Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Zimbabwe Analytical Multi Donor Trust Fund
TF070941
Mid Term Review
Assessment and Recommendations
June 2010
2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................4
1: Background ........................................................................................................................................7
1.1 Objectives and Scope of the A-MDTF................................................................................... 7
1.2 Governance Structure and Design ....................................................................................... 9
1.3 Financial Management ..................................................................................................... 11
2: A- MDTF Delivery ............................................................................................................................... 12
2.1: Implementation and Outputs ............................................................................................ 12
2.2: Technical Review Groups .................................................................................................. 14
2.3 Product quality monitoring ............................................................................................... 19
2.4 Dissemination and Communication .................................................................................. 200
2.5 Procurement and Financial Management ......................................................................... 211
3: Assessment ..................................................................................................................................... 24
3.1 Relevance of Objectives .................................................................................................... 24
3.2 Risk Management ............................................................................................................. 24
3.3 Progress and Impact to date ............................................................................................. 26
3.4 Design, Governance and Implementation Arrangements ................................................... 30
3.5 Key Lessons Learnt ........................................................................................................... 33
3.6 Key Challenges ................................................................................................................. 34
4: Future Direction and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 35
4.1 Current Country Context ................................................................................................... 35
4.2 Implications for the A-MDTF ............................................................................................. 36
4.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 37
5: Annexes ........................................................................................................................... 46
Annex 1: Structure of the A-MDTF ..................................................................................................... 46
Annex 2: Financial Tables .................................................................................................................. 47
Annex 3: TRG Activities ....................................................................................................................... 49
Annex 5: Diagram of proposed new Governance Structure for A-MDTF ........................................... 62
Annex 6: List of people interviewed ................................................................................................... 63
List of Acronyms
3
AA Administrative Agreement/ Arrangement
A-MDTF Analytical Multi Donor Trust Fund
ASTRG Agrarian Sector Technical Review Group
ETRG Economic Technical Review Group
GACTRG Governance and Anticorruption Technical Review Group
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GFR Grant Funding Request
GoZ Government of Zimbabwe
GPA Global Political Agreement
HRBSTRG Human Resources Basic Technical Review Group
HRM Human Resources Management
IBTF Initiating Brief for a Trust Fund
IOM International Union for Migration
ISN Interim Strategy Note
ITRG Infrastructure Technical Review Group
LICUS Low Income Country Under Stress
MoF Ministry of Finance
MoEPIP Ministry of Economic Planning and Investment Programmes
MoWRDM Ministry of Water Resources Development and Management
MIMS Multiple Indicator Monitoring Survey
MTR Mid Term Review
NGO Non Governmental Organisation
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
OG Operational Guidelines
PC Policy Committee
PEFA Public Expenditure and Financial Assessment
PFMS Public Financial Management System
P-MDTF Programmatic Multi-Donor Trust Fund
PMO Prime Minister‟s Office
PSD Private Sector Development
PSM Public Sector Management
RR Retrospective Review
SDR Special Drawing Rights
SPTRG Social Protection Technical Review Group
STERP Short Term Economic Recovery Programme
TA Technical Assistance
TAG Technical Advisory Group
TOR Terms of Reference
TRG Technical Review Group
TTL Task Team Leader
ZERP Zimbabwe Economic Recovery Programme
4
Executive Summary
The Word Bank, as Administrator, conducted a Mid-Term Review (MTR) of the analytical
Zimbabwe Multi-Donor Trust Fund (A-MDTF) in the final quarter of FY2010. The main
mission took place from April 26 to May 4 2010. The mission team comprised of Reinhard
Woytek, Senior Operations Officer, Manager A-MDTF and Task Team Leader (TTL); Jayasankar
Shivakumar, Lead Consultant; Lucy Gordon, Senior Analyst and Lead Author; Samuel Taffesse,
Operations Officer; Simon Chenjerani Chirwa, Senior Procurement Specialist and Priscilla
Mutikani, Programme Assistant. Development partners provided two consultants as members of the
mission, Riselia Bezerra (Scanconsult), provided by AUSAid and Daniel Ndlela, Economist,
provided by Finnida.
The objectives of the mission were:
to review progress towards delivering the A-MDTF objectives against the Interim Strategy
Note (ISN), and the MDTF Objectives (as described in the Operational Guidelines (OG)) and
the Initiating Brief for a Trust Fund (IBTF).
to review the objectives and priorities against the changed national and international
environment.
to review the effectiveness of the A-MDTF and to propose options for a way forward with
regard to objectives, deliverables, administrative arrangements, cooperation with donors and
government.
to make recommendations for a way forward with regard to objectives, deliverables,
administrative arrangements, cooperation with donors and government.
The team wishes to thank all Government officials, especially the representatives of the Prime
Minister‟s Office, the Deputy Prime Ministers‟ Office, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of
Economic Planning and Investment Promotion for their support and candid comments on the
MDTF. The team also extends its appreciation to representatives of all contributing donor agencies
for their constructive discussions regarding past performance and the future of the MDTF. Members
of the Technical Review Groups (TRG), from bilateral and multilateral agencies, also made valuable
contributions. The team extends its gratitude to members of the World Bank country office who
supported the mission through guidance, advice and logistics. The team is especially grateful to
AUSAid and Finnida for providing two consultants to the team. A list of representatives interviewed
as part of the review is at Annex 6.
The MTR rated the A-MDTF as moderately unsatisfactory at contributing to analytical work
on the key development challenges facing Zimbabwe. It has supported increased knowledge and
analysis as a result of completion of thirteen studies. Current uptake of information from studies is
by and large amongst members of the Policy Committee. More needs to be done to disseminate
knowledge amongst the Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ), civil society, private sector and non-
5
traditional donors. Studies have provided a route for policy dialogues. Workshops, Cabinet retreats
and engagement with Government processes have been valuable. The moderately unsatisfactory
rating is justified because: (i) some of the studies conducted were not the most conducive for
preparing the donors for engagement; (ii) two TRGs have yet to deliver any A-MDTF funded
analytical studies; (iii) quality assurance systems are not fully in place; and (iv) dissemination
efforts were inadequate.
The MTR rated the A-MDTF unsatisfactory at developing suitable instruments that can
enable Government and donors to respond quickly to changes in conditions for re-
engagement. The Programmatic-Multi Donor Trust Fund (P-MDTF) was designed and approved
but has not been made operational because of incompatibility between contributing donors‟
requirements regarding the application of their “restrictive measures” and The World Bank‟s
procurement principles. The World Bank has now agreed to support the AfDB in the administration
of their P-MDTF. No pilots have been delivered under the A-MDTF and the provision of Technical
Assistance (TA) has been very limited. An unsatisfactory rating is justified because: (i) efforts to
develop instruments (e.g. the Public Financial Management System (PFMS)) to underpin
resumption of financial engagement by donors have begun only recently and/or are not yet
complete; (ii) the failure to provide significant TA to assist Ministries in their recovery efforts; (iii)
the failure to develop pilots, and (iv) the failure to make the P-MDTF operational.
The MTR rated the A-MDTF as satisfactory at improved donor coordination. The A-MDTF
plays a central role in providing a form for donor coordination at a strategic policy level and for
information sharing. A satisfactory rating is justified because (i) the A-MDTF as a bilateral/World
Bank donor coordination mechanism has proved successful at convening donors around issues of
policy and areas of technical work; (ii) the A-MDTF fostered interaction with Government and the
formal aid coordination structures; (iii) the success is balanced by the burdensome mechanisms and
collective engagement in detail that has evolved in order to make donor coordination happen,
although much of this was outside the control of the A-MDTF.
The MTR found that while the A-MDTF remains a valid and relevant instrument within the
current Zimbabwean context, a number of changes should be made improve its efficiency and
impact. The report makes eleven specific recommendations. These are summarised as follows:
The scope and range of activities of the A-MDTF need to be sharpened to increase quality
and relevance of A-MDTF outputs and in turn its effectiveness and impact.
The A-MDTF should focus on five clearly defined: (i) analytical studies; (ii) data and
information management systems; (iii) knowledge exchanges (e.g. workshops, conferences
and field visits); (iv) technical assistance and expert placements and (v) pilots.
6
The primary focus of analytical work should be (i) economic analysis, including private
sector development (PSD), public sector management (PSM), public financial management
(PFM) and governance, (ii) infrastructure; and (iii) agrarian issues.
The governance structure of the A-MDTF should be reconfigured in order to be more
effective and efficient. It should also be better aligned with that of AFDB‟s P-MDTF when
it is created.
The revised roles and functions of the PC, TRG and Secretariat should be clearly defined.
World Bank support to the A-MDTF needs to be enhanced and empowered to ensure that it
manages the trust fund efficiently and delivers greater impact. The Operational Guidelines
(OG) and Administrative Agreements/Arrangements (AA) will need to be revisited to allow
for cost recovery of World Bank staff time.
Financial management and progress reporting processes need to be streamlined to provide
clearer and consistent information.
Procurement, while fairly responsive, can be improved. This should include reviewing the
OG and AAs to allow for small scale procurement.
TA and expert placements should be a core activity for the A-MDTF and need to be pushed
forward more aggressively.
All work under the A-MDTF needs to be linked to future investments, policy reform or other
transformational processes in support of preparation for future action.
The A-MDTF needs to revise and ramp up its external communication strategy in order to
improve policy uptake and dialogue.
7
1: Background
The A-MDTF was approved as a multi-donor instrument for engagement in Zimbabwe in
February 2008, when Zimbabwe was in a deep crisis and the future was clouded with
uncertainty. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) had shrunk by over a third over the preceding eight
years. This had been caused by poor economic management, drought and a decline in direct foreign
investment. Fiscal and monitory management was weak, with an official year-on-year inflation rate
of seven thousand six hundred and thirty five percent in July 2007. The Zimbabwe dollar was
losing value rapidly with an ever widening gap between the inter-bank and parallel market rates.
Zimbabwe‟s external debt had reached an unsustainable level with mounting arrears. Economic
decline had been accelerated by price, trade and currency controls, and the transfer of much
commercial agricultural land to inexperienced farmers. As controls eventually forced many prices
below the cost of production, extreme shortages of goods emerged, which also led to a large drop in
VAT collections.
1.1 Objectives and Scope of the A-MDTF
The A-MDTF was developed within the framework of the World Bank’s second Interim
Strategy Note (ISN II), which ran from July 2007 to June 20091. The overarching aim of the
ISN II is to strengthen Bank operational readiness to re-engage quickly in Zimbabwe when
conditions warrant. Key outcomes for ISN II are: enhanced country knowledge, improved capacity
and increased harmonisation with donors. The main activities were divided between analytical work
and limited direct support. The A-MDTF was designed as a mechanism to pool direct contributions
from partners to support the ISN‟s goals, with the aim also of helping to coordinate partners‟
development support. It was also intended that the A-MDTF would be expanded to be a vehicle for
subsequent programmatic support through a Programmatic Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P-MDTF),
when conditions warranted.
Zimbabwe was a pilot country for the OECD “Principles for International Engagement in
Fragile States” led by the European Commission in Zimbabwe. These principles were designed
to maximise the positive impact of engagement and minimize unintentional harm. Of the twelve
principles, donors in Zimbabwe agreed to focus on the following five:
take context as the starting point;
move from reaction to prevention;
focus on institutional development of state institutions as the central objective;
align with local priorities and/or systems; and,
agree on practical co-ordination mechanisms between international actors.
1 ISN II was due to be completed in June 2009. Given the that full re-engagemnt has been delayed, the ISN has continued to guide
Bank activities through 2010.
8
The A-MDTF was based on clearly articulated objectives. It was designed “to contribute to
analytical work on the key development challenges facing Zimbabwe within the context and
objectives of the ISN, and to develop, including through pilot activities, suitable instruments that can
enable Government and donors to respond quickly to changes in conditions for re-engagement.
Improved donor coordination is an expected benefit from the activities and synergies supported
under the MDTF.”
