - -70.88 -100.00 50%

5.4.2 MoF Communication Strategy 317,000 266,000 200,100 70,000 375,874 118.57 154,500 190,900 30,474 -41.92 -4.60 -56.47 95%

5.4.3 Action plan for MoF website - 73,000 263,800 61,000 ∞ - 29,000 32,000 -60.27 -87.87 100%

5.5 Coordinate & Standardise PFM Training 516,000 281,000 407,000 320,000 222,100 43.04 72,100 150,000 - -74.34 -63.14 -100.00

5.5.1 Training mapping exercise 112,000 112,000 72,100 64.38 72,100 -35.63 100%

5.5.2 Capacity building plan 169,000 169,000 168,500 150,000 88.76 - 150,000 -100.00 -10.98 50%

5.5.3. Impact assessment PFM training 235,000 - 238,500 320,000 - - - - -100.00 -100.00 0%

5.6 Comp'nt managers multi-year op. plans 266,000 81,000 95,500 98,500 156,500 58.83 61,000 95,500 - -24.69 0.00 -100.00

5.6.1. Annual activities in multi-year plan 266,000 81,000 95,500 98,500 156,500 58.83 61,000 95,500 - -24.69 0.00 -100.00 100%

5.7 Activities planned and implemented 2,490,000 690,000 855,086 614,000 803,273 32.26 431,573 371,700 - -37.45 -56.53 -100.00

5.7.1 Chnge mang. / strat. plan. training 2,288,000 488,000 371,700 334,000 602,072 26.31 230,372 371,700 - -52.79 0.00 -100.00 100%

5.7.2 Results based manag. training 202,000 202,000 483,386 280,000 201,201 99.60 201,201 - - -0.40 -100.00 -100.00 100%


Complete





Output


KRA 5 Change Management and Programme Management63,128,000 9,396,000 9,906,502 14,135,300 10,315,738 16.34 4,093,740 5,587,307 634,691 -56.43 -43.60 -95.51

5.8 Coordination of activities and support 4,470,000 1,192,000 1,216,200 650,000 1,412,447 31.60 657,612 551,448 203,387 -44.83 -54.66 -68.71

5.8.1 Secretariat procurement process 852,000 374,000 102,832 12.07 102,832 -72.50 100%

5.8.2 Secretariat work plan annually 18,000 18,000 - - -100.00 100%

5.8.3 Coord. secretariat facilitated annually 3,600,000 800,000 800,000 650,000 912,225 25.34 277,390 431,448 203,387 -65.33 -46.07 -68.71 50%

5.8.3 Coord. secretariat facilitated annually 416,200 397,390 ∞ 277,390 120,000 -71.17

5.9 Program with clearly defined milestones 75,000 75,000 130,000 130,000 139,902 186.54 - 130,000 9,902 -100.00 0.00 -92.38

5.9.1. Annual revision of M&E framework 75,000 75,000 130,000 130,000 139,902 186.54 - 130,000 9,902 -100.00 0.00 -92.38 100%

5.10 Reforms coordinated with stakeholders 596,000 199,000 505,143 579,400 163,696 27.47 59,073 86,623 18,000 -70.32 -82.85 -96.89

5.10.1 PFM information session 130,000 130,000 - - -100.00 0%

5.10.2 1 annual PFM reform info. day 466,000 69,000 505,143 579,400 163,696 35.13 59,073 86,623 18,000 -14.39 -82.85 -96.89 0%

5.11: PFMRP result based management 4,000,000 438,000 558,600 664,600 772,275 19.31 299,335 471,100 1,840 -31.66 -15.66 -99.72

5.11.1 Annual work plan & milestones met 811,000 111,000 277,500 219,000 286,000 35.27 96,000 190,000 - -13.51 -31.53 -100.00 0%

5.11.2 Annual supervision mission 2,258,000 169,000 91,000 41,000 166,840 7.39 74,000 91,000 1,840 -56.21 0.00 -95.51 60%

5.11.3 Independent prog. evaluations 225,000 50,000 ∞ 50,000 - -100.00 100%

5.11.4 Dialogue structures working 931,000 158,000 190,100 179,600 269,435 28.94 79,335 190,100 - -49.79 0.00 -100.00 30%

5.12 Intergovernmental transfers rationalized 254,000 254,000 95,356 25,000 164,456 64.75 111,000 53,456 - -56.30 -43.94 -100.00

5.12.1 TORs completed 30,000 30,000 30,000 100.00 30,000 0.00 100%

5.12.2 Mapping commences - - - - 100%

5.12.3 Review initiated inception report 224,000 224,000 81,000 36.16 81,000 -63.84 100%

5.12.4 Comprehensive action plan - - 53,456 53,456 ∞ - 53,456 0.00 100%

5.12.5. Reports produced annually - - 41,900 25,000 - - - - -100.00 -100.00 0%

5.13 Improved PFM Reforms in Zanzibar 10,000,000 500,000 500,000 1,000,000 334,132 3.34 8,325 325,807 - -98.34 -34.84 -100.00

5.13.1. DPs, ZNZ and MoF strategic plan 10,000,000 500,000 500,000 1,000,000 334,132 3.34 8,325 325,807 - -98.34 -34.84 -100.00 0%


Complete





Output


KRA 6 LGA Reform Sub Program 2,764,959 - 519,000 2,245,959 736,399 26.63 - 222,124 514,275 -57.20 -77.10

6.3 LGA receive 40% and 90% of devt budget 357,956 - - 357,956 82,982 23.18 - - 82,982 -76.82

6.3.1 Improve fiscal transfer mechanism 8,760 8,760 - - -100.00 50%

Update strategic plans & aligned budgets 168,858 168,858 53,227 31.52 53,227 -68.48

6.3.2 Monitor resource flows LGAs to LLGs 180,338 180,338 29,755 16.50 29,755 -83.50 50%

6.4 Own Revenue Mobilizatin Doubled 176,567 - - 176,567 - - - - -100.00

6.4.1 Tax payers database (I-Tax) 176,567 176,567 - - -100.00 50%

6.5 PFM Capacity in RA strengthened 145,200 - - 145,200 78,300 53.93 - - 78,300 -46.07

6.5.1 Regional PFM Champs created 145,200 145,200 78,300 53.93 78,300 -46.07 100%

6.6 Budget Execution Improved by LGAs 844,376 - 519,000 325,376 316,816 37.52 - 222,124 94,692 -57.20 -70.90

6.6.1. Financial management improved 619,176 293,800 325,376 94,692 15.29 - 94,692 -100.00 -70.90 25%

6.6.1. Financial management improved 225,200 225,200 222,124 98.63 222,124 -1.37

6.7 Improved Financial Reporting by LGAs 420,849 - - 420,849 98,514 23.41 - - 98,514 -76.59

6.7.1 Utilization of IFMIS finan. Rep. improv 187,200 187,200 - - -100.00 0%

6.7.1 Utilization of IFMIS finan. Rep. improv 130,197 130,197 71,017 54.55 71,017 -45.45

6.7.2 Sumit annual finan. rep. to CAG Audit 103,452 103,452 27,497 26.58 27,497 -73.42 100%

6.8 95% LGA get unqualified opinion from CAG318,773 - - 318,773 97,079 30.45 - - 97,079 -69.55

6.8.1 Imple. Of inter and exter. Audit recomm 318,773 318,773 97,079 30.45 97,079 -69.55 95%

6.9 80% of LGAs meet IAGD st benchmarks - - - - - - - -

6.9.1. - -

6.10 Undertake fraud prevent. and anticorrup. measures146,573 - - 146,573 34,975 23.86 - - 34,975 -76.14

6.10.1 Fraud prevention plan implemented 146,573 146,573 34,975 23.86 34,975 -76.14 0%

6.11 Key Fiscal Information made public 156,505 - - 156,505 27,733 17.72 - - 27,733 -82.28

6.11.1 Financial Transparency improved 156,505 156,505 27,733 17.72 27,733 -82.28 0%

6.12 Local PEFA assessment undertaken 198,160 - - 198,160 - - - - -100.00

6.12.1 Local PEFA assessment done - - 95%

Submission of quartely IA Report 98,160 98,160 - - -100.00

LGA sensitized on new PPA 2013 100,000 100,000 - - -100.00


Complete



Appendix 8 – Budget compared with actual releases for key result areas, outputs and milestones


Output

Milestone 2012-17 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2012-to date % 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Whole of PFMRP IV 173,435,676 33,518,000 46,398,322 37,056,265 65,474,140 37.75 23,427,995 29,128,053 14,518,292 -30.10 -37.22 -60.82

KRA 1 Revenue Management 8,291,000 1,823,000 1,651,837 1,926,350 3,221,767 38.86 1,020,830 1,423,940 776,997 -44.00 -13.80 -59.66

1.1 Improved quality of forecasting 1,224,000 216,000 268,597 - 277,700 22.69 112,000 165,700 - -48.15 -38.31

1.1.1 Study to identify and action plan - - - 0%

1.1.2 Team of trainers developed 1,224,000 216,000 268,597 277,700 22.69 112,000 165,700 -48.15 -38.31 100%

1.2 Improve domest. rev. mobilization 819,000 695,000 278,250 317,500 803,750 98.14 368,000 278,250 157,500 -47.05 0.00 -50.39

1.2.1 Study NTR Collection Systems 452,000 452,000 252,000 55.75 252,000 -44.25 100%


1.2.3 Action plan incorporated - - - 25%

1.2.4 Tax Admin. Bill submission 63,000 63,000 63,000 126,000 200.00 63,000 63,000 0.00 0.00 100%

1.2.5 Review LG revenue system laws - - - - 50%

1.2.6 Nat. resource rev. mobilisation - - - 0%

1.2.7 Computerized rev. collection 127,000 127,000 162,250 125,000 217,250 171.06 - 162,250 55,000 -100.00 0.00 -56.00 25%

1.2.8 Review tax exempt and VAT Act 177,000 53,000 53,000 192,500 208,500 117.80 53,000 53,000 102,500 0.00 0.00 -46.75 100%

1.3 Improve LG capacity to collect rev. 5,544,000 551,000 600,930 923,600 1,303,013 23.50 317,800 600,930 384,283 -42.32 0.00 -58.39

1.3.1 Assess and eval. Rev. potential 253,000 150,000 102,800 252,800 99.92 150,000 102,800 0.00 0.00 100%

1.3.2 LGAs tax admin. Training 608,000 118,000 343,940 27,703 4.56 - 27,703 -100.00 -91.95 0%

1.3.3 PMORALG & RS staff tax trained 100,000 100,000 100,000 100.00 100,000 0.00 100%

1.3.4 LGA & RS rev. manag. trained 2,686,000 110,000 - - -100.00 0%

1.3.5 Data base PMORALG & RS 1,757,000 - 498,130 382,560 657,610 37.43 - 498,130 159,480 0.00 -58.31 80%

1.3.6 LG Finances Act Study 68,000 68,000 74,605 106,105 156.04 31,500 74,605 -53.68 0.00 100%

1.3.7 LG Finances Bill submitted 72,000 5,000 6,500 42,800 59.44 36,300 6,500 626.00 0.00 80%

1.3.8 LGA fin. management improved - 115,995 115,995 ∞ 115,995 0.00 50%

1.4 DP funds thru exchequer system 704,000 361,000 504,060 685,250 837,304 118.94 223,030 379,060 235,214 -38.22 -24.80 -65.67

1.4.1 Dev. Coop. framework operates 227,000 227,000 88,060 168,000 296,890 130.79 108,030 88,060 100,800 -52.41 0.00 -40.00 95%

1.4.2 Revised JAST and AMP commu. 194,000 115,000 342,000 212,688 419,088 216.02 115,000 217,000 87,088 0.00 -36.55 -59.05 100%

1.4.3 Project Fund Port. Disbursed exch. 283,000 19,000 74,000 304,562 121,326 42.87 - 74,000 47,326 -100.00 0.00 -84.46 100%

Budgets (TZS 000's) Fund Released (TZS 000's) % Variance (Budget/Actual) %

Complete



Appendix 8 – Budget compared with actual releases for key result areas, outputs and milestones (cont.)