The A-MDTF was expected to facilitate dialogue with the GoZ and other stakeholders. Such a
dialogue was expected to:
make it possible for development partners to identify levels of resources that could go into
high-priority areas and facilitate quick recovery, once normal engagement with government
resumes; and,
inform the design of a Programmatic Multi-Donor Trust Fund for facilitating such quick re-
engagement between Zimbabwe and the international community around a sound economic
recovery programme.
Reaching agreement on the scope on A-MDTF activities was not easy. At the outset of the A-
MDTF the relationship between the GoZ with the traditional donors was strained. Support from
donors at the time was mostly limited to food aid and HIV/AIDS related activities implemented
through Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs). Analysis was undertaken where donors showed
interest in the thematic outcomes and areas of the ISN, as shown in the chart below.
Table 1. ISN Thematic Outcomes and Areas, with Interest Shown by Development Partners
Thematic
Outcome
Thematic Area Initial List of Development Partners Interested to
Collaborate in Thematic Areas
Enhanced Country
Knowledge
Economic analysis IMF, DFID, UNDP, SIDA, South Africa, CIDA,
USAID, EC
Economic re-generation (sector-
specific studies)
China, India, France, FAO, UNIDO, Japan,
Australia, USAID
Improved Capacity
and
Accountability
Health services capacity and
accountability (as part of Human
Development concerns)
DFID, EC, UNDP, Global Fund, Netherlands,
France, UNAIDS, USAID, IOM, UNICEF, Canada,
Sweden, Japan, World Bank, Belgium
Capacity building in budgeting World Bank, The Netherlands
Enhanced Donor
Harmonization
Multi-donor trust fund to support
ISN FY08-09 activities and develop
mechanisms to support quick re-
engagement.
All
The priorities for A-MDTF activities were identified. These were as follows: a) economic
analysis; b) private sector development; c) agrarian issues; d) social protection; e) infrastructure
rehabilitation; f) human resources/ basic services delivery; g) governance and anti-corruption. It is
stated in the OG that the A-MDTF Policy Committee (PC) may at any time adjust these priorities to
requirements within the ISN objectives and themes.
9
1.2 Governance Structure and Design
The Governance structure is set out in the Operational Guidelines (OG) which were finalised
in July 2008. To ensure transparency, accountability and relevance of the proposals and selection
process, the Development Partners agreed that the MDTF would be governed by a Policy
Committee (PC), a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) and Technical Review Groups (TRGs). A
diagram outlining the structure and relationship between the components can be found at Annex 1.
The Key Governance Components of the MDTF as set out in the OG are as follows:
The Policy Committee (PC) consists of Heads of Agencies who have contributed funds to the
A-MDTF. A representative of a contributing Development Partner co-chairs the meeting on a six
monthly rotational basis, alongside the Bank. The UN and African Development Bank (AfDB) are
also invited. The PC provides strategic direction and facilitates the programme and is the main
forum for the development partners. The PC determines priority areas for financing as well as
receives progress reports on A-MDTF activities, which guide the work of the Technical Review
Groups and the Technical Advisory Group. The PC has the prerogative to approve applications that
are outside the six thematic areas, but within the ISN II objectives and themes. The World Bank
provides the Secretariat to the committee. The committee should meet on at least a quarterly basis
and receive reports on resource utilization and activities supported by the A-MDTF.
The Technical Advisory Group (TAG), which serves as the link between the PC and the TRGs
consists of two permanent representatives from each TRG. For meetings an additional member
can be selected depending on the subject of discussion. Development partners currently not
represented in any of the TRGs may participate and other contributing members may decide to send
an observer. UNDP is also invited. The TAG is co-chaired by the Manager of the A-MDTF and
one of the TRG representatives who rotates on a six monthly basis. The TAG represents the TRG
and supports the PC to carry out its oversight role. Specific tasks are to:
ensure that activities proposed by the TRGs are consistent with the A-MDTF guidelines and
its objectives and priorities;
review and endorse proposals for funding submitted by the TRGs;
coordinate work of TRGs to avoid overlaps and gaps and advise on cross-cutting issues such
as gender, social inclusion, rights etc;
lead the development of instruments for re-engagement (P-MDTF, transitional framework
for re-engagement);
provide a quality assurance role by ensuring that good development principles (such as
sustainability, poverty orientation etc.) are being adhered to in the A-MDTF implementation;
10
in exceptional cases, where proposals do not meet agreed priorities2 to be addressed by TRG,
they should be forwarded to PC for decision making.
The Technical Review Groups (TRGs) consist of experts in six thematic groups3, initially
drawn from donors, but eventually also to draw on Government, NGOs, and the private
sector. Each TRG would have at least one World Bank staff as a member, to ensure that
approved proposals can be processed expeditiously. The TRG appraises proposals against
criteria to be defined by the TRG (within the strategic context of the MDTF), advise applicants
on their submissions and recommend a decision, guide implementation and interlocution with
stakeholders. The Policy Committee may decide to call for other TRGs to be formed as the need
arises. Specific tasks of the TRG include to:
initiate and oversee the creation and generation of enhanced country knowledge within the
priorities of the ISN and the A-MDTF;
review proposals4 and ensure that appropriate analyses, studies, or pilots are being
undertaken.
advise on the selection of appropriate consultants;
guide the implementation and conduct the interlocution with stakeholders;
advise on the production of policy notes; and,
for dialogue purposes, each TRG will establish “mirror” groups within the appropriate
structures of the Government of Zimbabwe to the extent feasible.
The A-MDTF Secretariat is appointed by the World Bank and based in Harare. The manager
ensures that the PC is informed of progress in implementation. The manager will further ensure that
TF regulations of the Bank are applied in the implementation of all activities. The secretariat
supports the PC and the TAG as their secretariat. It also assists TRGs in the identification and
selection of consultants and drafting of Terms of Reference (TORs). The financial management and
procurement of goods and consultants, including the final issuance of TORs, as well as the final
selection, employment and supervision of consultants financed by the A-MDTF, will be the
responsibility of the World Bank, and is to be carried out in accordance with the Bank‟s applicable
policies and procedures. The Country Manager in the Zimbabwe Country Office is overall
responsible for the A-MDTF, ensuring that its operations are in line with internal World Bank
regulations and procedures. The A-MDTF Secretariat will further ensure that A-MDTF members as
well as stakeholders and the public are informed of the progress of the A-MDTF implementation
within the context of a communication strategy.5 All approved proposals will be administered by a
Task Team Leader (TTL) of the World Bank. Following approvals by a TRG, the TTL will prepare
2 Such proposals must be within the framework of the ISN. 3 The July 2009 Operational Guidelines (OG) identified seven thematic areas: (i) economic analysis; (ii) private sector development;
(iii) agrarian issues; (iv) social protection; (v) infrastructure rehabilitation; (v(i) human resources/basic services delivery; and (vii)
governance and anticorruption. Six Technical Review Groups (TRG) were formed in line with the above thematic groups after (i) and
(ii) were subsumed under one thematic group -- ETRG. 4 Initially technical proposals are being submitted by TRGs and their members themselves. As implementation progresses,
applications from stakeholders are expected as well. 5 Currently still in draft.
11
the appropriate contracts between the World Bank and the vendor6 to be hired for implementations
of a proposal. The TTL will report to the TRGs and the manager of the A-MDTF on the
implementation progress. TRGs will review reports and guide the consultants. The TRGs will
further oversee the consultation process with and incorporate stakeholders input into policy notes.
The TTL is to prepare thematic/sectoral policy notes identifying options for re-engagement in the
specific sector to be discussed at TRG, TAG and PC meetings. In exceptional cases, the manager of
the trust fund will assume the role of the TTL to speed up implementation.
1.3 Financial Management
The A-MDTF is founded on an Administrative Agreement/ Arrangement (AA) signed between
the World Bank, as Administrator, and the contributor to the Trust Fund. By signing the AA
the contributor agrees to the said objective of the A-MDTF and to the AA, which will form part of
the legal agreement to be signed. Contributions in kind (for example technical assistance) can also
be received at the implementation stage but would not be reflected in the legal agreements, and
providers of significant in kind resources could join the Policy Committee. The donors are allowed
to contribute funds to the A-MDTF any time after it has been established. The AA states that money
can be spent on the following activities: studies; surveys; study tours/knowledge exchanges; pilots;
workshops/dialogue forums (as part of the consultations/dissemination); dissemination products
(workshops, pamphlets, publications, etc.). The cost recovery arrangements are based on a 5% fee
for standard administrative costs, plus a budget line item for other costs arising (such as donor
coordination). The AA spells out the applicable procurement policies and procedures. The
procedures are further detailed in Annex 6 of the OG for the A-MDTF. In accordance with the
above documents, World Bank-Executed Activities would follow World Bank internal policies and
procedures as detailed in the World Banks AMS 15.0 and Guidelines for Selection and Employment
of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers would be applicable for Recipient-Executed Activities.
The scope of procurement as per the World Bank IBTF includes consultancy costs, travel expenses,
equipment costs, media and workshops. However for Bank-Executed Activities, procurement of
equipment is not allowed. Procurement of goods and works are allowed under Recipient –Executed
Activities.
As administrator to the Trust Fund the World Bank has a fiduciary obligation as trustee to
ensure that trust fund resources are used in a manner consistent with the terms laid out in the
governing Administration and Grant Agreements. In line with this the World Bank is responsible
for monitoring implementation of grant activities, assessing achievement of grant objectives, and
reporting on the final use of the funds. As such, management and execution of the trust fund is
subject to a number of the World Bank„s operational and administrative policies. The World Bank
6 Vendors can be consultants, firms, research institutions, Non Governmental Organizations who provide services, works or goods
against a fee.
12
is required to provide the donor limited reporting on the holding, investment and transfer of the
funds. The World Bank in the case of the A-MDTF is both a partner and a trustee.7
The A-MDTF partners aimed to raise an initial amount of about US$10 million to start the
MDTF including $1 million that the Bank would contribute from the Low Income Countries
under Stress (LICUS) Trust Fund. It was agreed at the outset that more money could be
requested, via the PC, once implementation of the programme is successfully underway. The
amount and type of funding (including any restrictions on its use) were to be set out in legal
agreements to be signed with each contributor. It was agreed that dissemination activities of A-
MDTF financed outputs would be financed to promote national policy dialogue, as appropriate. The
financial commitments made by donors to the A-MDTF since its initiation can be found in Annex 2.
2: A- MDTF Delivery
2.1: Implementation and Outputs
The A-MDTF was approved in February 2008. The first donor (DFID) signed the standard AA
with the World Bank in the same month. Other donors followed over the course of the year. The
first Grant Funding Request (GFR) was approved on July 7, 2008, for the Administration and
Management of the A-MDTF.
The A-MDTF had a slow start. There were several reasons for this: (i) a lack of sufficient and
qualified staff within the A-MDTF Secretariat; (ii) the time taken to establish the fund, make call for
proposal, selection and procuring; (iii) a limited number of requests made at the beginning; and (iv)
the social-political environment prevailing in Zimbabwe in 2008 meant that there was little scope
for analytical work, given the level of election related anxiety and violence which made levels of
risk high. Slow start up for multi-donor trust funds is not unusual – especially when they are set in
complex settings such as Zimbabwe.8
A number of outputs have been delivered or are underway. At the level of individual activities,
Annex 3 outlines progress of the A-MDTF. Progress of work by TRG is described in the following
section (2.2). While outputs can be evaluated, it is too early to measure outcomes. The findings
below are based on the MTR team‟s judgement as in informed by the documentation available to us
and the feedback collected from a range of stakeholders.
An early impact of the A-MDTF was reflected in the preparation of a Zimbabwe Emergency
Recovery Programme (ZERP). This greatly influenced the work of the GoZ in its first six months,
including the drafting of the Short Term Economic Recovery Programme (STERP). It also created
the basis for a joint Ministry of Finance (MOF)/ Ministry of Economic Planning and Investment
7 At the outset, the World Bank contributed US$1,000,000 to the A-MDTF from the Low Income Countries under Stress (LICUS)
Trust Fund. 8 Raising our game on trust funds, Trust Fund Portfolio Review, World Bank, January 21 2010.
13
Promotion (MOEPIP)/Office of the Prime Minister (OPM)/Donor STERP Steering Committee.