Output


KRA 2 Budgeting and planning 9,627,000 2,167,000 2,014,400 1,427,570 2,278,159 23.66 909,219 1,063,790 305,150 -58.04 -47.19 -78.62

2.1 Program based budgeting (PBB) 2,937,000 972,000 873,140 469,050 1,021,850 34.79 305,800 457,600 258,450 -68.54 -47.59 -44.90

2.1.1 Define sub-progs and PIs 250,000 125,000 218,200 60,150 388,350 155.34 125,000 218,200 45,150 0.00 0.00 -24.94 50%

2.1.2 Chart of accounts modified 506,000 190,000 175,000 147,000 29.05 74,000 73,000 -61.05 -58.29 100%

2.1.3 Review MTEF - PBB compatible 1,283,000 255,000 278,900 408,900 368,500 28.72 28,800 126,400 213,300 -88.71 -54.68 -47.84 50%

2.1.4 Progress on PBB action plan - - 0%

2.1.5 Phased training MDAs and RSs 436,000 208,000 201,040 79,000 18.12 39,000 40,000 -81.25 -80.10 0%

2.1.6 Phased training LGAs 462,000 194,000 39,000 8.44 39,000 -79.90 0%

2.2 Utilization of budgeting tools 6,101,000 1,038,000 1,097,260 657,770 911,890 14.95 303,000 562,190 46,700 -70.81 -48.76 -92.90

2.2.1 MTSPBM reviewed 374,000 187,000 208,210 335,000 252,190 67.43 57,000 195,190 - -69.52 -6.25 -100.00 95%

2.2.2 All MTSPBM trained 1,227,000 220,000 542,250 140,000 11.41 - 140,000 -100.00 -74.18 0%

2.2.3 MTSPBM to be applied - - - - 50%

2.2.4 Annexes to vol. II for EAs 687,000 127,000 128,000 46,700 167,700 24.41 61,000 60,000 46,700 -51.97 -53.13 0.00 0%

2.2.5 Action plan on legal framework - - 218,800 23,000 167,000 ∞ - 167,000 - -23.67 -100.00 100%

2.2.6 10 PER main dialogue meetings 1,900,000 195,000 125,000 6.58 125,000 -35.90 70%

2.2.7 Budget committees training 1,609,000 269,000 253,070 20,000 1.24 20,000 - -92.57 -100.00 50%

2.2.8 QA of qutr. budget reports 304,000 40,000 40,000 13.16 40,000 0.00 0%

2.2.9 Reallocation warrants published - 100%

2.2.10 GoT approves actions - 0%

2.3 LGAs MTEF preparation capacity 379,000 157,000 44,000 300,750 134,419 35.47 90,419 44,000 - -42.41 0.00 -100.00

2.3.1 Guideline includes budget info 65,000 45,000 260,250 42,575 65.50 42,575 -5.39 -100.00 100%

2.3.2 LGA studies budget allocation 54,000 54,000 47,844 88.60 47,844 - -11.40 100%

2.3.3 Agree LGAs allocation formulae 58,000 58,000 40,500 - - - -100.00 -100.00 90%

2.3.4 All formulae reviewed 44,000 - 44,000 44,000 100.00 - 44,000 0.00 0%

2.3.5 Budget allocation formulae used 131,000 - - - 0%

2.3.6 Monitor actual vs formula-based 27,000 - - - 0%

2.4 Budget docs quality & public access 210,000 - - - 210,000 100.00 210,000 - -

2.4.1 Public access fiscal information 122,000 - 122,000 100.00 122,000 100%

2.4.2. Plan for improving budget docs 72,000 - 72,000 100.00 72,000 0%

2.4.3 Changes in budget docs 16,000 - 16,000 100.00 16,000 0%


Complete





Output


KRA 3 Budget Exec., Accountblity & Trnsp. 19,622,000 4,525,000 5,982,700 6,161,270 9,817,503 50.03 2,677,810 4,332,700 2,806,993 -40.82 -27.58 -54.44

3.1 Improved public sector procurement 2,788,000 545,000 876,000 1,697,500 2,099,040 75.29 544,500 806,000 748,540 -0.09 -7.99 -55.90

3.1.1 Action plan for PPA - - - - 0%

3.1.2 New procurement regulations 174,000 - - - 100%

3.1.3 Procurement TNA exercise 413,000 178,000 152,500 166,000 418,387 101.30 178,000 85,000 155,387 0.00 -44.26 -6.39 100%

3.1.4 [300] procurement staff trained - - - - 0%

3.1.5 PMU Strategy 73,000 73,000 82,000 73,000 100.00 73,000 - 0.00 -100.00 100%

3.1.6 Procurement staff database 258,000 26,000 141,500 114,000 276,312 107.10 25,500 141,500 109,312 -1.92 0.00 -4.11 60%

3.1.7 National procurement policy draft - - - - 95%

3.1.8 Stakeholders’ comments incorp. - - - - 100%

3.1.9 PPPDs’ capacity enhanced 665,000 100,000 191,500 289,500 43.53 100,000 189,500 0.00 -1.04 75%

3.1.10 20 PPPD staff with skills - - 145,000 145,000 ∞ - 145,000 0.00 70%

3.1.11 National procurement policy 446,000 64,000 256,000 317,500 71.19 64,000 253,500 0.00 -0.98 95%

3.1.12 Nat. proc. policy strategy 327,000 104,000 181,000 94,000 330,000 100.92 104,000 181,000 45,000 0.00 0.00 -52.13 0%

3.1.13 Printing and NPP on the website - - - - 0%

3.1.14 NPP and law synchronised 114,000 - 208,000 - - - -100.00 0%

3.1.15 Monitoring NPP implementation - - 197,000 - - - -100.00 0%

3.1.16 NPP implement eval. & feedback - - - - 0%

3.1.17 1000 Stakeholders know NPP 318,000 - 400,000 87,841 27.62 - 87,841 -78.04 0%

3.1.18 Strategy on Stakeholders awareness - - 245,000 161,500 ∞ 161,500 -34.08 50%

3.2 Strengthened cash management 4,956,000 602,000 694,500 994,500 829,000 16.73 233,000 294,500 301,500 -61.30 -57.60 -69.68

3.2.1 600 cash management trained 4,956,000 602,000 694,500 994,500 829,000 16.73 233,000 294,500 301,500 -61.30 -57.60 -69.68 50%

3.2.2 6 bank ac/s for each LGA - - - - 100%


3.3 Public debt management capacity 2,060,000 1,317,000 - 302,300 192,300 9.33 - - 192,300 -100.00 -36.39

3.3.1 Debt manage actions shared - - - - 100%

3.3.2 Debt management policy 316,000 263,000 - - -100.00 100%

3.3.3 50 Public debt management staff - - - - 0%

3.3.4 Review of GLG&G Act 254,000 230,000 - - -100.00 95%

3.3.5 Debt management department 1,490,000 824,000 106,800 81,800 5.49 - 81,800 -100.00 -23.41 95%

3.3.6. Monitoring contingent liabilities - - 42,000 - - -100.00 0%

3.3.7. Monitoring of guarantees - - 153,500 110,500 ∞ 110,500 -28.01 0%



Complete





Output


KRA 3 Budget Exec., Accountblity & Trnsp. 19,622,000 4,525,000 5,982,700 6,161,270 9,817,503 50.03 2,677,810 4,332,700 2,806,993 -40.82 -27.58 -54.44

3.4 Improved government fin. statements 1,327,000 482,000 1,902,200 782,500 1,749,966 131.87 471,738 1,102,200 176,028 -2.13 -42.06 -77.50

3.4.1 Review of the IPSAS guideline - - - - 0%

3.4.2 Develop IPSAS accrual awareness 95,000 95,000 103,205 108.64 103,205 8.64 100%

3.4.3 Capacity building 250 staff - - 153,000 ∞ 153,000 100%

3.4.4 Review PF legislation for accrual 242,000 30,000 84,000 30,000 12.40 30,000 - 0.00 -100.00 25%

3.4.5 Consolidated template of fin. stats. 138,000 29,000 800,000 29,000 21.01 29,000 - 0.00 -100.00 100%

3.4.6 250 trained IPSAS&Epicor accrual 360,000 153,000 - - -100.00 0%

3.4.7 Plan for migration to accrual 215,000 50,000 808,700 698,500 1,016,361 472.73 31,633 808,700 176,028 -36.73 0.00 -74.80 100%

3.4.8. Plan approved & shared 120,000 71,000 70,900 59.08 70,900 -0.14 0%

3.4.9 Legal & policy supports decisions 157,000 54,000 54,000 34.39 54,000 0.00 0%

3.4.10 Milestones identified & approved - - - - 0%

3.4.11 Consolidated accrual based ac/s - 293,500 293,500 ∞ - 293,500 0.00 60%


3.5 Improved accounting of gov. assets 8,491,000 1,579,000 2,510,000 2,384,470 4,947,197 58.26 1,428,572 2,130,000 1,388,625 -9.53 -15.14 -41.76

3.5.1 70 additional MDAs in EPICOR 89,000 89,000 184,000 75,570 236,000 265.17 66,000 170,000 - -25.84 -7.61 -100.00 60%

3.5.2 Asset manage. software in use 1,412,000 122,000 579,000 111,000 552,000 39.09 122,000 430,000 - 0.00 -25.73 -100.00 100%

3.5.3 GAM capacity enhanced 484,000 130,000 220,000 241,500 431,530 89.16 130,000 120,000 181,530 0.00 -45.45 -24.83 100%

3.5.4. Asset manage. policy submitted 451,000 227,000 138,000 315,400 295,700 65.57 165,700 130,000 - -27.00 -5.80 -100.00 95%

3.5.5. Valuation 34 MDAs and RSs 6,055,000 1,011,000 1,389,000 1,641,000 3,431,967 56.68 944,872 1,280,000 1,207,095 -6.54 -7.85 -26.44 100%


Complete





Output



4.1 Increased internal audit function 5,986,000 1,624,000 2,339,000 2,947,616 4,584,829 76.59 1,323,050 1,694,000 1,567,779 -18.53 -27.58 -46.81

4.1.1 Operational plan approved - - - - 100%

4.1.2. IA improvement prog. in place 1,447,000 414,000 369,000 25.50 369,000 -10.87 100%

4.1.3 450 IAs trained on procedures 389,872 233,072 ∞ - 233,072 -40.22 25%

4.1.4 IAUs in MDAs&LGAs assessment 1,723,000 269,000 342,000 225,000 13.06 - 225,000 -100.00 -34.21 0%

4.1.5 IAUs and committees established 1,028,000 728,564 1,219,707 ∞ 153,800 773,000 292,907 -24.81 -59.80 25%

4.1.6. Pilot stage of computerised audit 1,018,000 319,000 135,500 402,000 39.49 319,000 83,000 0.00 -38.75 50%

4.1.7. Computerised audit in place - - 650,000 260,000 ∞ - 260,000 -60.00 0%

4.1.8. 70 Proect tech. audits conducted 535,000 197,000 228,000 477,150 626,900 117.18 116,750 228,000 282,150 -40.74 0.00 -40.87 70%

4.1.9 IA/CAG corrective measures status - - 25%

4.1.10 550 trained in risk based audit 1,263,000 425,000 433,000 451,650 1,249,150 98.90 364,500 433,000 451,650 -14.24 0.00 0.00 100%

4.1.11 300 trained re fraud risk 275,200 - - - -100.00 30%

4.1.12 Study to assess the ICT needs 147,680 - - - -100.00 0%

4.2 Strengthened external audit function 50,641,000 8,998,000 16,476,470 1,677,446 13,928,556 27.50 7,185,333 5,560,845 1,182,378 -20.15 -66.25 -29.51

4.2.1 Report on legal changes submitted 497,000 150,000 39,000 189,000 38.03 150,000 39,000 0.00 0.00 100%

4.2.1a Enhance CAG independence 143,800 143,800 ∞ - 143,800 0.00 0%

4.2.2. 100% moved to NAO offices 44,713,000 7,500,000 15,250,000 10,900 10,039,375 22.45 5,700,000 4,334,375 5,000 -24.00 -71.58 -54.13 85%

4.2.3 Train 300 risk based & 200 IT audit 900,000 300,000 289,570 595,760 66.20 306,190 289,570 2.06 0.00 70%

4.2.4 2 VFM audit reports each year 161,000 61,000 76,889 106,828 66.35 29,939 76,889 -50.92 0.00 100%

4.2.5. Train 300 international standards 431,000 293,000 384,150 677,489 157.19 293,339 384,150 0.12 0.00 50%

4.2.6 Parastatals audit modalities agreed 135,000 50,000 177,850 227,850 168.78 50,000 177,850 0.00 0.00 50%

4.2.7 Audit in line with ISSAIs guidelines 357,000 317,000 322,675 90.39 322,675 1.79 100%

4.2.8 Study re o/s matters database 150,000 150,000 104,500 254,500 169.67 150,000 104,500 0.00 0.00 100%

4.2.9 Establish a database 250,000 - 186,027 96,027 38.41 - 96,027 -48.38 100%

4.2.10 300 trained on ACL 850,000 - 260,750 188,000 448,750 52.79 - 260,750 188,000 0.00 0.00 70%

4.2.11 NAO HQ connected to 10 ROs 1,977,000 177,000 250,500 307,102 15.53 183,190 123,912 3.50 -50.53 100%

4.2.12 2 of 5 Team Mate modules applied 220,000 - 148,500 643,480 519,400 236.09 - 148,500 370,900 0.00 -42.36 60%

4.3 Better transparency on audit reports 668,000 198,000 220,835 161,410 496,025 74.26 204,190 220,835 71,000 3.13 0.00 -56.01

4.3.1 Citizen audit reports available 668,000 198,000 220,835 161,410 496,025 74.26 204,190 220,835 71,000 3.13 0.00 -56.01 100%


Complete





Output



4.4: Improved performance of parastatals 2,415,000 910,000 1,628,800 1,943,000 2,921,800 120.99 - 1,628,800 1,293,000 -100.00 0.00 -33.45

4.4.1 10 sign performance contracts 575,000 - 120,000 257,500 355,000 61.74 - 120,000 235,000 0.00 -8.74 100%

4.4.2 Database on Parastatals set up - - - - 60%

4.4.3 M&E for compliance rate set up - - 51,000 524,380 292,000 ∞ - 51,000 241,000 0.00 -54.04 0%

4.4.4 New TR's Bill presented 230,000 230,000 300,500 387,000 677,500 294.57 - 300,500 377,000 -100.00 0.00 -2.58 95%

4.4.5 150 Parastatals’ acts reviewed 361,000 237,000 274,000 274,000 75.90 - 274,000 -100.00 0.00 0%

4.4.6 TR’s Office capacities enhanced 1,249,000 443,000 883,300 774,120 1,323,300 105.95 - 883,300 440,000 -100.00 0.00 -43.16 90%

4.5: Strengthened capacity of PAC 6,323,000 428,000 974,695 683,720 1,709,068 27.03 434,373 974,695 300,000 1.49 0.00 -56.12

4.5.1 Annual capacity building interventions 6,323,000 428,000 974,695 683,720 1,709,068 27.03 434,373 974,695 300,000 1.49 0.00 -56.12 50%

4.6 Better PE procurement performances 3,969,717 3,449,000 4,684,083 3,246,625 8,586,069 216.29 3,686,861 3,931,583 967,625 6.90 -16.07 -70.20

4.6.1 Annual PPRA audit results confirm 66,000 66,000 779,750 1,022,900 911,850 1381.59 66,200 779,750 65,900 0.30 0.00 -93.56 100%

4.6.2 Implementation and monitoring tools 88,000 88,000 26,000 114,100 129.66 88,100 26,000 0.11 0.00 100%

4.6.3 New PPA regulations and tools 1,717 1,060,000 129,992 192,300 317,667 18501.28 78,800 129,992 108,875 -92.57 0.00 -43.38 100%

4.6.4 Procure. & strategic plans aligned - - - - 25%

4.6.5 VFM thru framework contracts 566,000 256,000 400,000 455,900 80.55 55,900 400,000 -78.16 0.00 50%

4.6.6 PPRA operational with outreach 2,112,000 843,000 2,640,492 1,461,125 4,124,583 195.29 1,819,091 1,887,992 417,500 115.79 -28.50 -71.43 80%

4.6.7 All PEs have functional PMIS 1,136,000 1,136,000 594,835 82,500 1,243,105 109.43 644,020 594,835 4,250 -43.31 0.00 -94.85 90%

4.6.8 e-procurement at pilot stage - - 438,600 345,100 ∞ - 345,100 -21.32 0%

4.6.9 Annual audits one-third of all PEs - - 23,200 934,750 ∞ 934,750 - -100.00 10%

4.6.10 Annual follow up audit 100 PEs - - - - 75%

4.6.11 Annual Proc. Perf. Eval. Report - - 139,014 139,014 ∞ - 139,014 0.00 100%

4.7. HCMIS in service delivery points - - - 499,999 192,532 ∞ - - 192,532 -61.49

4.7.1 User requirements for 160 SDPs 114,332 114,332 ∞ 114,332 0.00 0%

4.7.2 HCMIS at 160 SDPs 385,667 78,200 ∞ 78,200 -79.72 0%


Complete





Output


KRA 5 Change Management and Programme Management63,128,000 9,396,000 9,906,502 14,135,300 16,167,864 25.61 5,986,329 7,777,865 3,778,670 -36.29 -21.49 -73.27

5.1 Coordinate integration of fin. systems 3,839,000 823,000 2,378,270 3,265,900 3,800,972 99.01 556,467 2,108,270 1,136,235 -32.39 -11.35 -65.21

5.1.1 ICT mapping exercise 312,000 312,000 210,686 67.53 210,686 -32.47 100%

5.1.2 Stakeholder coordination meetings 168,000 168,000 230,000 64,000 38.10 4,000 60,000 -97.62 -73.91 100%

5.1.3 Prioritized and costed action plan 1,104,000 5,000 912,000 917,000 83.06 5,000 912,000 0.00 0.00 100%

5.1.4. Integration plan implemented 1,104,000 - 450,000 1,230,000 663,435 60.09 - 350,000 313,435 -22.22 -74.52 0%

5.1.5 IFMS in 35 LGAs, RSs and PMORALG 254,000 254,000 1,885,100 943,960 371.64 253,960 690,000 -0.02 -63.40 0%

5.1.6. EPICOR linked PMO-RALG IFMS - - 150,800 132,800 ∞ - 132,800 -11.94 100%

5.1.7 Capacity building to new key users 84,000 84,000 459,920 542,741 646.12 82,821 459,920 -1.40 0.00 0%

5.1.8. Audit of IFMIS in LGAs conducted 813,000 - 326,350 326,350 40.14 - 326,350 0.00 0%

5.2 EPICOR modules use increased 34,957,000 4,239,000 1,639,847 5,423,000 2,625,340 7.51 1,942,021 1,608,398 449,921 -54.19 -1.92 -91.70

5.2.1 EPICOR system upgrade 442,000 442,000 937,500 593,000 1,657,464 374.99 350,000 906,051 401,413 -20.81 -3.35 -32.31 100%

5.2.2 ACGEN staff capacity enhanced 34,160,000 3,703,000 330,000 167,508 0.49 119,000 48,508 -96.79 -85.30 100%

Office accommodation constructed all zones 4,500,000 1,375,000 -

5.2.3 Training on upgraded modules 355,000 94,000 702,347 800,368 225.46 98,021 702,347 4.28 0.00 50%

5.3 Software & module upgrades coordinated1,348,000 358,000 902,000 870,000 1,098,627 81.50 230,063 652,000 216,564 -35.74 -27.72 -75.11

5.3.1 FISM is operationalized 81,000 81,000 482,000 630,000 313,000 386.42 81,000 232,000 - 0.00 -51.87 -100.00 0%

5.3.2 FISM staff capacity enhanced 1,267,000 277,000 420,000 240,000 785,627 62.01 149,063 420,000 216,564 -46.19 0.00 -9.77 0%

5.4 Public access to fiscal information 317,000 266,000 623,500 494,900 731,300 230.69 170,500 388,400 172,400 -35.90 -37.71 -65.16

5.4.1 Support Budget Division & PAD - 350,400 161,100 208,500 ∞ - 168,500 40,000 -51.91 -75.17 50%

5.4.2 MoF Communication Strategy 317,000 266,000 200,100 70,000 415,400 131.04 154,500 190,900 70,000 -41.92 -4.60 0.00 95%

5.4.3 Action plan for MoF website - 73,000 263,800 107,400 ∞ 16,000 29,000 62,400 -60.27 -76.35 100%

5.5 Coordinate & Standardise PFM Training 516,000 281,000 407,000 320,000 747,500 144.86 110,500 347,000 290,000 -60.68 -14.74 -9.38

5.5.1 Training mapping exercise 112,000 112,000 107,000 95.54 107,000 -4.46 100%

5.5.2 Capacity building plan 169,000 169,000 168,500 153,500 90.83 3,500 150,000 -97.93 -10.98 50%

5.5.3. Impact assessment PFM training 235,000 - 238,500 320,000 487,000 207.23 - 197,000 290,000 -17.40 -9.38 0%

5.6 Comp'nt managers multi-year op. plans 266,000 81,000 95,500 98,500 205,000 77.07 61,000 95,500 48,500 -24.69 0.00 -50.76

5.6.1. Annual activities in multi-year plan 266,000 81,000 95,500 98,500 205,000 77.07 61,000 95,500 48,500 -24.69 0.00 -50.76 100%

5.7 Activities planned and implemented 2,490,000 690,000 855,086 614,000 1,184,218 47.56 432,518 371,700 380,000 -37.32 -56.53 -38.11

5.7.1 Chnge mang. / strat. plan. training 2,288,000 488,000 371,700 334,000 702,072 30.68 230,372 371,700 100,000 -52.79 0.00 -70.06 100%

5.7.2 Results based manag. training 202,000 202,000 483,386 280,000 482,146 238.69 202,146 - 280,000 0.07 -100.00 0.00 100%


Complete





Output


KRA 5 Change Management and Programme Management63,128,000 9,396,000 9,906,502 14,135,300 16,167,864 25.61 5,986,329 7,777,865 3,778,670 -36.29 -21.49 -73.27

5.8 Coordination of activities and support 4,470,000 1,192,000 1,216,200 650,000 1,986,258 44.44 1,108,760 651,448 226,050 -6.98 -46.44 -65.22

5.8.1 Secretariat procurement process 852,000 374,000 120,000 14.08 120,000 -67.91 100%

5.8.2 Secretariat work plan annually 18,000 18,000 - - -100.00 100%

5.8.3 Coord. secretariat facilitated annually 3,600,000 800,000 800,000 650,000 1,151,878 32.00 494,380 431,448 226,050 -38.20 -46.07 -65.22 50%

5.8.3 Coord. secretariat facilitated annually 416,200 714,380 ∞ 494,380 220,000 -47.14

5.9 Program with clearly defined milestones 75,000 75,000 130,000 130,000 210,000 280.00 50,000 130,000 30,000 -33.33 0.00 -76.92

5.9.1. Annual revision of M&E framework 75,000 75,000 130,000 130,000 210,000 280.00 50,000 130,000 30,000 -33.33 0.00 -76.92 100%

5.10 Reforms coordinated with stakeholders 596,000 199,000 505,143 579,400 658,693 110.52 224,000 358,693 76,000 12.56 -28.99 -86.88

5.10.1 PFM information session 130,000 130,000 130,000 100.00 130,000 0.00 0%

5.10.2 1 annual PFM reform info. day 466,000 69,000 505,143 579,400 528,693 113.45 94,000 358,693 76,000 36.23 -28.99 -86.88 0%