Since the conception of the fund it has supported two Cabinet retreats, a field study for the Minister
of Water, and has had oversight of a budget of US$300,000 for the provision of technical assistance.
The two retreats were successful. The first in April 2009 produced a STERP based 100 day plan of
action and helped to improve dialogue between political opponents. The second in August 2009,
produced the Government Work Plan for 2010. The GoZ strongly welcomed this support and
praised the A-MDTF for seizing these windows of opportunity.
Delivery of TA to Ministries has been less successful. To date, only two TA proposals have been
implemented – one to the MoF and one to the MoEPIP. While this support has been welcomed it has
been difficult to replicate elsewhere, despite efforts to remedy to the blockages.9 Long delays have
occurred. This is primarily due to political reasons beyond the control of the A-MDTF Secretariat.
Some donors suggested that the Secretariat should have had more intensive discussions Government
to resolve the blockage. The Secretariat said that their control over progress has been limited, given
the MoF‟s slow progress in prioritising and approving TA. TRGs are now reviewing proposals that
were put together by Government in June/July 2009 – many of which are now out of date and no
longer relevant. All donors agreed that moving forward on TA is an important priority for the A-
MDTF.
9 AUSAID provided a consultant in April 2009 to help the Bank design processes for TA approval through the A-MDTF.
14
2.2: Technical Review Groups
The Economic Analysis/Private Sector Development Group (ETRG) emerged from an already
active Donor Economist Group meeting. Initially a total of US$600,000 was earmarked to support
activities under the ETRG. Three priority areas were established for this funding:
parastatals/public enterprise assessment;
private sector enabling environment; and,
public expenditure management review.
An additional US$ 1,250,000 was allocated during the course of 2009 for public financial
management and private sector development.
To date, the ETRG has funded a number of studies and seminars to support policy dialogue,
capacity improvement and enhanced country knowledge. In March 2009, it completed two rapid
assessments – one of public financial management (PFM) and one of the electricity sectors. The
first was used by the IMF team for Article 4 consultations. It conceptualized and pressed the need
for a Payroll Audit and for Public Financial Management Systems (PFMS) TA. Both of these
recommendations were later taken up by the A-MDTF. The work on the electricity sector was
praised by the Ministry of Finance. The ETRG supported the provision of timely technical support
to the Budget Preparation and the development of the Medium Term Plan. The ETRG has also
organized workshops to review the competition and tariff commission strategic plan. A number of
activities are in the pipeline including a series of public expenditure notes will be delivered in the
next few months (See Annex 3). An important activity is the planned PFMS project. Donors are
welcoming of this work and believe it has potential to be a successful intervention. This project has
also benefited from AfDB and UNDP funding.
Donors reported that while the ETRG started out well, it lost focus and therefore momentum
in delivering products. Reasons for the loss in focus and delays include: (i) slow clearance of
TORs presented for funding by the TRG and (ii) delivery of expert support through short Bank
missions, outside of the A-MDTF parameters, which dampened the high energy and collective
interest from the wider donor group. Several donors believe that synergy between the ETRG and
the World Bank‟s own effort needs improvement.
The Agrarian Sector Technical Review Group (ASTRG) was established in December 2007. A
total of US$500,000 was earmarked to support activities under ASTRG. Five priority areas were
identified by the group:
land tenure (including the issue of compensation);
linking producers to markets;
agriculture and the economy (employment creation and how to regenerate agricultural
production in communal/smallholder areas, etc.);
food security (linking with social protection and nutrition); and
operational efficiency and capacity aspects in NGOs and other service providers
15
The ASTRG has made significant progress completing to date five studies and supporting two
workshops and a National Conference. The Baseline Study of the Agricultural Sector is now
being used as an important benchmark in the discussions around agrarian sector development. As
such this was an important piece in improving knowledge about the sector. This study underpinned
the National Agricultural Stakeholder Conference in September 2009, which was a groundbreaking
discussion of the future of the agricultural sector with a broad range of stakeholders. Another
important study that is almost completed is the Agricultural Sector Assessment study that will focus
on a forward strategy on the agricultural sector. Although it is worth noting that early indicators on
the quality of this piece of work have been worrying. In addition, the ASTRG facilitated studies on:
(i) the policy options for optimisation of the use of land for agricultural productivity and production
- completed, and presented at a national stakeholders conference that inspired national discussions
on the future of the land reform; (ii) achieving household and national food security - completed;
and (iii) improving Input and Output Markets for Smallholder Farmers in Zimbabwe - completed,
and the result of the study is now supporting a major discussion on the transition from a dependence
on free seed and fertilizer handouts under past humanitarian programmes toward the development of
sustainable input markets; and (iv) Irrigation study – on-going, but delayed. The ASTRG is also
partnering with EU to support a Land Audit Review. This will be an important for understanding
land records, and to inform policy discussion on land tenure security, compensation, enhancing
agricultural production and natural resource management.
The Infrastructure Sector Technical Review Group (ITRG) was established in March 2008. It
agreed three broad priorities. These are to:
provide the basis for policy dialogue across all infrastructure sectors (water/sanitation,
energy, and transport/communication);
establish in a targeted manner the status of specific infrastructure subsectors; and
analyze regional dimensions of infrastructure.
Activities were slow in getting started and to date the ITRG has yet to deliver any studies.
This was mainly due to inadequate staffing, with the Bank proving in practice unable to provide
staff from its own resources. Unlike other TRGs, a budget was not allocated to the ITRG in
December 2008. This was because the ITRG had not yet identified priorities nor submitted a
proposal to the TAG. However, when the Cholera epidemic started in 2009 there was a renewed
urgency around the infrastructure work. The first TORs were developed in May 2009. Recently a
number of activities have been either initiated or are at the early stage of preparation, including:
engineering technical assistance and technology transfer for operation of Harare water and
wastewater treatment plants; tariff/user fee study; dam safety inspection; renewable energy proposal;
road sector analysis and trunk road deterioration impact and rehabilitation needs assessment; and
other TA. For water related work $820,000 was allocated in July 2009.
The Human Resources Management and Basic Services Technical Review Group
(HRBSTRG) was set up as a result of a request of donors at the first PC. Several major donors
had strong teams/interest to work in health and education and pushed for its creation. The group was
16
not fully formed until it was clear that the SPTRG could not handle health and education under a
social sector framework. The World Bank's own involvement in the sector at the creation of the
TRG was limited. In December 2008 a total of US$1,050,000 was earmarked for delivering three
priorities:
a Basic Services Observatory and a Multiple Indicator Monitoring Survey (MIMS);
a study on decentralised financing for basic services; and,
a study on development, management and retention of human resources.
To date, the HRBSTRG has yet to deliver any stand- alone analytical studies. The TRG has
however provided some technical support to i) a UNCEF led Multiple Indicator Monitoring Survey
(MIMS) and ii) a Government led Investment Case Analysis for the health sector. The first was
essential to show the impact of the recent crisis on key health indicators and help the design of
future health interventions. The second was a Government document that outlines the prioritization
of key health services that support decision making on high impact investments in the sector. The
lack of progress in delivering further studies is because:-
At the outset, the World Bank had not formally allocated technical expertise in country to
support the Basic Services Group and therefore act as TTL. As a result, it was very difficult
for donors to obtain useful information about the Bank mechanisms and the process for
preparing and approving proposals. It was only when engagement from TTLs in
Washington began in March 2009 (Health) January 2010 (Education) that real progress was
made.
The TRG agreed to cooperate with UNICEF on a Basic Services Observatory and MIMS.
Unfortunately, once the administration process began it became evident that the UN and The
World Bank had incompatible procurement processes. The complexity led to UNICEF
deciding to solely finance the work.
A reallocation of funding in 2009 to higher priority projects meant that the HRBSTRG was
instructed by the PC to give up its allocation. It is now awaiting the return of the financing
for a number of studies that are in the pipeline. It is not clear when this funding will come
online.
Attendance at the Basic Service TRG has been irregular, and therefore continuity in dialogue
– in particular in the early days – was difficult and contributed to the slow progress. Some of
this is a result of the limited presence in the country both in terms of the World Bank and the
donors.
In terms of selection of activity, until recently the planned work and dialogue within the
HRBSTRG has been heavily skewed towards health. This is primarily due to the technical
expertise in country of the donor representatives participating and the background of the TTL. Input
since January 2010 from an education TTL has been welcomed by the group and is helping to
address this acknowledged bias in the work programme. Donors also flagged that communication
between the World Bank and the Chair was not always timely. For example they stressed the
importance of missions being communicated by the Bank to the whole group to allow for donor
participation.
17
A Social Protection donor coordination group pre-existed the A-MDTF. The structure already
in place was adopted and formally became the TRG at the outset of the fund. In December 2008 a
total of US$250,000 was earmarked to support the activity of this group in delivering the core
priorities as approved by the Policy Committee. These were:
a baseline survey of social protection in Zimbabwe;
a remittances study – building on the work by IOM; and
a Zimbabwe Social Protection Framework.
The Social Protection Technical Review Group (SPTRG) has so far completed three studies
and run two workshops in order to disseminate findings. The studies completed are as follows:
(i) Baseline Study of Social Protection in Zimbabwe; (ii) Analysis of Government and NGOs
Public Works, Food for Works in Zimbabwe and a feasibility study for adapting the public works
approach in private sector projects, government and municipality works. The baseline study report
successfully provided guidance as to the gaps in social protection provision in Zimbabwe and
therefore helped identify where further work was needed. This also led to increased dialogue
between the stakeholders engaged in the sector and better sharing of information. The study helped
the TRG to agree on priorities for immediate funding as a strategy for the future. The two studies
on public works were also valuable. Feedback has affirmed that they have provided options for
future work, and good practice approaches to help future programme design. The GoZ
acknowledged at the dissemination workshop in March 2010 that they would use the information
for the studies - in particular the analysis of Government and NGOs public works programmes.
These studies have the potential of making a significant contribution to the Government of
Zimbabwe‟s process of designing a Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP), providing evidence
based inputs regarding current status of public works programmes in the country, lessons on current
practices, designing elements for future programming including targeting, monitoring and
evaluation. The National Social Protection Consultative Forum in November 2009 and the
Dissemination Workshop in April 2010 were both useful forums and were, according to feedback,
effective in disseminating key findings and in enabling dialogue around the key social protection
priorities for 2010.
Despite this progress, feedback on the SPTRG suggested that the initial months were slower
on delivery and focused mainly on discussion and shared learning. While the studies undertaken
have added value, there is a sense that there was not, early on, a strong enough sense of strategic
direction in the approval process. This for example led to two similar studies being undertaken on
public works that in hindsight might have been better approached as a single study. In late 2009, the
SPTRG agreed a policy framework for engagement. This is now informing the selection process of
activities. There has been some tension between this and some activities that have been proposed by
the World Bank which do not fit fully within the agreed direction.
The Governance and Anti-Corruption TRG was formed at the outset of the A-MDTF. An
informal division of responsibility was established between the TRG and the already existing Good
Governance and Human Rights Group. The Governance and Human Rights Group focuses on
18
issues of political governance, and the GAC TRG focuses on public sector management and
corruption. In December 2008, the GAC was given an earmarked budget of US$240,000 to deliver
the following priorities:
anti corruption at the institutional level;
decentralised government capacities to deliver basic services, with a focus on
mechanism for improving accountability, capacity and responsiveness; and,
governance as a cross-cutting issue to assist all areas of MDTF analysis.
The Policy Committee on June 30 2009 endorsed a fourth priority, to support the Government‟s
planned payroll audit. A revised total budget of US$2,461,000 was allocated to the GAC.
The GAC has completed four studies: (i) The Political Economy and Governance Context of
Transition and Recovery in Zimbabwe; (ii) A Governance Assessment Tool for the P-MDTF, (iii)
Decentralised Capacitates for Basic Service Delivery and (iv) an Anti Corruption Baseline study. A
four phased pay-roll, skills and systems audit commenced in September 2009 and is ongoing.