5.11: PFMRP result based management 4,000,000 438,000 558,600 664,600 1,070,600 26.77 346,500 471,100 253,000 -20.89 -15.66 -61.93

5.11.1 Annual work plan & milestones met 811,000 111,000 277,500 219,000 286,000 35.27 96,000 190,000 - -13.51 -31.53 -100.00 0%

5.11.2 Annual supervision mission 2,258,000 169,000 91,000 41,000 206,000 9.12 74,000 91,000 41,000 -56.21 0.00 0.00 60%

5.11.3 Independent prog. evaluations 225,000 245,000 ∞ 95,000 150,000 -33.33 100%

5.11.4 Dialogue structures working 931,000 158,000 190,100 179,600 333,600 35.83 81,500 190,100 62,000 -48.42 0.00 -65.48 30%

5.12 Intergovernmental transfers rationalized 254,000 254,000 95,356 25,000 349,356 137.54 254,000 95,356 - 0.00 0.00 -100.00

5.12.1 TORs completed 30,000 30,000 30,000 100.00 30,000 0.00 100%

5.12.2 Mapping commences - - - - 100%

5.12.3 Review initiated inception report 224,000 224,000 224,000 100.00 224,000 0.00 100%

5.12.4 Comprehensive action plan - - 53,456 53,456 ∞ - 53,456 0.00 100%

5.12.5. Reports produced annually - - 41,900 25,000 41,900 ∞ - 41,900 - 0.00 -100.00 0%

5.13 Improved PFM Reforms in Zanzibar 10,000,000 500,000 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 15.00 500,000 500,000 500,000 0.00 0.00 -50.00

5.13.1. DPs, ZNZ and MoF strategic plan 10,000,000 500,000 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 15.00 500,000 500,000 500,000 0.00 0.00 -50.00 0%


Complete





Output


KRA 6 LGA Reform Sub Program 2,764,959 - 519,000 2,245,959 1,569,968 56.78 - 519,000 1,276,168 0.00 -43.18

6.3 LGA receive 40% and 90% of devt budget 357,956 - - 357,956 275,057 76.84 - - 275,057 -23.16

6.3.1 Improve fiscal transfer mechanism 8,760 8,760 8,760 100.00 8,760 0.00 50%

Update strategic plans & aligned budgets 168,858 168,858 157,683 93.38 157,683 -6.62

6.3.2 Monitor resource flows LGAs to LLGs 180,338 180,338 108,614 60.23 108,614 -39.77 50%

6.4 Own Revenue Mobilizatin Doubled 176,567 - - 176,567 42,965 24.33 - - 42,965 -75.67

6.4.1 Tax payers database (I-Tax) 176,567 176,567 42,965 24.33 42,965 -75.67 50%

6.5 PFM Capacity in RA strengthened 145,200 - - 145,200 108,300 74.59 - - 108,300 -25.41

6.5.1 Regional PFM Champs created 145,200 145,200 108,300 74.59 108,300 -25.41 100%

6.6 Budget Execution Improved by LGAs 844,376 - 519,000 325,376 463,560 54.90 - 519,000 169,760 0.00 -47.83

6.6.1. Financial management improved 619,176 293,800 325,376 463,560 74.87 293,800 169,760 25%

6.6.1. Financial management improved 225,200 225,200 225,200 100.00 225,200 0.00

6.7 Improved Financial Reporting by LGAs 420,849 - - 420,849 368,467 87.55 - - 368,467 -12.45

6.7.1 Utilization of IFMIS finan. Rep. improv 187,200 187,200 183,122 97.82 183,122 0%

6.7.1 Utilization of IFMIS finan. Rep. improv 130,197 130,197 108,153 83.07 108,153 -16.93

6.7.2 Sumit annual finan. rep. to CAG Audit 103,452 103,452 77,192 74.62 77,192 -25.38 100%

6.8 95% LGA get unqualified opinion from CAG318,773 - - 318,773 176,790 55.46 - - 176,790 -44.54

6.8.1 Imple. Of inter and exter. Audit recomm 318,773 318,773 176,790 55.46 176,790 -44.54 95%

6.9 80% of LGAs meet IAGD st benchmarks - - - - - - - -

6.9.1. - -

6.10 Undertake fraud prevent. and anticorrup. measures146,573 - - 146,573 67,829 46.28 - - 67,829 -53.72

6.10.1 Fraud prevention plan implemented 146,573 146,573 67,829 46.28 67,829 -53.72 0%

6.11 Key Fiscal Information made public 156,505 - - 156,505 67,000 42.81 - - 67,000 -57.19

6.11.1 Financial Transparency improved 156,505 156,505 67,000 42.81 67,000 -57.19 0%

6.12 Local PEFA assessment undertaken 198,160 - - 198,160 - - - - -100.00

6.12.1 Local PEFA assessment done - - 95%

Submission of quartely IA Report 98,160 98,160 - - -100.00

LGA sensitized on new PPA 2013 100,000 100,000 - - -100.00


Complete



Appendix 9 – Releases compared with actual expenditurefor key result areas, outputs and milestones

Key Result Area (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p)

Output Budgets (TZS 000's)

Milestone 2012-17 2012-to date % 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2012 to date % 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2012-to date 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Whole of PFMRP IV 173,435,676 64,984,960 37.47 22,933,615 29,128,053 14,518,292 41,557,794 23.96 16,980,949 18,916,905 5,659,940 -36.05 -25.96 -35.06 -61.02

KRA 1 Revenue Management 8,291,000 3,221,767 38.86 1,020,830 1,423,940 776,997 1,980,050 23.88 766,335 954,088 259,627 -38.54 -24.93 -33.00 -66.59

1.1 Improved quality of forecasting 1,224,000 277,700 22.69 112,000 165,700 - 112,200 9.17 59,500 52,700 - -59.60 -46.88 -68.20

1.1.1 Study to identify and action plan - - 0.00 - - - - - 0%

1.1.2 Team of trainers developed 1,224,000 277,700 22.69 112,000 165,700 112,200 9.17 59,500 52,700 -59.60 -46.88 -68.20 100%

1.2 Improve domest. rev. mobilization 819,000 803,750 98.14 368,000 278,250 157,500 473,889 57.86 281,005 161,560 31,324 -41.04 -23.64 -41.94 -80.11

1.2.1 Study NTR Collection Systems 452,000 252,000 55.75 252,000 204,614 45.27 204,614 -18.80 -18.80 100%


1.2.3 Action plan incorporated - - - - - 25%

1.2.4 Tax Admin. Bill submission 63,000 126,000 200.00 63,000 63,000 52,000 82.54 52,000 - -58.73 -17.46 -100.00 100%

1.2.5 Review LG revenue system laws - - - - - 50%

1.2.6 Nat. resource rev. mobilisation - - - - - 0%

1.2.7 Computerized rev. collection 127,000 217,250 171.06 - 162,250 55,000 192,884 151.88 - 161,560 31,324 -11.22 -0.43 -43.05 25%

1.2.8 Review tax exempt and VAT Act 177,000 208,500 117.80 53,000 53,000 102,500 24,391 13.78 24,391 - - -88.30 -53.98 -100.00 -100.00 100%

1.3 Improve LG capacity to collect rev. 5,544,000 1,303,013 23.50 317,800 600,930 384,283 981,533 17.70 317,800 435,430 228,303 -24.67 0.00 -27.54 -40.59

1.3.1 Assess and eval. Rev. potential 253,000 252,800 99.92 150,000 102,800 252,800 99.92 150,000 102,800 0.00 0.00 0.00 100%

1.3.2 LGAs tax admin. Training 608,000 27,703 4.56 - 27,703 - - - -100.00 -100.00 0%

1.3.3 PMORALG & RS staff tax trained 100,000 100,000 100.00 100,000 100,000 100.00 100,000 0.00 0.00 100%

1.3.4 LGA & RS rev. manag. trained 2,686,000 - - - - 0%

1.3.5 Data base PMORALG & RS 1,757,000 657,610 37.43 - 498,130 159,480 382,426 21.77 - 332,630 49,796 -41.85 -33.22 -68.78 80%

1.3.6 LG Finances Act Study 68,000 106,105 156.04 31,500 74,605 101,124 148.71 31,500 69,624 -4.69 0.00 -6.68 100%

1.3.7 LG Finances Bill submitted 72,000 42,800 59.44 36,300 6,500 36,300 50.42 36,300 - -15.19 0.00 -100.00 80%

1.3.8 LGA fin. management improved - 115,995 ∞ 115,995 108,883 ∞ 108,883 -6.13 -6.13 50%

1.4 DP funds thru exchequer system 704,000 837,304 118.94 223,030 379,060 235,214 412,428 58.58 108,030 304,398 - -50.74 -51.56 -19.70 -100.00

1.4.1 Dev. Coop. framework operates 227,000 296,890 130.79 108,030 88,060 100,800 193,428 85.21 108,030 85,398 - -34.85 0.00 -3.02 -100.00 95%

1.4.2 Revised JAST and AMP commu. 194,000 419,088 216.02 115,000 217,000 87,088 145,000 74.74 - 145,000 - -65.40 -100.00 -33.18 -100.00 100%

1.4.3 Project Fund Port. Disbursed exch. 283,000 121,326 42.87 - 74,000 47,326 74,000 26.15 - 74,000 - -39.01 0.00 -100.00 100%

Fund Released (TZS 000's) Expenditure (TZS 000's) % Variance (Actual/Expenditure) %

Complete



Appendix 9 – Releases compared with actual expenditure for key result areas, outputs and milestones (cont.)




KRA 2 Budgeting and planning 9,627,000 2,278,159 23.66 909,219 1,063,790 305,150 537,647 5.58 187,829 349,818 - -76.40 -79.34 -67.12 -100.00

2.1 Program based budgeting (PBB) 2,937,000 1,021,850 34.79 305,800 457,600 258,450 232,500 7.92 97,410 135,090 - -77.25 -68.15 -70.48 -100.00

2.1.1 Define sub-progs and PIs 250,000 388,350 155.34 125,000 218,200 45,150 197,960 79.18 62,870 135,090 - -49.03 -49.70 -38.09 -100.00 50%

2.1.2 Chart of accounts modified 506,000 147,000 29.05 74,000 73,000 16,170 3.20 16,170 - -89.00 -78.15 -100.00 100%

2.1.3 Review MTEF - PBB compatible 1,283,000 368,500 28.72 28,800 126,400 213,300 - - - - -100.00 -100.00 -100.00 -100.00 50%

2.1.4 Progress on PBB action plan - - - - 0%

2.1.5 Phased training MDAs and RSs 436,000 79,000 18.12 39,000 40,000 18,370 4.21 18,370 - -76.75 -52.90 -100.00 0%

2.1.6 Phased training LGAs 462,000 39,000 8.44 39,000 - - -100.00 -100.00 0%

2.2 Utilization of budgeting tools 6,101,000 911,890 14.95 303,000 562,190 46,700 170,728 2.80 - 170,728 - -81.28 -100.00 -69.63 -100.00

2.2.1 MTSPBM reviewed 374,000 252,190 67.43 57,000 195,190 - 64,860 17.34 - 64,860 - -74.28 -100.00 -66.77 95%

2.2.2 All MTSPBM trained 1,227,000 140,000 11.41 - 140,000 - - - -100.00 -100.00 0%

2.2.3 MTSPBM to be applied - - - - - 50%

2.2.4 Annexes to vol. II for EAs 687,000 167,700 24.41 61,000 60,000 46,700 58,000 8.44 - 58,000 - -65.41 -100.00 -3.33 -100.00 0%

2.2.5 Action plan on legal framework - 167,000 ∞ - 167,000 - 47,868 ∞ - 47,868 - -71.34 -71.34 100%

2.2.6 10 PER main dialogue meetings 1,900,000 125,000 6.58 125,000 - - -100.00 -100.00 70%

2.2.7 Budget committees training 1,609,000 20,000 1.24 20,000 - - - - -100.00 -100.00 50%

2.2.8 QA of qutr. budget reports 304,000 40,000 13.16 40,000 - - -100.00 -100.00 0%

2.2.9 Reallocation warrants published - - 100%

2.2.10 GoT approves actions - - 0%

2.3 LGAs MTEF preparation capacity 379,000 134,419 35.47 90,419 44,000 - 134,419 35.47 90,419 44,000 - 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.3.1 Guideline includes budget info 65,000 42,575 65.50 42,575 42,575 65.50 42,575 0.00 0.00 100%

2.3.2 LGA studies budget allocation 54,000 47,844 88.60 47,844 - 47,844 88.60 47,844 - 0.00 0.00 100%

2.3.3 Agree LGAs allocation formulae 58,000 - - - - - - 90%

2.3.4 All formulae reviewed 44,000 44,000 100.00 - 44,000 44,000 100.00 - 44,000 0.00 0.00 0%

2.3.5 Budget allocation formulae used 131,000 - - - - 0%

2.3.6 Monitor actual vs formula-based 27,000 - - - - 0%

2.4 Budget docs quality & public access 210,000 210,000 100.00 210,000 - - - - - - -100.00 -100.00

2.4.1 Public access fiscal information 122,000 122,000 100.00 122,000 - - -100.00 -100.00 100%

2.4.2. Plan for improving budget docs 72,000 72,000 100.00 72,000 - - -100.00 -100.00 0%

2.4.3 Changes in budget docs 16,000 16,000 100.00 16,000 - - -100.00 -100.00 0%


Complete







KRA 3 Budget Exec., Accountblity & Trnsp. 19,622,000 9,817,503 50.03 2,677,810 4,332,700 2,806,993 4,463,801 22.75 936,451 2,308,139 1,219,211 -54.53 -65.03 -46.73 -56.57

3.1 Improved public sector procurement 2,788,000 2,099,040 75.29 544,500 806,000 748,540 1,024,706 36.75 354,174 407,333 263,199 -51.18 -34.95 -49.46 -64.84

3.1.1 Action plan for PPA - - - - - 0%

3.1.2 New procurement regulations 174,000 - - - - 100%

3.1.3 Procurement TNA exercise 413,000 418,387 101.30 178,000 85,000 155,387 330,039 79.91 178,000 63,346 88,693 -21.12 0.00 -25.48 -42.92 100%

3.1.4 [300] procurement staff trained - - - - - 0%

3.1.5 PMU Strategy 73,000 73,000 100.00 73,000 - 64,525 88.39 64,525 - -11.61 -11.61 100%

3.1.6 Procurement staff database 258,000 276,312 107.10 25,500 141,500 109,312 215,682 83.60 3,176 141,500 71,006 -21.94 -87.55 0.00 -35.04 60%

3.1.7 National procurement policy draft - - - - - 95%

3.1.8 Stakeholders’ comments incorp. - - - - - 100%

3.1.9 PPPDs’ capacity enhanced 665,000 289,500 43.53 100,000 189,500 111,202 16.72 89,702 21,500 -61.59 -10.30 -88.65 75%

3.1.10 20 PPPD staff with skills - 145,000 ∞ - 145,000 141,487 ∞ - 141,487 -2.42 -2.42 70%

3.1.11 National procurement policy 446,000 317,500 71.19 64,000 253,500 18,771 4.21 18,771 - -94.09 -70.67 -100.00 95%

3.1.12 Nat. proc. policy strategy 327,000 330,000 100.92 104,000 181,000 45,000 61,000 18.65 - 61,000 - -81.52 -100.00 -66.30 -100.00 0%

3.1.13 Printing and NPP on the website - - - - - 0%

3.1.14 NPP and law synchronised 114,000 - - - - - - 0%

3.1.15 Monitoring NPP implementation - - - - - - - 0%

3.1.16 NPP implement eval. & feedback - - - - - 0%

3.1.17 1000 Stakeholders know NPP 318,000 87,841 27.62 - 87,841 - - - -100.00 -100.00 0%

3.1.18 Strategy on Stakeholders awareness 161,500 ∞ 161,500 82,000 ∞ 82,000 -49.23 -49.23 50%

3.2 Strengthened cash management 4,956,000 829,000 16.73 233,000 294,500 301,500 790,183 15.94 199,183 294,500 296,500 -4.68 -14.51 0.00 -1.66

3.2.1 600 cash management trained 4,956,000 829,000 16.73 233,000 294,500 301,500 790,183 15.94 199,183 294,500 296,500 -4.68 -14.51 0.00 -1.66 50%

3.2.2 6 bank ac/s for each LGA - - - - - 100%


3.3 Public debt management capacity 2,060,000 192,300 9.33 - - 192,300 - - - - -100.00 -100.00

3.3.1 Debt manage actions shared - - - - - 100%

3.3.2 Debt management policy 316,000 - - - - 100%

3.3.3 50 Public debt management staff - - - - - 0%

3.3.4 Review of GLG&G Act 254,000 - - - - 95%

3.3.5 Debt management department 1,490,000 81,800 5.49 - 81,800 - - - -100.00 -100.00 95%

3.3.6. Monitoring contingent liabilities - - - - - 0%

3.3.7. Monitoring of guarantees - 110,500 ∞ 110,500 - - -100.00 -100.00 0%



Complete







KRA 3 Budget Exec., Accountblity & Trnsp. 19,622,000 9,817,503 50.03 2,677,810 4,332,700 2,806,993 4,463,801 22.75 936,451 2,308,139 1,219,211 -54.53 -65.03 -46.73 -56.57

3.4 Improved government fin. statements 1,327,000 1,749,966 131.87 471,738 1,102,200 176,028 1,457,454 109.83 280,506 1,060,708 116,240 -16.72 -40.54 -3.76 -33.97

3.4.1 Review of the IPSAS guideline - - - - - 0%

3.4.2 Develop IPSAS accrual awareness 95,000 103,205 108.64 103,205 39,920 42.02 39,920 -61.32 -61.32 100%

3.4.3 Capacity building 250 staff - 153,000 ∞ 153,000 152,973 ∞ 152,973 -0.02 -0.02 100%

3.4.4 Review PF legislation for accrual 242,000 30,000 12.40 30,000 - - - - -100.00 -100.00 25%

3.4.5 Consolidated template of fin. stats. 138,000 29,000 21.01 29,000 - - - - -100.00 -100.00 100%

3.4.6 250 trained IPSAS&Epicor accrual 360,000 - - - - - 0%

3.4.7 Plan for migration to accrual 215,000 1,016,361 472.73 31,633 808,700 176,028 891,426 414.62 7,813 767,373 116,240 -12.29 -75.30 -5.11 -33.97 100%

3.4.8. Plan approved & shared 120,000 70,900 59.08 70,900 65,800 54.83 65,800 -7.19 -7.19 0%

3.4.9 Legal & policy supports decisions 157,000 54,000 34.39 54,000 14,000 8.92 14,000 -74.07 -74.07 0%

3.4.10 Milestones identified & approved - - - - - 0%

3.4.11 Consolidated accrual based ac/s 293,500 ∞ - 293,500 293,335 ∞ - 293,335 -0.06 -0.06 60%


3.5 Improved accounting of gov. assets 8,491,000 4,947,197 58.26 1,428,572 2,130,000 1,388,625 1,191,458 14.03 102,588 545,598 543,272 -75.92 -92.82 -74.39 -60.88

3.5.1 70 additional MDAs in EPICOR 89,000 236,000 265.17 66,000 170,000 - 58,292 65.50 58,292 - - -75.30 -11.68 -100.00 60%

3.5.2 Asset manage. software in use 1,412,000 552,000 39.09 122,000 430,000 - 1,946 0.14 - 1,946 - -99.65 -100.00 -99.55 100%

3.5.3 GAM capacity enhanced 484,000 431,530 89.16 130,000 120,000 181,530 164,296 33.95 44,296 120,000 - -61.93 -65.93 0.00 -100.00 100%

3.5.4. Asset manage. policy submitted 451,000 295,700 65.57 165,700 130,000 - 82,981 18.40 - 82,981 - -71.94 -100.00 -36.17 95%

3.5.5. Valuation 34 MDAs and RSs 6,055,000 3,431,967 56.68 944,872 1,280,000 1,207,095 883,943 14.60 - 340,671 543,272 -74.24 -100.00 -73.39 -54.99 100%


Complete







KRA 4 Budget Control and Oversight 70,002,717 32,418,879 46.31 12,833,807 14,010,758 5,574,314 23,801,549 34.00 11,273,984 9,495,429 3,032,136 -26.58 -12.15 -32.23 -45.61

4.1 Increased internal audit function 5,986,000 4,584,829 76.59 1,323,050 1,694,000 1,567,779 2,961,262 49.47 373,957 1,420,905 1,166,400 -35.41 -71.74 -16.12 -25.60

4.1.1 Operational plan approved - - - - - 100%

4.1.2. IA improvement prog. in place 1,447,000 369,000 25.50 369,000 174,427 12.05 174,427 -52.73 -52.73 100%

4.1.3 450 IAs trained on procedures 233,072 ∞ - 233,072 233,072 ∞ - 233,072 0.00 0.00 25%

4.1.4 IAUs in MDAs&LGAs assessment 1,723,000 225,000 13.06 - 225,000 - - - -100.00 -100.00 0%

4.1.5 IAUs and committees established 1,219,707 ∞ 153,800 773,000 292,907 1,066,214 ∞ 51,300 773,000 241,914 -12.58 -66.64 0.00 -17.41 25%

4.1.6. Pilot stage of computerised audit 1,018,000 402,000 39.49 319,000 83,000 85,327 8.38 33,000 52,327 -78.77 -89.66 -36.96 50%

4.1.7. Computerised audit in place - 260,000 ∞ - 260,000 - - - -100.00 -100.00 0%

4.1.8. 70 Proect tech. audits conducted 535,000 626,900 117.18 116,750 228,000 282,150 482,662 90.22 15,537 228,000 239,125 -23.01 -86.69 0.00 -15.25 70%

4.1.9 IA/CAG corrective measures status - - - - 25%

4.1.10 550 trained in risk based audit 1,263,000 1,249,150 98.90 364,500 433,000 451,650 919,560 72.81 99,693 419,905 399,962 -26.39 -72.65 -3.02 -11.44 100%

4.1.11 300 trained re fraud risk - - - - - - 30%

4.1.12 Study to assess the ICT needs - - - - - - 0%

4.2 Strengthened external audit function 50,641,000 13,928,556 27.50 7,185,333 5,560,845 1,182,378 12,564,274 24.81 7,185,333 4,626,375 752,566 -9.79 0.00 -16.80 -36.35

4.2.1 Report on legal changes submitted 497,000 189,000 38.03 150,000 39,000 189,000 38.03 150,000 39,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 100%

4.2.1a Enhance CAG independence 143,800 ∞ - 143,800 96,000 -100.00 -33.24 0%

4.2.2. 100% moved to NAO offices 44,713,000 10,039,375 22.45 5,700,000 4,334,375 5,000 10,038,575 22.45 5,700,000 4,334,375 4,200 -0.01 0.00 0.00 -16.00 85%

4.2.3 Train 300 risk based & 200 IT audit 900,000 595,760 66.20 306,190 289,570 306,190 34.02 306,190 - -48.61 0.00 -100.00 70%

4.2.4 2 VFM audit reports each year 161,000 106,828 66.35 29,939 76,889 29,939 18.60 29,939 - -71.97 0.00 -100.00 100%

4.2.5. Train 300 international standards 431,000 677,489 157.19 293,339 384,150 293,339 68.06 293,339 - -56.70 0.00 -100.00 50%

4.2.6 Parastatals audit modalities agreed 135,000 227,850 168.78 50,000 177,850 94,000 69.63 50,000 44,000 -58.74 0.00 -75.26 50%