Work undertaken has contributed to improved country knowledge, enhanced institutional
capacity, improved dialogue with Government and stakeholders and enhanced donor
coordination. As with other TRGs there was a slow start with the first study, the Governance
Assessment Tool being completed in September 2009. This tool was given a positive reception by
donors, but has yet to be piloted. It has the potential to contribute to significantly improved
governance mainstreaming within work undertaken. The Political Economy and Governance
Context of Transition paper was presented to the October 2009 meeting of the Friends of Zimbabwe
and was significant in generating policy dialogue. It also provided the World Bank and the donors
with enhanced country knowledge of the governance context. The Anti Corruption Baseline Study
was finalised in January 2010 and has made a significant impact on enhancing country knowledge
across the relevant sectors given the high incidence of corruption in the country. It has also
contributed to prioritisation and sequencing of follow-up activities. The study on Decentralized
Capacities for Basic Service Delivery has recently been completed and is currently being
disseminated.
An important activity the GAC is supporting is the Payroll, Skills and Systems Audit. It is too
early to measure the impact of this as it is still in the implementation phase, but the anticipated
impact is that it will: provide baseline data for medium-term pay and employment strategy; inform a
human resources management (HRM) strategy; create an electronic records management system;
and build foundations for broader civil service reforms. It is currently on track, and has been
highlighted by the PC as a priority.10
It combines analytical work and knowledge enhancement with
TA, and will leave a very practical legacy of enhanced capacity. It will help provide a platform for
re-engagement in the area of public sector reform. This activity is the largest of all funded under the
MDTF to date.11
10 For 2010 the PC have named their top three priorities as: (i) the Payroll Audit; (ii) the PFMS support; and, (iii) the Land Audit. 11 US3, 275,000 is the currently approvedamount.
19
2.3 Product quality monitoring
The OG identified indicators for monitoring and ensuring quality of the different activities to
be funded by the A-MDTF. Under four broad categories, the following were identified: (i) studies
-- policy option/recommendation; (ii) study tours -- change in attitude and performance; (iii) pilots --
result framework; and (iv) TA -- TORs. For the first, two indicators were identified, but for the last
two it was not feasible, given the type of pilots and TAs that would be delivered was, at the time,
unknown.
The quality of output reviews were not uniform across the different studies supported by the
A-MDTF. Members of TAG groups that were interviewed for this MTR criticized the studies for
being backward looking and focused on historical analyses as opposed to being action oriented.
Nonetheless, it has to be noted that even those studies that were characterized as backward looking,
contributed to enhancing the sector knowledge, which is one of the main objectives of the ISN and
the A-MDTF. During the start of the A-MDTF there was a dearth of information across all sectors
of the economy. Baseline surveys and how each sector evolved during the crisis was an important
output before embarking on identification of instruments for quick engagement.
Quality Assurance Mechanisms for A-MDTF outputs have not been fully developed. Given
that the A-MDTF was an emergency response to the situation facing Zimbabwe and considering that
the number of Bank staff available to review and support quality assurance was limited, it was
difficult to institutionalize quality assurance systems. Although the different proposals underwent a
technical review in their respective TRGs, this ex-ante analysis could only ensure that the proposals
were within the priorities identified under the A-MDTF. It did not assure the future quality of the
products. Ad hoc arrangements were therefore made for quality assurance. Given that donors to a
large extent were represented by sector staff in the TRGs, the A-MDTF has tried to use available
experts to help ensure quality. In other circumstances (and frequently) the TRGs and the TAG
requested further revisions of TORs to address the criticism and to ensure the final product
addresses the requirements of the overall A-MDTF. Despite these actions, the A-MDTF product
quality to date has been variable.
The role of the TTL and the World Bank in ensuring quality was emphasized as a priority by
the donors. Interviewed donors felt that this was not happening rigorously across the board and that
it had proved difficult at times to access World Bank expertise and knowledge. It was felt that A-
MDTF products were not given the same quality assurance as the World Bank‟s own products.
World Bank staffs have had to fit Zimbabwe work into whatever work they have in the region due to
limited funding to cover core staff time. The World Bank has tried to supplement this by recruiting
local sector specialists and administrative officers from the A-MDTF program. While this has
helped support the TRGs and make a link with TTLs in and outside Harare, they are not sufficiently
empowered or networked with World Bank knowledge to undertake the role of the TTL. Without
World Bank resources available to allocate to core staff time, it has been difficult to utilize the
internal World Bank quality control systems because these are linked to resources internally. Some
TRGs used conferences, workshops and stakeholder consultations to receive feedback on products.
20
The Agricultural Baseline Assessments and the Land Policy studies were two examples which
benefited from such feedback.
Lessons learnt from a recent World Bank trust fund portfolio review12
reveal that quality
monitoring is a problem across many trust funds and that in general quality and results
measurement needs to be better mainstreamed into trust fund activity. It highlighted that
management and tracking systems in the World Bank impede this to a degree as they make it
difficult to identify the outputs and outcomes of trust fund activity and there has been very little
progress in developing standard performance indicators for trust fund programs. The report
highlighted (as this MTR has) that a key problem is that trust funds are still not fully integrated into
the World Bank‟s operations and decision making processes such as design and approach,
supervision and monitoring and evaluation. They are also not fully integrated into management
planning and oversight of the resource envelope. The report also highlighted that there is an
increasing trend towards donors and other partners wanting a role in approving the allocations of
proposals associated with the trust fund. Given the trusteeship of the funds has already been passed
to the World Bank in the trust fund agreements- it is not clear whether this is really appropriate –
especially where such proposals have already been vetted by the World Bank‟s quality assurance
and management framework. In terms of the A-MDTF donors are actively engaged in micro level
approval of the A-MDTF activity – this has generated better engagement but has also led to many
delays.
2.4 Dissemination and Communication
The overall responsibility for dissemination and communication of material is the
responsibility of the A-MDTF Secretariat. MDTF members interviewed for the MTR expressed
that there was no lack of information amongst those participating in the meetings (TAG, PC) and at
times the sense was that there was too large a flow of information and papers for meetings.
However, a number of donors made the point that the key issue was about the quality and
consistency of information shared, rather than the quantity. Sharing and dissemination of material at
the TRG level varied across the groups and depended very much on the chairmanship and TTL
support. Minute writing and administrative support to the TRGs has been good. Moving forward
however, there is a need to be selective in terms of information and reports presented/shared at each
level. Clarity is also needed around engagement with the GoZ and the Secretariat‟s role in
informing the GoZ of work undertaken. To date the PC position on dealing with the GoZ has meant
that the parameters for sharing with the GoZ are unclear and doing so is always therefore politically
risky.13
During the preparation of the A-MDTF, the Bank team in Harare, proactively sought and
discussed the scope and purpose of the A-MDTF with wider audiences and stakeholders,
12 Raising our Game on Trust Funds, Trust Fund Portfolio Review, World Bank, January 21 2010. 13 Minutes of PC show that the issue of involving Government in TRGs and communicating with Government was discussed many
times. PC members felt that that it was not time for Donor Technical Staff to have informal meetings with their Government
counterparts and such contacts should be ad hoc under the Bank-Government working arrangement
21
including representatives of NGOs. The intention was to continue this dialogue throughout the
implementation of the A-MDTF. The Secretariat developed an overarching communications
strategy and a number of instruments to reach external audiences: a website (http://www.zim-
mdtf.org), newsletter, conferences and workshops were all targeted to inform and reach external
stakeholders and to share information on the TF and outputs produced. The Secretariat was also
instrumental, although with delays, in informing the GoZ technical staff on activities financed under
A-MDTF.
Implementation of the communications strategy for the A- MDTF has been less successful.
This is because: (i) for the start-up phase (which went well into 2009) there were a limited number
of products to communicate about; (ii) some products were politically sensitive and therefore the
preference of both the World Bank and donors was to not actively advertise them; and (iii) some
products had limited audiences, such as technical papers which cater only to technical stakeholders
and therefore were not amenable for wider public consumption. A number of donors interviewed
said that more should have been done on communicating to the public and key stakeholders on the
activities supported by donors. In addition, one NGO group interviewed informed the team that they
are not aware of the advances made by the A-MDTF although they were part of the initial
consultation during the design of the A-MDTF.
The communication strategy developed by the A-MDTF was not systematically implemented.
This was due to, in addition to the challenges above, the absence of any dedicated communication
specialist staff or consultant inputs within the secretariat to support this work. Time pressures, and
lack of communications experience, meant that the task could not be covered by other staff from
Secretariat due to competing demands for their time and skills set. On balance, there is sufficient
awareness of the activities of the A-MDTF amongst donors and given that a dedicated staff member
for communication and awareness was not assigned, the achievements are satisfactory. However,
going forward, given that there is now more to communicate about, there is a need to sharpen
dissemination and communication activity to ensure increased knowledge and policy uptake with
external audiences.
2.5 Procurement and Financial Management
All activities undertaken that involved the recruitment of consultants followed World Bank
Internal Policies and Procedures. However inadequate familiarity of the World Bank internal
policies and procedures by TTLs and Team Assistants has, in some cases, caused delays. This
challenge has been largely resolved through training and requirement of TTL accreditation for
internal procurement procedures. The scope of procurement as per the IBTF includes consultancy
costs, travel expenses, equipment costs, media and workshops. The restriction on procurement of
equipment under Bank-Executed Activities was noted as a constraint. Often it was observed that
consultants require equipment to execute assignments. In cases where this has arisen equipment has
had to be funded by donors/ UN outside of the pooled arrangement. Embedding equipment within
consultancy costs makes comparison of consultants on costs inequitable.
22
The Administrative AAs empower the World Bank to be solely responsible for employment
and supervision of consultants. The A-MDTF Secretariat at the World Bank Harare office has the
responsibility of issuance of final TORs, selection, employment and supervision of consultants. The
TTL for each assignment has the responsibility of preparing TORs and together with the team
assistants process the selection through the World Bank internal system. The Secretariat has the
responsibility of monitoring progress and informing all stakeholders during meetings. In addition,
the OG allows for the TRG to advise on the selection of consultants and guide implementation. In
practice however, an all inclusive arrangement has been adopted by TRG with TRGs involved in
approval of terms of reference, review of consultant proposals and review of consultants‟ outputs.
The review notes that the approach adopted by TRG increases donor harmonization and broader
acceptance of the outcome but introduces significant delays in the process.
Currently the Secretariat monitors progress of activities through a one page status report on
all activities. There is a general perception that progress is slow, processing was inefficient and
monitoring was weak. In the absence of time related monitoring, data is inadequate to establish
causes and stages of the perceived delays. The review noted that upfront delays were encountered at
authorization stage by TRG as some proposals or TORs have to be submitted several times;
preparation of TORs by Task Teams at the Secretariat and agreement with Government on the
deployment of the consultant. Procurement processing through the World Bank‟s internal system
once agreement has been reached takes less than one month for an individual and three months for
firms. Within the procurement processing time significant delays are encountered during proposal
evaluation. Monitoring for procurement processes could be improved by including cost and time
related monitoring from the approval to completion stage
The Secretariat is responsible for overall forecasting and monitoring of the Trust Fund
finances and pipeline, and provides regular updates to the TAG and PC. Currently this is
undertaken primarily by the A-MDTF Manager. In addition each TTL manages his/her own budget
line once funds have been moved from the parent to the child account. Budget lines were allocated
to the TRG at the outset on the basis of concept notes developed by the TTLs to each TRG. The
spending profile against these budget lines was patchy with some TRGs taking a long time to start
implementation. A reallocation was done of finances in June 2009 to allow for funding to be moved
from under-spending TRGs to GAC in order to pay for the payroll audit. The understanding was
that these finances were borrowed and would be returned to their original budget lines in due course.
This however is dependent on additional funding and has not happened. The management of the
pipeline and forecasting needs to be improved. Currently there is an uncommitted balance of US$2.1
million and a pipeline of approved activities for US$5 million. There is frustration amongst donors
and TTLs around the process of allocating and prioritising this funding. Financial reporting to the
TAG and PC has been regular but considered confusing. There was a request from donors to
simplify this and to ensure information provided is consistent. The A-MDTF Secretariat would
benefit from some accountancy and financial management support in order to put improved systems
and processes in place. Financial reporting on the Trust Fund (as with all Bank administered trust
23
funds) is done through the Donor Centre. 14
Requests from donors for additional information suggest
that this tool is not being used by them at country level.