4.2.7 Audit in line with ISSAIs guidelines 357,000 322,675 90.39 322,675 322,675 90.39 322,675 0.00 0.00 100%

4.2.8 Study re o/s matters database 150,000 254,500 169.67 150,000 104,500 254,500 169.67 150,000 104,500 0.00 0.00 0.00 100%

4.2.9 Establish a database 250,000 96,027 38.41 - 96,027 90,360 36.14 - 90,360 -5.90 -5.90 100%

4.2.10 300 trained on ACL 850,000 448,750 52.79 - 260,750 188,000 188,000 22.12 - - 188,000 -58.11 -100.00 0.00 70%

4.2.11 NAO HQ connected to 10 ROs 1,977,000 307,102 15.53 183,190 123,912 230,296 11.65 183,190 47,106 -25.01 0.00 -61.98 100%

4.2.12 2 of 5 Team Mate modules applied 220,000 519,400 236.09 - 148,500 370,900 431,400 196.09 - 148,500 282,900 -16.94 0.00 -23.73 60%

4.3 Better transparency on audit reports 668,000 496,025 74.26 204,190 220,835 71,000 494,725 74.06 204,190 220,835 69,700 -0.26 0.00 0.00 -1.83

4.3.1 Citizen audit reports available 668,000 496,025 74.26 204,190 220,835 71,000 494,725 74.06 204,190 220,835 69,700 -0.26 0.00 0.00 -1.83 100%


Complete







KRA 4 Budget Control and Oversight 70,002,717 32,418,879 46.31 12,833,807 14,010,758 5,574,314 23,801,549 34.00 11,273,984 9,495,429 3,032,136 -26.58 -12.15 -32.23 -45.61

4.4: Improved performance of parastatals 2,415,000 2,921,800 120.99 - 1,628,800 1,293,000 1,868,433 77.37 - 1,328,798 539,635 -36.05 -18.42 -58.26

4.4.1 10 sign performance contracts 575,000 355,000 61.74 - 120,000 235,000 338,384 58.85 - 107,584 230,800 -4.68 -10.35 -1.79 100%

4.4.2 Database on Parastatals set up - - - - - 60%

4.4.3 M&E for compliance rate set up - 292,000 ∞ - 51,000 241,000 54,329 ∞ - 47,782 6,547 -81.39 -6.31 -97.28 0%

4.4.4 New TR's Bill presented 230,000 677,500 294.57 - 300,500 377,000 267,579 116.34 - 267,579 - -60.50 -10.96 -100.00 95%

4.4.5 150 Parastatals’ acts reviewed 361,000 274,000 75.90 - 274,000 - - - -100.00 -100.00 0%

4.4.6 TR’s Office capacities enhanced 1,249,000 1,323,300 105.95 - 883,300 440,000 1,208,141 96.73 - 905,853 302,288 -8.70 2.55 -31.30 90%

4.5: Strengthened capacity of PAC 6,323,000 1,709,068 27.03 434,373 974,695 300,000 1,513,248 23.93 434,373 830,875 248,000 -11.46 0.00 -14.76 -17.33

4.5.1 Annual capacity building interventions 6,323,000 1,709,068 27.03 434,373 974,695 300,000 1,513,248 23.93 434,373 830,875 248,000 -11.46 0.00 -14.76 -17.33 50%

4.6 Better PE procurement performances 3,969,717 8,586,069 216.29 3,686,861 3,931,583 967,625 4,285,275 107.95 3,076,131 1,067,641 141,503 -50.09 -16.57 -72.84 -85.38

4.6.1 Annual PPRA audit results confirm 66,000 911,850 1381.59 66,200 779,750 65,900 428,911 649.87 66,200 362,711 - -52.96 0.00 -53.48 -100.00 100%

4.6.2 Implementation and monitoring tools 88,000 114,100 129.66 88,100 26,000 92,252 104.83 88,100 4,152 -19.15 0.00 -84.03 100%

4.6.3 New PPA regulations and tools 1,717 317,667 18501.28 78,800 129,992 108,875 209,838 12221.20 78,800 60,727 70,311 -33.94 0.00 -53.28 -35.42 100%

4.6.4 Procure. & strategic plans aligned - - - - - 25%

4.6.5 VFM thru framework contracts 566,000 455,900 80.55 55,900 400,000 261,752 46.25 55,900 205,852 -42.59 0.00 -48.54 50%

4.6.6 PPRA operational with outreach 2,112,000 4,124,583 195.29 1,819,091 1,887,992 417,500 2,101,385 99.50 1,819,091 216,254 66,040 -49.05 0.00 -88.55 -84.18 80%

4.6.7 All PEs have functional PMIS 1,136,000 1,243,105 109.43 644,020 594,835 4,250 248,784 21.90 33,290 214,494 1,000 -79.99 -94.83 -63.94 -76.47 90%

4.6.8 e-procurement at pilot stage - 345,100 ∞ - 345,100 - - - -100.00 -100.00 0%

4.6.9 Annual audits one-third of all PEs - 934,750 ∞ 934,750 - 934,750 ∞ 934,750 - 0.00 0.00 10%

4.6.10 Annual follow up audit 100 PEs - - - - - 75%

4.6.11 Annual Proc. Perf. Eval. Report - 139,014 ∞ - 139,014 7,603 ∞ - 7,603 -94.53 -94.53 100%

4.7. HCMIS in service delivery points - 192,532 ∞ - - 192,532 114,332 ∞ - - 114,332 -40.62 -40.62

4.7.1 User requirements for 160 SDPs 114,332 ∞ 114,332 114,332 ∞ 114,332 0.00 0.00 0%

4.7.2 HCMIS at 160 SDPs 78,200 ∞ 78,200 - - -100.00 -100.00 0%


Complete







KRA 5 Change Management and Programme Management63,128,000 15,453,484 24.48 5,491,949 7,777,865 3,778,670 10,038,348 15.90 3,816,350 5,587,307 634,691 -35.04 -30.51 -28.16 -83.20

5.1 Coordinate integration of fin. systems 3,839,000 3,800,972 99.01 556,467 2,108,270 1,136,235 1,687,228 43.95 474,273 1,082,739 130,216 -55.61 -14.77 -48.64 -88.54

5.1.1 ICT mapping exercise 312,000 210,686 67.53 210,686 130,698 41.89 130,698 -37.97 -37.97 100%

5.1.2 Stakeholder coordination meetings 168,000 64,000 38.10 4,000 60,000 54,788 32.61 3,959 50,829 -14.39 -1.03 -15.29 100%

5.1.3 Prioritized and costed action plan 1,104,000 917,000 83.06 5,000 912,000 248,475 22.51 2,835 245,640 -72.90 -43.30 -73.07 100%

5.1.4. Integration plan implemented 1,104,000 663,435 60.09 - 350,000 313,435 106,554 9.65 - - 106,554 -83.94 -100.00 -66.00 0%

5.1.5 IFMS in 35 LGAs, RSs and PMORALG 254,000 943,960 371.64 253,960 690,000 277,622 109.30 253,960 23,662 -70.59 0.00 -96.57 0%

5.1.6. EPICOR linked PMO-RALG IFMS - 132,800 ∞ - 132,800 - - - -100.00 -100.00 100%

5.1.7 Capacity building to new key users 84,000 542,741 646.12 82,821 459,920 542,741 646.12 82,821 459,920 0.00 0.00 0.00 0%

5.1.8. Audit of IFMIS in LGAs conducted 813,000 326,350 40.14 - 326,350 326,350 40.14 - 326,350 0.00 0.00 0%

5.2 EPICOR modules use increased 34,957,000 2,625,340 7.51 1,942,021 1,608,398 449,921 3,015,518 8.63 1,581,922 1,385,096 48,500 14.86 -18.54 -13.88 -89.22

5.2.1 EPICOR system upgrade 442,000 1,657,464 374.99 350,000 906,051 401,413 1,216,154 275.15 350,000 866,154 - -26.63 0.00 -4.40 -100.00 100%

5.2.2 ACGEN staff capacity enhanced 34,160,000 167,508 0.49 119,000 48,508 160,500 0.47 112,000 48,500 -4.18 -5.88 -0.02 100%

Office accommodation contructed all zones 1,375,000 - 1,023,116 1,023,116 -

5.2.3 Training on upgraded modules 355,000 800,368 225.46 98,021 702,347 615,748 173.45 96,806 518,942 -23.07 -1.24 -26.11 50%

5.3 Software & module upgrades coordinated 1,348,000 1,098,627 81.50 230,063 652,000 216,564 905,286 67.16 183,027 561,887 160,372 -17.60 -20.44 -13.82 -25.95

5.3.1 FISM is operationalized 81,000 313,000 386.42 81,000 232,000 - 280,417 346.19 48,417 232,000 - -10.41 -40.23 0.00 0%

5.3.2 FISM staff capacity enhanced 1,267,000 785,627 62.01 149,063 420,000 216,564 624,869 49.32 134,610 329,887 160,372 -20.46 -9.70 -21.46 -25.95 0%

5.4 Public access to fiscal information 317,000 731,300 230.69 170,500 388,400 172,400 538,925 170.01 154,500 321,951 62,474 -26.31 -9.38 -17.11 -63.76

5.4.1 Support Budget Division & PAD - 208,500 ∞ - 168,500 40,000 102,051 ∞ - 102,051 - -51.05 -39.44 -100.00 50%

5.4.2 MoF Communication Strategy 317,000 415,400 131.04 154,500 190,900 70,000 375,874 118.57 154,500 190,900 30,474 -9.52 0.00 0.00 -56.47 95%

5.4.3 Action plan for MoF website - 107,400 ∞ 16,000 29,000 62,400 61,000 ∞ - 29,000 32,000 -43.20 -100.00 0.00 -48.72 100%

5.5 Coordinate & Standardise PFM Training 516,000 747,500 144.86 110,500 347,000 290,000 222,100 43.04 72,100 150,000 - -70.29 -34.75 -56.77 -100.00

5.5.1 Training mapping exercise 112,000 107,000 95.54 107,000 72,100 64.38 72,100 -32.62 -32.62 100%

5.5.2 Capacity building plan 169,000 153,500 90.83 3,500 150,000 150,000 88.76 - 150,000 -2.28 -100.00 0.00 50%

5.5.3. Impact assessment PFM training 235,000 487,000 207.23 - 197,000 290,000 - - - - -100.00 -100.00 -100.00 0%

5.6 Comp'nt managers multi-year op. plans 266,000 205,000 77.07 61,000 95,500 48,500 156,500 58.83 61,000 95,500 - -23.66 0.00 0.00 -100.00

5.6.1. Annual activities in multi-year plan 266,000 205,000 77.07 61,000 95,500 48,500 156,500 58.83 61,000 95,500 - -23.66 0.00 0.00 -100.00 100%

5.7 Activities planned and implemented 2,490,000 1,184,218 47.56 432,518 371,700 380,000 803,273 32.26 431,573 371,700 - -32.17 -0.22 0.00 -100.00

5.7.1 Chnge mang. / strat. plan. training 2,288,000 702,072 30.68 230,372 371,700 100,000 602,072 26.31 230,372 371,700 - -14.24 0.00 0.00 -100.00 100%

5.7.2 Results based manag. training 202,000 482,146 238.69 202,146 - 280,000 201,201 99.60 201,201 - - -58.27 -0.47 -100.00 100%


Complete







KRA 5 Change Management and Programme Management63,128,000 15,453,484 24.48 5,491,949 7,777,865 3,778,670 10,038,348 15.90 3,816,350 5,587,307 634,691 -35.04 -30.51 -28.16 -83.20

5.8 Coordination of activities and support 4,470,000 1,271,878 28.45 614,380 651,448 226,050 1,135,057 25.39 380,222 551,448 203,387 -10.76 -38.11 -15.35 -10.03

5.8.1 Secretariat procurement process 852,000 120,000 14.08 120,000 102,832 12.07 102,832 -14.31 -14.31 100%

5.8.2 Secretariat work plan annually 18,000 - - - - 100%

5.8.3 Coord. secretariat facilitated annually 3,600,000 1,151,878 32.00 494,380 431,448 226,050 912,225 25.34 277,390 431,448 203,387 -20.81 -43.89 0.00 -10.03 50%

5.8.3 Coord. secretariat facilitated annually 220,000 120,000 ∞ 120,000 -45.45

5.9 Program with clearly defined milestones 75,000 210,000 280.00 50,000 130,000 30,000 139,902 186.54 - 130,000 9,902 -33.38 -100.00 0.00 -66.99

5.9.1. Annual revision of M&E framework 75,000 210,000 280.00 50,000 130,000 30,000 139,902 186.54 - 130,000 9,902 -33.38 -100.00 0.00 -66.99 100%

5.10 Reforms coordinated with stakeholders 596,000 658,693 110.52 224,000 358,693 76,000 163,696 27.47 59,073 86,623 18,000 -75.15 -73.63 -75.85 -76.32

5.10.1 PFM information session 130,000 130,000 100.00 130,000 - - -100.00 -100.00 0%

5.10.2 1 annual PFM reform info. day 466,000 528,693 113.45 94,000 358,693 76,000 163,696 35.13 59,073 86,623 18,000 -69.04 -37.16 -75.85 -76.32 0%

5.11: PFMRP result based management 4,000,000 1,070,600 26.77 346,500 471,100 253,000 772,275 19.31 299,335 471,100 1,840 -27.87 -13.61 0.00 -99.27

5.11.1 Annual work plan & milestones met 811,000 286,000 35.27 96,000 190,000 - 286,000 35.27 96,000 190,000 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0%

5.11.2 Annual supervision mission 2,258,000 206,000 9.12 74,000 91,000 41,000 166,840 7.39 74,000 91,000 1,840 -19.01 0.00 0.00 -95.51 60%

5.11.3 Independent prog. evaluations 245,000 ∞ 95,000 150,000 50,000 ∞ 50,000 - -79.59 -47.37 -100.00 100%

5.11.4 Dialogue structures working 931,000 333,600 35.83 81,500 190,100 62,000 269,435 28.94 79,335 190,100 - -19.23 -2.66 0.00 -100.00 30%

5.12 Intergovernmental transfers rationalized 254,000 349,356 137.54 254,000 95,356 - 164,456 64.75 111,000 53,456 - -52.93 -56.30 -43.94

5.12.1 TORs completed 30,000 30,000 100.00 30,000 30,000 100.00 30,000 0.00 0.00 100%

5.12.2 Mapping commences - - - - - 100%

5.12.3 Review initiated inception report 224,000 224,000 100.00 224,000 81,000 36.16 81,000 -63.84 -63.84 100%

5.12.4 Comprehensive action plan - 53,456 ∞ - 53,456 53,456 ∞ - 53,456 0.00 0.00 100%

5.12.5. Reports produced annually - 41,900 ∞ - 41,900 - - - - - -100.00 -100.00 0%

5.13 Improved PFM Reforms in Zanzibar 10,000,000 1,500,000 15.00 500,000 500,000 500,000 334,132 3.34 8,325 325,807 - -77.72 -98.34 -34.84 -100.00

5.13.1. DPs, ZNZ and MoF strategic plan 10,000,000 1,500,000 15.00 500,000 500,000 500,000 334,132 3.34 8,325 325,807 - -77.72 -98.34 -34.84 -100.00 0%


Complete







KRA 6 LGA Reform Sub Program 2,764,959 1,795,168 64.93 - 519,000 1,276,168 736,399 26.63 - 222,124 514,275 -58.98 -57.20 -59.70

6.3 LGA receive 40% and 90% of devt budget 357,956 275,057 76.84 - - 275,057 82,982 23.18 - - 82,982 -69.83 -69.83

6.3.1 Improve fiscal transfer mechanism 8,760 8,760 100.00 8,760 - - -100.00 -100.00 50%

Update strategic plans & aligned budgets 168,858 157,683 93.38 157,683 53,227 31.52 53,227 -66.24 -66.24

6.3.2 Monitor resource flows LGAs to LLGs 180,338 108,614 60.23 108,614 29,755 16.50 29,755 -72.60 -72.60 50%

6.4 Own Revenue Mobilizatin Doubled 176,567 42,965 24.33 - - 42,965 - - - - -100.00 -100.00

6.4.1 Tax payers database (I-Tax) 176,567 42,965 24.33 42,965 - - -100.00 -100.00 50%

6.5 PFM Capacity in RA strengthened 145,200 108,300 74.59 - - 108,300 78,300 53.93 - - 78,300 -27.70 -27.70

6.5.1 Regional PFM Champs created 145,200 108,300 74.59 108,300 78,300 53.93 78,300 -27.70 -27.70 100%

6.6 Budget Execution Improved by LGAs 844,376 688,760 81.57 - 519,000 169,760 316,816 37.52 - 222,124 94,692 -54.00 -57.20 -44.22

6.6.1. Financial management improved 619,176 463,560 74.87 293,800 169,760 94,692 15.29 - 94,692 -79.57 -100.00 -44.22 25%

6.6.1. Financial management improved 225,200 225,200 100.00 225,200 222,124 98.63 222,124 -1.37 -1.37

6.7 Improved Financial Reporting by LGAs 420,849 368,467 87.55 - - 368,467 98,514 23.41 - - 98,514 -73.26 -73.26

6.7.1 Utilization of IFMIS finan. Rep. improv 187,200 183,122 97.82 183,122 - - -100.00 -100.00 0%

6.7.1 Utilization of IFMIS finan. Rep. improv 130,197 108,153 83.07 108,153 71,017 54.55 71,017 -34.34 -34.34

6.7.2 Sumit annual finan. rep. to CAG Audit 103,452 77,192 74.62 77,192 27,497 26.58 27,497 -64.38 -64.38 100%

6.8 95% LGA get unqualified opinion from CAG 318,773 176,790 55.46 - - 176,790 97,079 30.45 - - 97,079 -45.09 -45.09

6.8.1 Imple. Of inter and exter. Audit recomm 318,773 176,790 55.46 176,790 97,079 30.45 97,079 -45.09 -45.09 95%

6.9 80% of LGAs meet IAGD st benchmarks - - - - - - - - -

6.9.1. - - -

6.10 Undertake fraud prevent. and anticorrup. measures146,573 67,829 46.28 - - 67,829 34,975 23.86 - - 34,975 -48.44 -48.44

6.10.1 Fraud prevention plan implemented 146,573 67,829 46.28 67,829 34,975 23.86 34,975 -48.44 -48.44 0%

6.11 Key Fiscal Information made public 156,505 67,000 42.81 - - 67,000 27,733 17.72 - - 27,733 -58.61 -58.61

6.11.1 Financial Transparency improved 156,505 67,000 42.81 67,000 27,733 17.72 27,733 -58.61 -58.61 0%

6.12 Local PEFA assessment undertaken 198,160 - - - - - - - -

6.12.1 Local PEFA assessment done - - - 95%

Submission of quartely IA Report 98,160 - - - -

LGA sensitized on new PPA 2013 100,000 - - - -


Complete



Appendix 10 – Finances for components by source

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i)

COMPONENT NAME %

SOURCE OF FUNDS

Release of

budget %

Expenditure

of budget %

Expenditure

of released

funds %

Budget Vs

Funds

Released

Budget

Vs

Expenditure

Funds

Released Vs

Expenditure

TOTAL FOR PROGRAM 128,067,753 72,732,259 45,476,446 56.79 35.51 62.53 -43.21 -64.49 -37.47

TOTAL GOT CONTRIBUTION 61,308,415 19,549,837 17,517,405 31.89 28.57 89.60 -68.11 -71.43 -10.40

TOTAL DP CONTIBUTION 66,759,338 53,182,422 27,959,041 79.66 41.88 52.57 -20.34 -58.12 -47.43

1 POLICY ANALYSIS DEPARTMENT 3,820,007 1,096,500 340,505 28.70 8.91 31.05 -71.30 -91.09 -68.95

GOT 800,000 305,700 204,614 38.21 25.58 66.93 -61.79 -74.42 -33.07

DP 3,020,007 790,800 135,891 26.19 4.50 17.18 -73.81 -95.50 -82.82

2 PMO- RALG 6,295,000 4,069,396 1,592,157 64.64 25.29 39.13 -35.36 -74.71 -60.87

GOT 300,000 - - -100.00 -100.00

DP 5,995,000 4,069,396 1,592,157 67.88 26.56 39.13 -32.12 -73.44 -60.87

3 EXTERNAL FINANCE 1,549,840 837,340 412,428 54.03 26.61 49.25 -45.97 -73.39 -50.75

GOT 700,000 12,500 12,500 1.79 1.79 100.00 -98.21 -98.21 0.00

DP 849,840 824,840 399,928 97.06 47.06 48.49 -2.94 -52.94 -51.51

4 MNRS 414,250 217,250 192,884 52.44 46.56 88.78 -47.56 -53.44 -11.22

GOT - - -

DP 414,250 217,250 192,884 52.44 46.56 88.78 -47.56 -53.44 -11.22

5 GOVERNMENT BUDGET DIVISION 5,832,070 2,065,940 403,228 35.42 6.91 19.52 -64.58 -93.09 -80.48

GOT 4,323,720 648,190 193,248 14.99 4.47 29.81 -85.01 -95.53 -70.19

DP 1,508,350 1,417,750 209,980 93.99 13.92 14.81 -6.01 -86.08 -85.19

6 ACC. GENERAL DEPARTMENT 18,534,587 8,328,632 6,579,098 44.94 35.50 78.99 -55.06 -64.50 -21.01

GOT 8,700,000 1,375,000 1,023,116 15.80 11.76 74.41 -84.20 -88.24 -25.59

DP 9,834,587 6,953,632 5,555,982 70.71 56.49 79.90 -29.29 -43.51 -20.10

7 PPPD 6,023,908 5,241,402 3,746,666 87.01 62.20 71.48 -12.99 -37.80 -28.52

GOT 600,000 80,000 50,000 13.33 8.33 62.50 -86.67 -91.67 -37.50

DP 5,423,908 5,161,402 3,696,666 95.16 68.16 71.62 -4.84 -31.84 -28.38

8 GAM 6,473,042 4,947,197 1,653,790 76.43 25.55 33.43 -23.57 -74.45 -66.57

GOT 1,232,970 170,000 164,296 13.79 13.33 96.64 -86.21 -86.67 -3.36

DP 5,240,072 4,777,197 1,489,494 91.17 28.43 31.18 -8.83 -71.57 -68.82

9 INTERNAL AUDITOR GENERAL

DIVISION 7,007,826 4,584,829 2,961,263 65.42 42.26 64.59 -34.58 -57.74 -35.41

GOT 1,913,530 105,000 105,000 5.49 5.49 100.00 -94.51 0.00

DP 5,094,296 4,479,829 2,856,263 87.94 56.07 63.76 -12.06 -43.93 -36.24

10 NATIONAL AUDIT 40,707,623 21,128,650 18,768,048 51.90 46.10 88.83 -48.10 -53.90 -11.17

GOT 33,670,000 15,034,375 14,234,375 44.65 42.28 94.68 -55.35 -57.72 -5.32

DP 7,037,623 6,094,275 4,533,673 86.60 64.42 74.39 -13.40 -35.58 -25.61

11 PPRA 8,575,208 5,480,708 1,424,728 63.91 16.61 26.00 -36.09 -83.39 -74.00

GOT 1,962,500 260,000 34,785 13.25 1.77 13.38 -86.75 -98.23 -86.62

DP 6,612,708 5,220,708 1,389,943 78.95 21.02 26.62 -21.05 -78.98 -73.38

12 TREASURY REGISTRAR 3,714,600 2,964,600 1,857,373 79.81 50.00 62.65 -20.19 -50.00 -37.35

GOT 1,020,000 270,000 268,593 26.47 26.33 99.48 -73.53 -73.67 -0.52

DP 2,694,600 2,694,600 1,588,780 100.00 58.96 58.96 0.00 -41.04 -41.04

13 PO PSM 500,000 192,532 114,332 38.51 22.87 59.38 -61.49 -77.13 -40.62

GOT - - -

DP 500,000 192,532 114,332 38.51 22.87 59.38 -61.49 -77.13 -40.62

14 FINANCIAL INFORMATION

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 5,437,000 2,953,750 1,445,805 54.33 26.59 48.95 -45.67 -73.41 -51.05