As with many trust funds, the World Bank’s multiple roles and accountabilities as trustee and
partner have at times been blurred. In order to ensure a working partnership the governance
structure overseen by the World Bank has allowed for high levels of consultation – this at times has
transformed the World Bank‟s role from that of trustee (with its associated clear responsibilities) to
one with much of the World Bank‟s decision making authority being taken back by the trust funds
donors. This has at times put the World Bank in the position of having full accountability for the
uses of the trust fund with sometimes limited decision making authority, and in some cases limited
control over the quality of the results achieved.
14 The Donor centre is part of the World Bank‟s secure web based client connection. It provides donors with daily updated financial
information about Trust Funds.
24
3: Assessment
3.1 Relevance of Objectives
The objectives of the A-MDTF were closely aligned to the World Bank’s ISN and reflected the
interests of the donors at the time. Donors wanted to ensure they were well prepared for re-
engagement with the GoZ on development and economic planning when this possibility opened up.
GoZ priorities at the time of design were unclear given that the country was in crisis. Nonetheless
the priorities responded to the needs of the time in so much as they focused on a development of
knowledge across six sectors which donors and development experts agreed were essential to the
economic improvement of the country and their potential re-engagement.
The objectives have not been revised since the outset. This raises a question as to whether the PC
should have revisited the objectives formally – in particular at the point when the Inclusive
Government formally came into place. Members of the PC when interviewed have said that there
was a shared cautiousness about revising the objectives and the modus operandi too soon especially
since the underlying needs had not changed dramatically. It may be argued that such caution may
have led to opportunities to fine tune the scope of the fund being missed. But the PC did set out
three main priorities for 2010. These are the Payroll Audit, Public Financial Management Systems
Study and the Land Audit.
It is clear that the expectations of what the A-MDTF could deliver in its first two years were
unrealistic. This is due to: (i) the transition context was (and continues to be) fragile making the
level of risk for development partners high; (ii) the frontiers of engagement with the GoZ was not
clear; (iii) divergences amongst the policies and practices of the donors meant that decisions and
risks always settled at the lowest common denominator. Given this and (i) the clarity around the
three core priorities outlined above; (ii) the continued presence of an Inclusive Government; (iii) a
change in responsibility for administering the future programmatic work, the A-MDTF would
benefit from a review of the priorities, outcomes and outputs within its broad objectives so as to
ensure there is collective expectations of what will be achieved.
3.2 Risk Management
The identification of risks at the outset was accurate but the measures designed then and
strengthened in 2008 did not result in the desired level of mitigation. The table overleaf depicts
this.
25
Table 2: A-MDTF Risk Management and Mitigation Assessment
Risk identified at outset Planned mitigation Was it mitigated successfully?
Donor Harmonisation and
Coordination: In the current
environment where many donors are
mainly engaged in humanitarian
activities while the World Bank is
focussing on economic dialogue and
knowledge, it is possible that there will
be differences in emphasis on what
activities are important for the MDTF
to finance
Getting donors and Government to
agree on MDTF‟s focus on the
three thematic pillars of the ISN
FY 08-09 is a way of minimizing
the areas of disagreements. Setting
up committees and working groups
where donors, Government and
other Stakeholders are represented
will give the Bank suitable
mechanisms to address differences
of opinion.
Only partially. A strong link was not established between
the coverage of the work being done and the objective of
improving the readiness of donors to intervene quickly
when conditions permit. A comprehensive view was not
taken of the work required to be undertaken. However, at
the TRG and TAG level, there is screening of individual
proposals to ensure they do focus on the core objectives of
the A-MDTF. Funding was supply driven, initially
allocated on the basis of concept notes produced by the
TRGs and aligned with the objectives of the ISN. When
finances became sparser, the Policy Committee clearly
prioritized the Pay Roll Audit, Public Financial
Management and the Land Audit.
Slow Government Response: From the
experience of ISN 1 Government
Departments are under-capacitated
with an eroded human resource base-
which could lead to slow Government
responses to Bank requests.
MDTF will depend less on inputs
from Government institutions and
where possible will focus on
capacity building in areas it is
involved in.
Only partially. Given the context, the majority of analytical
work has been designed with less than optimal government
engagement. As a result the capacity of Government did not
seriously affect the timely delivery of papers/work, though it
obviously did impact on quality and ownership. Also,
Government has become increasingly engaged in A-MDTF
work since the installation of the Unity Government and the
Government has in some instances now a bigger role (e.g.
Payroll Audit and Land Audit). However, inadequate
government engagement across the board is a problem that
must be addressed. Given that clear signals from donors on
raising the level of government engagement in analytical
work are unlikely even when this is desired by some donors
(given the complexity of bilateral relationships), the Bank,
as administrator, should take a lead on strengthening
government engagement, with a view to improve quality
and ownership of the analytical work undertaken.
Priorities could become misaligned:
Were changes to take place suddenly
in the country, the MDTF strategic fit
might be affected. Currently, the
MDTF is well aligned with the ISN
strategy.
By incorporating into the MDTF
an activity to develop a
Programmatic MDTF which can be
activated quickly to respond to
such changes.
No. A World Bank administered P-MDTF was never
activated. The need to recalibrate the priorities, strategic
thrusts and governance arrangements of the A MDTF, based
on the current situation, is being addressed through this
MTR.
Multiple Roles for the Bank: The
Bank will be on Policy Committee,
manage the trust fund, lead a number
of technical thematic groups, and lead
dissemination activities.
Staff will be hired to manage
different aspects; and the Country
Manager will maintain oversight to
ensure continuous monitoring is
done.
No. The level of funding support to the Bank required for an
enlarged role by the Bank is far higher than the funds
allocated to it as the Trust Fund Administrator. This has
prevented adequate Bank staff support to its multiple roles
envisaged under the A MDTF, possibly reducing impact.
Supervision from Field and DC: The
MDTF will be supervised from two
sights, with the need to maintain
alignment in available information.
Bulk supervision done from
Harare, where most funding donors
are represented.
No. The capacity of The World Bank – both in terms of
Secretariat and technical expertise, to support the A-MDTF
has been less than adequate mainly because of lack of
funding.
In the current non-lending status of
Zimbabwe, supervision funds might be
short.
This is a Bank executed TF: the
TTL will be supported by technical
programme officers (ETCs/ STCs)
to ensure that TF funded activities
are delivered.
No. Given the non-lending status there are very few levers
for the country manager to secure sufficient quantity and
quality of technical engagement from Washington in the A-
MDTF.
26
3.3 Progress and Impact to date
While A-MDTF outputs can be measured, it is too early to evaluate outcomes. What follows is
an assessment of the impact of the A-MDTF to date, against the three overarching outcomes. The
findings are based on the evidence available at this time feedback received from a range of
stakeholders.
1. Enhanced country knowledge: Moderately unsatisfactory
In total, there have been thirteen reports which have contributed to an increased stock of
country knowledge.15
A number of these have been useful-- as highlighted in section two of this
report and in Annex 3. Overall, donors welcomed the analytical work, and said it has helped inform
their work and enabled them to make choices about where gaps needed to be filled. It has in some
cases also informed their country planning and strategy development. The quality assessment
revealed that all studies under taken so far have had merit as standalone pieces of analytical work.
However, the additional knowledge generated has not covered the gap that needs to be bridged to
place donors in a state of readiness to resume normal operations when the time comes. The studies
chosen did not meet this requirement. In some cases, the TRG‟s involved did not produce outputs.
Simply put what has been produced is relevant. But what has been left uncovered may be even more
relevant to make donors ready to assist with funding when the time comes to do so.
To improve selectivity, a comprehensive yet prioritised agenda for the work that needs to be
done must be prepared by the Secretariat and endorsed by the PC. This must include work on
transformational issues led by other partners which is critical for successful re-engagement.
Another way of promoting selectivity would be to reduce the number of sectors presently covered.
Among those interviewed, there was a general consensus that the present breadth of focus is at the
expense of depth and focus given the limited resources in terms of (i) funding; (ii) donor time; (iii)
World Bank time to give to the A-MDTF. In some cases A-MDTF is working in areas where other
donor groups might be better placed to lead coordination. There is need for better focus with regard
to the areas covered and for expansion and sharper application of World Bank resources made
available.
The quality of A-MDTF products is reported to be mixed. Quality assurance mechanisms are not
fully in place and ad hoc arrangements are designed for each product. Therefore there is a high risk
of quality shortcomings which diminishes the value of the studies.
15
(i)Baseline Study of in Social Protection in Zimbabwe;(ii) An analysis of Government and NGOs Public Works/ Food for Work
approaches in Zimbabwe; (iii)Feasibility study for adapting the public works approach in private sector projects, government and
municipality Civil Works; (iv)The Political Economy and Governance Context of Transition and Recovery in Zimbabwe; (v)
Governance Assessment Tool for P-MDTF; (vi) Decentralized Capacities for Basic Service Delivery; (vii)Anti Corruption Baseline
Study; (viii) Achieving Household and National Food Security in Zimbabwe; (ix) Zimbabwe Agrarian Sector Baseline Information
Study; (x) Improving Input and Output Markets for Smallholder Farmers in Zimbabwe; (xi)Policy Options for Optimization of the use
of Land for Agricultural Productivity and Production in Zimbabwe; (xii) Rapid assessment of PFM in Zimbabwe; (xii) Rapid
assessment of situation in the electricity sector
27
Dissemination of the work, and as a result the policy uptake of the findings, has been mixed
across sectors. While there is certainly shared learning amongst the donors from the work –
especially those actively engaged in the PC - more could be done to systematically ensure that the
knowledge is shared (where appropriate) with the GoZ and Civil Society. There has been some
good practice – for example the use of workshops to disseminate findings, but more could be done
to make the information user friendly and to focus on ensuring it reaches wider audiences. The A-
MDTF website is currently a little used tool. Although communications and audiences for the work
are in most cases identified at the concept note stage, more could be done to ensure that this is
implemented. The current reality is that there is a focus on delivering reports but not enough focus
on how the reports are then used.
The moderately unsatisfactory rating is justified because (i) some of the studies actually
conducted are not the high priority studies needed to make donors ready for funding interventions;
(ii) some of the TRG‟s have yet to produce analytical outputs; (iii) quality assurance systems are not
fully in place; and iv) dissemination efforts have been inadequate.
2. Developing suitable instruments that can enable Government and donors to respond
quickly to changes in conditions for re-engagement: Unsatisfactory
The Government welcomed the engagement of the A-MDTF in the development of the
STERP, providing TA and supporting policy dialogue. In terms of the two Cabinet Retreats the
Government praised the A-MDTF for seizing windows of opportunity and demonstrating how a tool
for re-engagement can be used. However, in other areas and more recently, the A-MDTF, despite
efforts, has been less successful at preparing the way for re-engagement. Feedback suggested that
the A-MDTF needs to gain further momentum in transformational areas which would be the
centerpiece of renewed donor engagement, when the time comes. These include: issues such as:
medium-term planning; public financial management; agrarian reform; investment climate for
business; civil service reform; management of mining assets; and regulatory reform and targeted TA
in support of transformation.
Pilots were included in order to help the development community be readied for
programmatic engagement. Pilots never became a reality under the A-MDTF, as donors were not
able to agree on the guidelines for selecting them and wanted to focus on analytical work in the first
instance. The lack of progress in delivering pilots has contributed to preventing movement from
analysis to action through investments.
A substantial effort (both by the World Bank and donors) was put into the preparation of a
Programmatic Multi-Donor Trust Fund (P-MDTF). The aspiration was for this instrument to be
available for contributing donors to channel resources in support of engagement with the GoZ. The
initial intention was for the A-MDTF to become programmatic and just move from analytical to
programmatic work within one fund with one single AA with donors. However, by the time the
Bank had finalized the A-MDTF structure, it had become clear that this would not be possible and
that a new, separate P-MDTF would need to be developed.
28
The P-MDTF, seen as the major tool for re-engagement, was developed by the A-MDTF and
the country team and endorsed by the World Bank Board of Directors on June 30th
2009.