GOT 2,050,000 436,750 414,461 21.30 20.22 94.90 -78.70 -79.78 -5.10

DP 3,387,000 2,517,000 1,031,344 74.31 30.45 40.98 -25.69 -69.55 -59.02

15 ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT 1,007,500 747,500 222,100 74.19 22.04 29.71 -25.81 -77.96 -70.29

GOT 403,500 143,500 140,000 35.56 34.70 97.56 -64.44 -65.30 -2.44

DP 604,000 604,000 82,100 100.00 13.59 13.59 0.00 -86.41 -86.41

16 GCU 2,173,800 1,001,300 591,059 46.06 27.19 59.03 -53.94 -72.81 -40.97

GOT 1,114,400 153,400 153,303 13.77 13.76 99.94 -86.23 -86.24 -0.06

DP 1,059,400 847,900 437,756 80.04 41.32 51.63 -19.96 -58.68 -48.37

17 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6,965,492 4,637,528 2,552,663 66.58 36.65 55.04 -33.42 -63.35 -44.96

GOT 2,517,795 555,422 519,114 22.06 20.62 93.46 -77.94 -79.38 -6.54

DP 4,447,697 4,082,106 2,033,549 91.78 45.72 49.82 -8.22 -54.28 -50.18

18 ZANZIBAR 2,000,000 1,500,000 334,132 75.00 16.71 22.28 -25.00 -83.29 -77.72

GOT - - -

DP 2,000,000 1,500,000 334,132 75.00 16.71 22.28 -25.00 -83.29 -77.72

19 10 RASs 1,536,000 929,737 398,519 60.53 25.95 42.86 -39.47 -74.05 -57.14

GOT - - -

DP 1,536,000 929,737 398,519 60.53 25.95 42.86 -39.47 -74.05 -57.14

% VarianceBudgets

(TZS 000's)

2012-to date

Fund Released

(TZS 000's)

2012-to date

Expenditure

(TZS 000's)

2012-to date



Appendix 11– Risk analysis

Description of risk

Risk to KRA

achievement

[High, Moderate,

Low]

Management strategy

1. Initiatives that encompass more than one PFM cycle can lead to unnecessary delays and management confusion.

Moderate Initiatives should be separately identified,

monitored and managed for separate PFM

processes and cycles i.e. GoT, LGA and Zanzibar

should be clearly separate from each other.

2. Scope becomes too wide to ensure that priority initiatives are completed.

High Care in the choice of initiatives so that the width,

complexity and ambition of the programme is

managed to ensure sufficient attention is given to

the priority initiatives that address the core PFM

processes.

3. It is not possible to measure the impact of initiatives without initial benchmark measurements.

Moderate To facilitate the measurement of the impact of

initiatives, especially training, benchmark

measurements should be undertaken prior to and

at some time post the initiative being undertaken.

The first part of any future reform programme must

be measurement of a set of carefully considered

and comprehensive benchmarks.

4. Where KRAs do not correspond clearly with the PFM cycle there is potential for lack of ownership by component managers and possible duplication of effort.

Moderate The KRAs should correspond closely with the PFM

cycle. Initiatives should be organised to address,

reform and improve discrete parts of the cycle.

This ensures ownership by component managers

and tends to eliminate duplication. In the report

we identify a potential set of key result areas that

could implement this recommendation.

5. Where initiatives are not designed to achieve sustainable reform, resources are wasted.

High Outputs, milestones and associated initiatives

should be designed to create sustainable reform

and not to simply fund recurrent expenditure. To

become a true reform programme the steps taken

within the reform should include the

implementation of strategies to make activities

sustainable within the programme’s lifetime.

6. Less than optimal output is achieved when linkages, and critical paths are not identified.

Moderate Linkages and dependencies between milestones

are established to ensure that the critical paths for

the reform can be more easily identified. This

ensures that these critical milestones are properly

identified and hence appropriately managed.

7. Initiatives can be overlooked when priorities

Moderate Output and milestone priorities should be

identified. This is an important part of stakeholder



Description of risk

Risk to KRA

achievement

[High, Moderate,

Low]

Management strategy

are not identified. expectation management and assists in mitigating

funding risk. It is understandable and acceptable

to focus on improving PEFA scores but the focus

should always be on core PFM improvement. This

benefits the whole of GoT.

8. Full value for money may not be achieved.

Low The PFMRP should undertake a general review of

all milestones and activities and eliminate those

where the need and achievement of value for

money is less certain. This will complement other

risk management strategies in 6and 7.

9. Uncertainty that a milestone is achieving a desirable impact.

High Milestones should ideally relate to measurable

outputs. Where they do not, a related output

milestone should be established. Failure to

identify measurable outputs and outcomes makes

it difficult to be assured of impact.

10. Investment activity distorts the true value of reform inputs.

High Choosing to fund capital asset acquisition, such as

acquiring or erecting a building, is incompatible

with a reform programme. As an investment

activity the acquisition of a capital asset should not

be considered a reforming activity.

11. The value of the whole programme is compromised by the failure to address critical weaknesses in PFM.

High The programme should pay particular attention to

areas identified by PEFA as being critical areas of

poor PFM performance. Attention to effectiveness

of non-salary expenditure internal controls and

timeliness and regularity of accounts reconciliation

are currently inadequately addressed.

12. The current initiatives in respect of the transition from cash to accrual accounting compromise the integrity of the PFM cycle and do not achieve their full potential as an agent for positive change.

High The PFMRP should include initiatives to look at

ways to include all aspects of the PFM cycle in the

transition from cash to accrual so that the benefits

of this transition can improve the whole cycle. The

purpose is to transform the other processes within

the PFM cycle to secure the real benefits to

resource utilisation that the transition from cash

based to accrual based financial management

should generate. Accounting for execution must be

compatible with budgeting in order to facilitate

effective subsequent review and oversight and

optimise resource allocation and budgetary

control. The transition from cash to accrual should

be undertaken to establish a clearer understanding

of the financial position so that real costs can be



Description of risk

Risk to KRA

achievement

[High, Moderate,

Low]

Management strategy

determined for the optimal allocation of resources

and so that expenditure and income is recognised

at the time that goods or services are received or

delivered. This means that current assets and

current liabilities are fully and promptly identified

ensuring that payment arrears and revenue/tax

collection arrears are known and controlled.

13. Accountability and transparency in PFM is compromised if the financial statements required by the legislature are not being produced effectively.

High The PFMRP should include an initiative that looks

at the statutory financial statements, their purpose,

their need and how they should be produced.

Since the Government of Tanzania intends to be a

regional leader in the adoption of accrual based

accounting it must include in the reform

programme the necessary legislative review that

ensures that the positions of the various funds and

controlled entities of the various levels of

government can be appropriately consolidated to

both produce meaningful reports to the legislature,

shareholders and public whilst at the same time

meeting international accounting and reporting

standards.

14. Accountability and transparency in PFM is reduced if the Accountant General’s position as GoT’s accountant is compromised.

High The PFMRP should introduce an initiative that

strengthens and clarifies the Accountant General’s

position as GoT’s accountant. In particular this

should address contradictions with the role of the

Commissioner for Budget. It should re-establish

the Accountant General as the author of reliable,

quality budget execution financial data.

15. Accountability and transparency in PFM is reduced if the Controller and Auditor General’s position as an independent fully functional supreme audit institution is compromised.

High PFMRP should include an initiative that addresses

the depreciation of the independence of the

Controller and Auditor General and National Audit

Office of Tanzania as a result of the recent

changes in budget scrutiny and approval

processes.

16. If not clearly led at an appropriate level the PFMRP will not fully achieve its potential.

Moderate The DPS PFM should take a more active and

prominent role in overall PFMRP management and

guidance. Any overlaps and confusions with the

role of the DPS Treasury should be eliminated.

The DPS PFM should take on a pro-active role in

ensuring that the reform programme is not



Description of risk

Risk to KRA

achievement

[High, Moderate,

Low]

Management strategy

undertaking activity that results in inconsistency

with good PFM practice.

17. The lack of immediate expert PFM advice leads to wasted resources through the production of inappropriate outputs.

Moderate There is a need for a capable PFM Adviser to

ensure reform opportunities are not being missed

through the lack of an immediate overall PFM

view.

18. Insufficient quality review leads to promoting activity that is inconsistent with good practice.

Moderate The JSC should meet every three months and

take a much more active role in the quality review

of reform programme outputs to ensure that the

reform programme is not promoting activity that is

inconsistent with good practice.

19. The lack of clear ownership of milestones by component managers leads to initiatives not proceeding as planned.

Moderate There should be a very clear ownership of each

milestone by a component manager. That

ownership should be recorded in the M&E

Framework document.

20. PFMRP Secretariat staff resource is wasted through inadequate planning and utilisation.

Low The PFMRP Secretariat staff should prepare

individual detailed time-bound work plans against

which they themselves, the Programme Manager

and the DPS PFM can measure achievement.

21. Programme management is compromised by the failure to have critical information readily available.

Moderate The PFMRP Secretariat should keep and have

available, files of meeting papers, minutes,

resolutions and the like for all JSC, PMC and TWG

meetings. The secretariat should also retain

copies of all component managers detailed and

costed work plans for the achievement of each of

their milestones. These documents are essential

to enable the secretariat to advise the Programme

Manager and the DPS PFM on the detailed

progress of the implementation of the reforms.

22. The PFMRP is not appropriately managed through the PFMRP Secretariat not being given the appropriate role.

Moderate The PFMRP Secretariat should have a pro-active

role in supporting programme management’s

immediate management and coordination needs

for the reform programme. This should include the

DPS PFM ensuring that the secretariat’s finance

specialist has access to up to date data from the

IFMIS on the financial performance of the

component managers’ use of funds.

23. Failure to distinguish between recurrent and development expenditure in

High There are mechanisms that can be employed that

will allow warrants not to lapse at financial year-

end or some other carry-over arrangements can



Description of risk

Risk to KRA

achievement

[High, Moderate,

Low]

Management strategy

GoT procedures and regulations reduces the ability to fully utilise development funding.

be made that allow development funding not to be

lost at the end of a financial year. The DPS PFM

as part of PFMRP IV should supervise an initiative

that looks into and identifies a solution to this

problem.

24. Failure to include all development partner funding in the programme leads to duplication of effort and/or difficulties in accounting for funds utilisation and associated impact.

Low All development partners be encouraged to

become part of the PFMRP, and preferably basket

fund participants, provided of course that the

initiatives being supported are appropriately

relevant.

25. Inconsistent use of the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework leads to outputs and milestones being missed or duplicated.

Low The M&E framework to be consistently prepared

and utilised constantly throughout the

implementation of PFMRP IV. It should appear in

its entirety in each progress and supervision

report. The component manager, linkages and

interdependencies, and level of priority

information should be added.

26. Inaccurate milestone progress descriptions lead to an inappropriate assessment of the status of the programme’s completion.

Low More careful use of the term “on track” in

progress and supervision mission reporting. In

both the progress reports and the annual joint

supervision reports there are many milestones

that are described as “on track” when the

activities under the milestone have not even

started. These superfluous assertions tend to

skew the overall assessment of the progress of

the programme with a large number of “on track”

milestones that simply are not.

27. The reform programme’s deviation from planned progress is not noticed promptly.

Low Progress reports to be prepared on a quarterly

basis.

28. Insufficient stakeholder management leads to failures in reform programme progress and impact.

High Stakeholders not only need to be kept informed,

they also need to be actively engaged and

managed. A pro-active stakeholder management

strategy should be adopted by the programme

management and be facilitated by the PFMRP

Secretariat.