There was a long gestation period in producing this paper. This was initially a result of extensive
consultations in Harare among donors and the World Bank. There was a fear by a number of donors
that speed might send the wrong signal on the timing of re-engagement between the GoZ and the
International Community. From the perspective of the World Bank, the A-MDTF delivered on its
aim to support design of the P-MDTF. However, due to a misalignment between the donors‟ need
to respect their targeted restrictive measures in Zimbabwe and the World Bank‟s need to respect its
Articles of Agreement, the World Bank was unable to assume the role of trustee of the P-MDTF.
As a result, the P-MDTF will be administered by the AfDB. The World Bank will provide Fee-
Based Services to support the AfDB in this role. Possible areas of support include, but are not
limited to, defining the policy and financial framework for the sectors which the P-MDTF will
support, and identification of requirements for human and institutional capacity building in those
sectors. The exact modalities of World Bank support are being discussed with AfDB, but such
services could potentially be reviewed by the relevant TRG, or if appropriate provided directly by
the Analytical MDTF. The benefit of involving the TRG - either as an advisory body, or as part of
the normal A-MDTF review process - is that the integrity of the TRGs‟ work would be maintained
while consistency with the P-MDTF‟s procedures would be ensured.
The GAC TRG developed a Governance Assessment Tool to be used with proposals submitted
to a programmatic trust fund. The tool has been given a positive reception by donors but is yet to
be piloted. The ITRG and ASTRG have also identified activities for quick engagement once the P-
MDTF is up and running. More recently a number of TRGs have funded analytical work within
Ministries (e.g. Payroll Audit and Land Audit and the PFMS support) and have or are conducting
sector assessments. Whilst this is still primarily focused on increasing country knowledge it is also
building GoZ technical capacity and will provide the tools within the GoZ to enable engagement
with donors further down the line. It is too early to assess the individual impact of these activities.
Delivery of TA by the A-MDTF has to date not been successful. Two TA placements have been
implemented – one to the Ministry of Finance (MoF) and one to the Ministry of Economic Planning
and Investment Promotion (MOEPIP). This support was welcomed by both Ministries. The TA to
the MoF played a key role in the preparation of the 2010 budget and ensuring it was policy
orientated in its allocation and execution. The TA to MoEPIP was instrumental in terms of the
design, analysis, and production of the Medium Term Plan – including support on drafting. The TA
played an important role in ensuring the report is evidence based and realistic. The report is now
awaiting Cabinet approval.
Procedural bottlenecks within the Government have inhibited however, any further TA to be
delivered. This has proved difficult to remedy.16
This slowness has caused frustration amongst
both donors, who are eager to support TA in select areas, and the line ministries, who are keen to
16 AusAID provided TA to the Bank in April 2009 to help remedy this bottleneck. Despite this support difficulties continued.
29
access it. It is also clear that more might need to be done to manage expectations within the GoZ in
terms of applications and what they might get support for. This is particularly the case in terms of
TA.
An unsatisfactory rating is justified because: (i) efforts to develop instruments (e.g. the Payroll
Audit and PFMS) to underpin resumption of financial engagement by donors have begun only
recently or are not yet completed; (ii) the failure to provide significant TA to assist the GoZ in their
recovery efforts; (iii) the failure to develop pilots, and (iv) the failure to make the P-MDTF
operational.
3. Increased donor harmonisation: Satisfactory
The MDTF plays a central role in providing a forum for donor coordination at a strategic
policy and a technical level. Some TRGs have become de facto the donor forums for coordination
around their respective sector– whether this is the case is seemingly dependent on whether there was
already other aid coordination doing this job at the outset and whether any clear division of labour
was agreed. The majority of TRGs, as well as the TAG and PC have developed an information
sharing function, which is wider than oversight of the analysis/ work funded through the A-MDTF.
Much of the baseline work done has provided important tools for harmonization. For example, the
SPTRG, ASTRG and the GAC baseline studies have helped to agree priorities for funding and for
developing strategies for the future. Donors stated strongly that it is important for technical experts
in the World Bank as well as donors to respect the policy framework as set out by each TRG.
The PC is currently the only donor forum in Zimbabwe which includes the major bilateral
and the multilaterals. One limitation is that despite membership being open to the UN and the
AfDB, they do not regularly attend. The feedback the MTR team received was that this lack of
attendance was because the meetings tended to focus on lower level detail of A-MDTF delivery
rather than overarching policy issues. Moving forward, especially given the current plans for the P-
MDTF to be managed by the AfDB, it would be necessary to rectify this. Despite this limitation the
PC plays an extremely important role both in ensuring strategic oversight of the A-MDTF but also
in sharing information and discussing major policy issues. Currently the PC meets bi-weekly.
Openness and an attempt to ensure donor coordination have led to an overly burdensome
structure which is heavily donor driven. The A-MDTF allows for a high level of engagement of
donors in decision making - much more that in most World Bank trust funds. For example all TORs
and proposals are reviewed by the donors via the TRG and TAG. Under Trust Fund rules this is not
necessary given the funding purpose has already been agreed in the AAs. The current bureaucracy
and donor engagement with decisions is disproportionate to the scale of funding and is at a level of
more detail than is recommended for trust funds. This desire to be engaged and re-approve money
is driven by the donors – in particular at a technical level.
The rating of satisfactory is justified because the A-MDTF as a bilateral/World Bank donor
coordination mechanism has proved successful at convening donors around issues of policy and
areas of technical work. This rating has been balanced by the burdensome mechanisms and
30
collective engagement in detail that have evolved in order to make donor coordination happen,
although much of this was outside the control of the A-MDTF.
3.4 Design, Governance and Implementation Arrangements
The present governance structure is overly burdensome: A clear request was made by donors to
clarify roles and responsibilities of the various groups and to streamline the functions where
possible. The MTR team concurred with the donors that the three layered structure was too
burdensome and that the roles and responsibilities of the various structures overlap thus leading to
inefficiencies. It is also evident that how the GoZ should engage with the structure is not clear and
therefore has not been done efficiently. Revision of the roles and responsibilities of different levels
of the structure will require a willingness from the PC members to delegate decision-making
commensurate with the responsibilities of the different groups and to allow the World Bank to
exercise the authority assigned to it as administrator in the AAs, particularly in respect of guiding
engagement with Government.
PC: The Committee provides strategic oversight and priority direction except in instances
where there is less uniformity amongst members on the way forward. In such cases, the World
Bank as administrator needs to play a more pro-active role in extracting guidance. The PC also
provides a useful tool for wider donor harmonization including discussions around matters such as
the STERP and the MTP. Participants at times focus on to too low level detail and into approving
individual proposals – this may be a result of the fact it meets regularly (recently more so than the
TAG) rather than a particular desire amongst PC members to talk in detail. This has led to the non-
funding members of the PC (e.g. UN and AfDB) to opt not to attend. More secretariat support is
needed in setting the agenda and in ensuring the discussion remains at a strategic level. Co-chairing
by the World Bank and donor representatives was welcomed by both donors and the World Bank.
There is a general feeling that it was right for the PC to meet more regularly over recent months but
that it would be better to revert to a less regular timetable in due course. Formal updates on priority
projects and regular financial reporting should become regular standing items.
TAG: Donors report that the TAG is currently the weakest level of the governance structure.
Members are not clear on its responsibilities, its membership and its functions. More clarity is
needed to separate its function from that of the PC. Consensus from those interviewed was that the
core functions for the TAG could be to (i) act as a working group for the PC; and (ii) consolidate
work of TRGs and endorses proposals for financing, but currently it is not delivering on either of
these. Composition of the group would need to change in order to better match these functions.
Currently attendance is not consistent and is often not by the people who are closest to the relevant
information, making continuity of its operations difficult. In addition, donors report that cross
cutting issues (such as gender) and links and synergies between TRGs are not being fully exploited.
31
TRG: In general TRGs are now working effectively and have built up some momentum. Each
has developed organically and has its own agreed way of working. Those that have been most
effective are those who have been clear about their priorities and work plan and then pursued and
selected activities on the basis of this. In terms of implementation of work TRGs are dependent on
the World Bank TTL. Where this presence is based in Harare it is clear that TRGs have been able to
press ahead faster than when the relationship has been based in Washington. There was a common
theme that on a number of occasions, particularly at the outset, it has proved difficult for these
forums to draw down on World Bank technical skills and knowledge. This has continued even with
the additional recruitment of some local capacity to support TRGs. A challenge ahead will be
around the allocation of funding for already endorsed proposals and how this will be allocated
amongst TRGs when/if new money comes on line. Donors stated strongly that it is important for
technical experts in the World Bank, as well as donors to respect the agreed TRG work plans/
frameworks.
The World Bank - Secretariat/TTLs: Donors reported that setting-up a functioning
Secretariat took too long and that its effectiveness still requires improvement. This included
putting in place informative financial reporting system showing the top level flows of funding and
financial planning. Some donors stated that even now there is a need to improve the reports on
money flows in and out and to have more transparency about what is in the pipeline. Currently the
Donor Centre is not being used by donors as the main source of reporting. More needs to be done to
reinforce the use of this. Additionally, donors felt more is needed to be done by the Secretariat to
manage responsibilities between the whole corporate governance structures, in particular to get the
most out of the PC and TAG. Agenda setting and respecting the functions of the different levels
needs to be initiated by the Secretariat and then in turn the individual Chairs. Currently, this is not
appearing to donors as a systematic process. The MTR team, while noting that the learning from
other trust funds is that a slow start in fragile environments is not unusual, concluded that currently
the Secretariat is not empowered or resourced sufficiently. The lack of financing for core Bank staff
jeopardizes its effectiveness.
Donors suggested that more technical capacity was needed to be formally part of the
Secretariat. In response to this the Bank recruited (during the course of 2009/10) under the A-
MDTF three national technical experts (Private Sector, Economics and Social Protection) and an
increase in administrative support. This support has been valuable in supplementing for core staff
time but engagement from individuals who are senior in their sector, fluent in using bank systems
and sufficiently networked in order to facilitate the supply of wider Bank knowledge and expertise is
still a necessity. To date, the amount of TTL support has been inadequate for the purpose of
supporting the TRGs. Experience has shown that TTL support is most effective when it is based in
country.
World Bank interaction with Government (in terms of the A-MDTF) should be guided
explicitly by the World Bank Country Manager. At the technical level, most donors would like
to see the World Bank focus more on developing effective dialogue with the relevant line ministries.
This is starting to happen; with the Bank being instrumental in facilitating discussion among the
32
different government ministries and the World Bank TTLs (especially those based in country) are
having active dialogue with line ministries on sector issues. Donors and the GoZ both raised the
need for some formal feedback loop with GoZ and the A-MDTF structures, especially since the GoZ
does not have a presence in A-MDTF meetings. There was a desire (from Government and a
number of donors) to consider whether the GoZ could formally become members of the TRGs – but
a lack of unanimity within the donor community to date, has prevented this. Moving forward
however, TRGs should align themselves with the aid coordination policy by government and align
with the emerging aid architecture as developed by donors.
Donors also requested that TTLs play a larger role in the scrutiny and quality assurance of
applications. This should be done before applications reach TRGs. At all levels information needs
to be presented in a more „user-friendly‟ way. There was a suggestion that not all the detail is
needed at this level and that meetings might be more effective if there was paperwork providing
summaries of applications for endorsement in a set format. TAG members could then have the
option to read into the documentation detail if they wish but the meeting could focus on the more
strategic highlights. This would also make it easier for making links and synergies and for
considering cross cutting issues. Many donors felt that input from TTLs needs to be regularized and
their role needs to be clarified to ensure expectations are met (or where appropriate managed).
There was a strong sense that where TRGs had TTLs based in Harare they received more World
Bank attention and therefore input and support.
Financial oversight and planning needs to be improved. In total 12 donors committed to
supporting the A-MDTF with a total of US$ 8,114,308 pledged to date. Of this US$ 6,630,006 has
been committed and transferred to the Bank. Of the outstanding money the World Bank anticipates
transfer of all with the exception of the final US$ 468,099 from the CIDA. Canada has now written
to inform the World Bank that they will be unable, due to a change in policy, to make this final
payment. To date US$ 4.2 million has been committed and disbursed. There is US$5 million
remaining in the approved pipeline. This is set out in Table B of Annex 2. These is currently only
US$2.1 million remaining in the A-MDTF budget, although the World Bank is anticipating
receiving the outstanding US$1 million in the next few months. Even with this however, the A-
MDTF has significantly over programmed and is now in a position that without additional finances
all of the approved activity cannot be implemented.
33
3.5 Key Lessons Learnt
The MTR team identified six key lessons from the past 27 months of implementation.
Review of priorities is critical to ensure that the relevance of the A-MDTF is
maintained and the activities respond to the challenges faced. The PC was right to
review and establish priorities for Calendar Year (CY) 2010 albeit on an ad hoc basis. Given
the dynamics in Zimbabwe, this should be an annual exercise and carried out more
systematically and yet flexibly enough to accommodate shifts in priorities of donors through
time.
While historical analysis and baseline studies are an integral part of improving
understanding on the development challenges, such analyses should also be
complemented by a future-looking strategy, as an integral part of a complete sectoral
study. The A-MDTF has now become cognizant of this lesson and is striving in ensuring
that studies in the pipeline have a forward looking strategy and policy options.
Technical expertise based in country (both from donors and the World Bank) enables
the most effective engagement. Some donors attributed the high progress achieved in some
TRGs to the presence of strong sectoral specialists either in the World Bank or from the
donors (but rarely from both). Donors and the World Bank collectively need to ensure that
there is close support by sectoral specialists to each TRG.
Co-chairing of meetings between the World Bank and donors is effective and helps
enable buy in. The PC, TAG and TRG, by design, are set-up to be co-chaired by donors
and the World Bank. The shared responsibilities have functioned well at the PC level and in
most TRGs and should be maintained.
Communication needs to be an effort driven by the Secretariat. It does not happen if left
to be driven by the TRGs. The Secretariat must be assigned with clearly defined
responsibilities and measurable deliverables.
Without levers to control technical experts’ time, or the ability to charge staff costs to
the A-MDTF, it is very difficult for Bank to guarantee the required expertise and staff
time is allocated to the A-MDTF. Donors have repeatedly made the point that the Bank
should assign required staff to support not only the administration of the A-MDTF but also
to coordinate sectoral tasks. World Bank permanent staffs are able to offer networks and
experience which short term consultants cannot.
34
3.6 Key Challenges
The MTR team identified seven key challenges currently faced by the A-MDTF. These are
summarised as follows:
The transition context continues to be fragile and frontiers of engagement remain
unclear. There are divergences in politics and priorities of donors. The combination of
these factors means that the expectations of what the A-MDTF can deliver are unrealistic –
this therefore needs to be revisited and the role of the A-MDTF needs to be better defined.
Engagement restrictions limited the effectiveness of A-MDTF activities in their
potential to move from analysis to action and investment. Products need to be better
integrated into wider work on transformational issues. Dissemination and Communications
efforts are limited.
The span of work is too wide at the expense of depth and focus. The fund should not
work in areas where other donor groups are better placed to either coordinate or deliver.
Internal Governance – the three layered structure is burdensome. Roles and
responsibilities overlap leading to inefficiencies. Government engagement not effective.
Communication between layers and external communications needs improvement.
Procurement could be even more responsive and financial management and planning need to
be improved.
TRGs are unable to draw adequately on World Bank knowledge and technical
assistance. The Secretariat is not empowered and resourced sufficiently. Lack of financing
of World Bank staff jeopardizes effectiveness.
Procedural bottle necks in Government for TA/Expert Placements have not been
resolved–and therefore only two TA placements have been implemented through the A-
MDTF.
Links to Action and Investment are not developed. Dissemination is not uniformly
targeted to GoZ decision makers. The P-MDTF and pilots have not been implemented.
Without progress on these two areas the impact of the A-MDTF will be limited.
35
4: Future Direction and Recommendations
4.1 Current Country Context
The political economy of the country is still fragile. Since the launch of the A-MDTF, the key
changes in the country context include: (i) formation of the Inclusive Government in February
2009; (ii) improved performance of the economy but with significant need for food imports; (iii)
improved political stability; (iv) improved economic and sectoral knowledge, among others, through
A-MDTF; and (v) initiation of dialogue between donors and government, albeit some governments
still maintain “targeted measured”.17
In February 2010 the IMF restore Zimbabwe‟s voting rights
and has allocated Special Drawing Rights (SDR) 328 million to Zimbabwe as part of its General
SDR allocations.
Donors want to see more convincing democratic and political reform and implementation of
the GPA before scaling-up their operations in Zimbabwe and lifting the targeted measures.
Before the Bank can resume regular assistance to Zimbabwe its arrears need to be cleared within a
coordinated effort to clear arrears to other creditors (although once it is clear that Zimbabwe is on
the path towards reengagement, it could receive pre-arrears clearance grant support from IDA).The
A-MDTF will thus continue to be a key instrument to support TA and other related soft activities.
The P-MDTF is likely to be an additional tool in Zimbabwe for channelling donor support. It will
likely be initially focussed primarily on projects in the infrastructure sector with AfDB as the
administrator
In terms of medium term economic growth prospects for Zimbabwe the IMF sets out two
different outlook scenarios. These are: set out in the table below:
17 Targeted measures are referred to in the public debate as “sanctions”
36
Table 3: Future scenarios for medium term growth
An unchanged macroeconomic policy scenario would be characterized by: i) the liberalization
of prices, goods market, foreign exchange transaction; ii) recovery of the banking sector, which
if sustained would support economic growth; iii) risk that political tensions and increased
uncertainties arising from indigenization regulations may impact negatively on private capital
inflows. The resulting decrease in private capital inflows could only be offset by SDR of $210
million. However this would force the current account deficit to adjust to 24% of GDP in 2010
from 30% in 2009 and induce a decline in bank foreign assets, squeezing the main source of
liquidity. The projected current account adjustment would lead to sharp slowdown in import
growth, hence real GDP growth would decelerate to 2% from 3% in 2009. The unsustainable
wage driven fiscal expansion financed by SDR drawdown would increase the vulnerability of
external position and set the stage for an abrupt destabilizing contraction in nonwage
expenditures and imports in 2011. This illustrative baseline assumes that there would be limited
donor budget support and structured and structural reforms would advance slowly reducing the
country‟s attractiveness to domestic and foreign investors. Zimbabwe would remain highly
dependent on large humanitarian assistance ($650 million per year) and the tightening of the
external financing constraint (projected for 2010) would continue into medium term, and
consequently imports and investment would be compressed and economic growth would remain
anemic. The medium term outlook is bleak in the absence of a significant improvement in
policies.
An active macroeconomic policy scenario would be characterized by an improvement in the
business climate; containment of wage costs; a strengthened financial system and budgetary
expenditures reoriented towards growth and socially-oriented projects. Such policies could lead
to the economy growing at 4-5 percent in 2010 and in the medium term. In order to deliver this
there is need for a credible macroeconomic planning framework and fiscal policy projections to
provide robust advice on macroeconomic and fiscal forecast, in preparing the macroeconomic
framework underpinning the budget. The Medium Term Plan (MTP) could be the mechanism to
deliver this if it is both realistic and credible and accepted across Government as the primary
economic planning tool. Under an active and strengthened policy scenario the macroeconomic
outlook could significantly improve.
.
4.2 Implications for the A-MDTF
Until engagement between the donors and the government normalizes, the A-MDTF will
continue to be an important tool for preparing for future re-engagement and for donors to
collectively work with the World Bank to help build capacity within focussed areas. It was
clear from the interviews undertaken that donor commitment to a World Bank administered A-
MDTF remains high. Donors still see its role as relevant although they have flagged that
establishing its function and governance vis-a-vis that of the P-MDTF is essential as the later
37
becomes operational. Both Funds will need to work closely together and will need to ensure that
they do not (as far as possible) set up parallel structures. A number of donors said that they are
likely to contribute further funding to the A-MDTF next financial year. Donors still see a need for
the A- MDTF to increase country knowledge, provide TA and nurture donor harmonization. The
Bank will need to consider how the A-MDTF mechanism can do this best, since to date this has not
been a smooth operation. Donors also were supportive on the continuing role of the World Bank in
providing technical expertise through the A-MDTF to processes such as the MTP, the budget
process and in the future a potential investment plan. A-MDTF is at a cross roads in terms of
funding and moving forward it is dependent on replenishment.
4.3 Recommendations
The scope and range of activities of the A-MDTF needs to be sharpened to increase quality
and relevance of A-MDTF outputs and in turn, its effectiveness and impact. This would be
done by focussing the agenda, improving the quality of A-MDTF products, streamlining its
governance and enhancing its internal capacity and access to global knowledge.
The primary focus of analytical work would be (i) Economic Analysis, including Private
Sector Development (PSD), Public Sector Management (PSM), Public Financial Management
(PFM) and Governance, (ii) Infrastructure; and (iii) Agrarian issues. Within this, priority
would be for activities where there is articulated and jointly identified demand from Government,
Donors and the Programmatic MDTF (P-MDTF), based on strategic considerations, from
multilateral and bilateral donors and from the Government, and where stakeholders believe the
activity will be transformational. The activity lines under the A-MDTF will be clearly redefined.
These are: (i) stand-alone analytical studies; (ii) building capacity of data and information
management systems; (iii) knowledge exchanges (e.g. workshops, conferences and field visits) and;
(iv) technical assistance and expert placements; the A-MDTF would also support (v) pilot projects,
with the Secretariat taking more initiative but only if the donors show less reluctance. A World
Bank administered P-MDTF would remain an option open to donors if and when the circumstances
warrant.
The Governance structure would be streamlined and internal capacity strengthened. The
TAG and the two TRGs where activity would no longer be A-MDTF supported (SPTRG,
HRBSTRG) would be eliminated. The GAC would be folded into the Economic Analysis TRG.
All Administrative Arrangements (and potentially the overarching Trust Fund Guidelines18
) will be
revised to allow for (i) cost recovery of World Bank staff time and (ii) small scale procurement of
18 World Bank HQ will need to advise on the degree to which the current documentation would need to be revised and adapted in
order to incorporate these changes.
38
goods to support TA and the implementation of pilots.19
As a result of cost recovery, the World
Bank technical and secretariat support to the fund would increase. Ideally there would be an
additional appointment of an international technical World Bank staff member in Harare for each of
the three priority sectors. They would work full time, or as demand requires, on A-MDTF work and
recover costs from the fund. To justify levels of staff allocations the A-MDTF would need to
receive additional funding of at least $4-5m per fiscal year.20
Eleven specific recommendations of the mid-term review mission are given below.
1. The scope of the A-MDTF should be recalibrated. It is recommended that the core
functions of the A-MDTF should be to:-
a. Conduct analytical work on selected and pressing country development issues for
which there is clearly articulated client demand.
b. Contribute to broader analytical work, driven by government and development
partners (including demand from the P-MDTF), on key transformational issues such
as: medium-term planning; public financial management; agrarian reform;
infrastructure; investment climate for business; civil service reform; management of
mining assets; and, regulatory reform.
c. Build capacity in a limited number of strategically chosen fields related to these
transformational issues.
d. Promote donor synergies and sharing of knowledge and avoid duplication of efforts
while conducting analytical work.
e. Seize opportunities to strengthen engagement with Government and pursue alignment
with the Government„s Aid coordination Policy, while being realistic about what can
be achieved in the current Zimbabwean context.
2. The A- MDTF should focus on five core activities. These functions should be clearly
defined by the Secretariat, endorsed by the PC, and communicated to partners and
Government. In some interventions they will be implemented as a standalone activity but in
others they will be implemented as a package. The Secretariat needs to develop best practice
guidelines and common processes for ensuring these products are all delivered to a high
standard in line with existing World Bank procedures. The recommended A-MDTF
activities are:-
a. Analytical studies.
b. Data and Information Management Systems.
c. Knowledge Exchanges (e.g. workshops, conferences and field visits).
d. Technical Assistance and Expert Placements.
e. Pilots.
19 Procurement of up to a limited pre agreed amount can be done by the Bank through either single sourcing or „shopping‟ (i.e. buying
from chosen providers). This should allow for the implementation of small pilots and of the purchase of modest hardware to
supplement TA which will help move the A-MDTF into a more implementation mode. Given the small scale of the procurement we
are considering the World Bank should be able to avoid the procurement issues that have arisen with the planning for the P-MDTF. 20 Further work would need to be done to assess the costing of this on the basis of activities planned– this cost recovery agreement
will be dependent on the degree to which the recommendations are taken forward and World Bank guidelines.
39
3. The coverage of stand-alone21
analytical work needs to be deepened by focussing on
fewer core sectors. Specific recommendations are:-
a. Reduce span of activity from the present six to three areas in the future.
b. Three areas suggested are: (i) Economic Analysis, including PSD, PSM, PFM and
Governance; (ii) Infrastructure; and (iii) Agrarian issues.
c. Gender, Environment issues should be mainstreamed within these areas, rather than
be dealt with through broader free-standing approaches.
d. Human Development and Social Protection work to be left to other donor groups
currently effectively operating. WORLD BANK to engage in this area, especially on
policy reforms, through their normal operations.
e. The recommended coverage of the A-MDTF should be revisited periodically to
ensure it remains relevant and flexible to the needs arising.
4. The Governance Structure of the A-MDTF should be reconfigured in order to be more
effective and efficient and better aligned with that of AFDB’s P-MDTF when it is
created. A diagram showing the proposed structure is at Annex 4. Specific
recommendations are as follows:-
a. Reduce the numbers of layers from three to two. With three technical areas of focus
rather than six, the TAG becomes redundant and its functions should be redistributed
amongst the Secretariat, PC and TRGs.
b. A-MDTF to work closer with Government Aid Coordination structures as the donor
aid architecture develops. Dialogue around this needs to be pro-active and driven by
the Secretariat, with the PC kept informed from time to time.
c. The PC should be enlarged by the addition of the World Bank Co- Chairs of the three
TRGs as observers. This is to ensure that links between policy and deliverable are
strong.
d. The PC should continue to be chaired by a Donor Head of Mission, by rotation every
six months, with the Country Manager of the World Bank remaining as permanent
Co-Chair.
e. A Donor technical expert should Chair the TRG on a six month rotation basis.
Groups to continue to adjust their working arrangements themselves in support of
efficient and effective delivery of products.
f. A World Bank Specialist to Co-Chair in order to strengthen technical content of the
work and provide continuity between the TRGs and the PC.
g. Three World Bank Senior Specialists to lead on economic, agriculture and
infrastructure matters and co- chair the respective TRGs.
h. The Secretariat should be headed by a Senior World Bank Staff with strong
leadership and interpersonal skills. Role of the secretariat members should be
21 Stand-alone work refers to A-MDTF led analytical work rather than A-MDTF support (through TA, experts or other) to wider
analytical processes led by Government and/ or other Donors.
40
redefined The Secretariat should also be supported by other professional staff and
support staff as currently in place and as needs develop.
i. Work program and product approval process needs to be redefined in light of the new
structure, based on clear guidelines.
41
5. The roles and functions of the PC, TRG and Secretariat should be clearly defined. Their
roles are set out in the boxes below:
PC Ensure the objectives of the A-MDTF are realized by defining priorities
clearly and articulating expectations realistically given the complex
country political environment.
Ensure resources for the A-MDTF are mobilized and monitored. Provide
clear feedback on the nature of engagement orchestrated by the Secretariat
with government at policy and technical levels.
Endorse proposals for funding submitted by the TRG.
Provide clear guidance to the Secretariat on policy, donor coordination
and other matters.
TRG Share knowledge on sector and thematic matters and identify priorities for
A-MDTF attention.
Initiate studies and ensure that clear TORs are drawn up for such studies
and the experts to be recruited by the Secretariat.
Monitor progress.
Assist with assurance of quality and review outputs before submission to
the Secretariat for approval and release.
Serve as links to Government Sector Working Group and donor groups
dealing with matters covered by the TRG and also promote synergy
between individual donor initiatives.
Secretariat Support TRGs to prepare annual work programs and obtain PC
endorsement for such programs.
Manage resources, budgets and programs with publication of relevant
documents through the A-MDTF website and Donor Centre.
Exercise quality control over proposals and outputs relating to analytical
work and other activities, tapping into World Bank quality assurance
systems and available donor technical skill
Ensure that activities proposed by the TRGs are consistent with the MDTF
guidelines and its objectives and priorities.
Coordinate work of TRGs to avoid overlaps and gaps and advise on cross-
cutting issues such as gender, social inclusion, rights etc.
Prepare reports on progress and other matters.
Handle communications and support logistics.
Manage TA processing.
Maintain a responsive procurement planning and monitoring system.
Organize meetings of the PC and TRG and keep records.
Systematically engage with counterparts in the Ministry of Finance and
other Government agencies on the activities of the A-MDTF.
6. World Bank support to the A-MDTF needs to be enhanced and empowered to ensure
that it manages the Trust Fund efficiently and delivers greater impact. The success of
42
the A-MDTF hinges on adequate and high quality World Bank support securing this level of
staff input will mean agreeing with donors for cost recovery for some World Bank staff time.
It is recommended that:-
a. Four technical World Bank staff should form the core of the Secretariat: a Manager
and three sector experts (agrarian, infrastructure and economics) and cost recovered
from the A-MDTF for fund related work as demand requires. The Technical World
Bank expert working on infrastructure is likely to contribute time to both the A-
MDTF but also the P-MDTF (through the fee based arrangement) and therefore will
be an important conduit to ensure coordination between the two. 22
b. Short term consultant/Extended term consultant to be hired from the A-MDTF to
deliver A-MDTF activity lines – this should include additional support as needed on
communications and financial management.
c. As part of its regular operations the World Bank provides: (i) administrative support
for trust A-MDTF management and fiduciary responsibilities; (ii) links to the wider
knowledge and technical expertise available globally at (and through) the World
Bank and (iii) wider World Bank County Office inputs from management and
technical staff.
d. TTLs managing Grant Fund Requests are fully aware of the specifics of the A-MDTF
operational guidelines and experienced in all aspects of managing and implementing
Bank executed trust funds (such as AMS 15).
7. Financial management and progress reporting processes need to be streamlined to
provide clearer and consistent information updates both internally and externally in
line with Bank procedures. It is recommended that:-
a. A full review is undertaken of all budget lines to determine whether current financial
forecasting is accurate and decide what should remain in the pipeline.
b. Financial Management and forecasting becomes a core responsibility of the A-MDTF
Manager with administrative support from a skilled financial specialist within the
World Bank office.
c. Financial management documents are reviewed and templates created for future
reporting for different audiences. While less detail needs to be shared with the
donors, what is shared needs to be transparent and a basis for enforcing
accountability.
d. Progress reporting templates need to be developed and a forward plan for meetings
established where progress will be reviewed by the PC.
22 Discussions between the World Bank, the AfDB and Donors are ongoing. This link between the Analytical and the Programmatic
in particular in the infrastructure sector will be resolved as part of these discussions.
43
8. Procurement, while fairly responsive, can be improved by implementing the following
measures:-
a. The Secretariat should develop a detailed monitoring matrix of all the activities to
keep track of the stages and causes of the delays and enable the TRG to take timely
appropriate action.
b. TTLs should prepare TORs and assemble an evaluation team in advance for
selection. Selection should be undertaken by experts, not simply by committee via
the TRG.
c. The IBTF, OG and AAs should be revised to allow for procurement of equipment
that are an integral part of consultant and service delivery, provided the equipment
can be procured through shopping procedures, without violating bilateral restrictive
measures.
9. TA and Expert Placements are a core activity for the A-MDTF and need to be pushed
forward more aggressively. They are critical for increasing capacity to handle urgent
reforms, implement activities and help convert A-MDTF analytical work into action. In
order to do this effectively there needs to be a Government appetite for this and a
preparedness to facilitate it. To date this has not been evident. It is recommended that the
Chair and Co-Chair of the PC raise the issue with the Minister of Finance and:-
a. Request that a round table be held to agree a way forward on TA approval in the
future.
b. Prioritize, with the MoF, the top few TA requests that can be taken forward in the
near future and draw a line under those that are no longer relevant.
c. Agree that in urgent short term cases, the A- MDTF can offer to hire the expert
directly and make services available to the Government agency.
d. Agree to improve the current mechanism for screening and approving requests.
10. All work under the A-MDTF needs to be linked to future investments, policy reform or
other transformational processes in support or preparation for future action. In order
to do this more effectively it is recommended that:-
a. TRG Chairs and Co-Chairs need to have a formal responsibility to keep GoZ sector
groups fully informed of A-MDTF activity.
b. Capacity building activity (which includes TA e.g. The Payroll Audit) should be
replicated in other areas for stimulating reform of Government policies and
institutions.
c. A-MDTF should embark on pilots. The Secretariat should take the initiative to
encourage or identify these pilots and assist in their design. The PC needs to
encourage such pilots, unless the PC as a group decides not to support these pilots, in
which case this position should be disclosed to the Secretariat before resources are
expended on pilots.
44
d. The A-MDTF should gear itself (as the modalities become clearer) to support with
analytical work the investment activities of the P-MDTF. It is important in terms of
work on infrastructure that this is coordinated to ensure there is no repetition and that
the combination of the two instruments leads to maximum impact.
11. The A-MDTF needs to revise and ramp up its external communication strategy in
order to improve policy uptake and dialogue. It is recommended that:-
a. A revised Communications Strategy is developed and delivered, with support from
Communications Professionals within the Bank
b. The A-MDTF Secretariat focuses on improving policy uptake and implementation of
analytical work though targeting communications and dissemination of products
c. The A-MDTF Website needs to be enhanced to serve as a better communication and
knowledge sharing tool.
d. Technical members of the TRGs and the PC need to be more active conduits through
which A-MDTF activity and knowledge is disseminated to a wider donor audience.
12. In the event there is not enough donor consensus to proceed on the eleven
recommendations made above, two alternative scenarios may be considered.
SCENARIO ONE- Closure: The A-MDTF completes currently funded activity over the
next 6-12 months and closes. The $5m of pipeline activity which currently has been
approved but which remain unfunded, can be partially funded by the A-MDTF with the
remaining funds but approved proposals work that are not prioritised would need to be
picked up by others bilaterally or from other resources or dropped for the time-being. Future
analytical work would be undertaken either bilaterally, under the AfDB administered P-
MDTF or amongst like-minded partners. The Governance structure would be streamlined by
the removal of the TAG. Its responsibilities would be distributed to the Secretariat, the PC
and the TRGs. This Scenario would mean that the objectives set out for the A-MDTF will
not be achieved. The World Bank and the bilateral and other multilateral agencies would
proceed with their operations without the benefit of the special arrangements created by A-
MDTF in respect of donor coordination, knowledge generation and instruments for re-
engagement.
SCENARIO TWO- Status Quo: Donors provide additional funding to resource the
pipeline of already approved proposals. There is a currently a gap of approximately US$2m
between the pipeline and the money either received or pledged to the A-MDTF. See Annex
4, and funding for TA (TBD) and other identified priority areas. The PC reviews this list and
removes any activity that is no longer a priority given the financial envelope context. Any
additional funding surplus to these activities would be focussed on the three PC endorsed
priority areas of: PFMS; Payroll Audit and Public Sector Management and the Land Audit.
No new activities would be developed in sectors outside of these three priorities. Some
45
infrastructure related work may be undertaken through this mechanism on behalf of the P-
MDTF – this would be demand driven. In this scenario World Bank staffing and support to
the A-MDTF would continue at the same level. For this scenario to be viable the A-MDTF
would need to receive moderate additional financing of US$2-3million per fiscal year. The
Governance structure would be streamlined by the removal of the TAG. Its responsibilities
would be distributed to the Secretariat, the PC and the TRGs.
The benefits of this scenario is that: the A-MDTF remains, albeit in a limited way, engaged
across all six sectors; a familiar donor coordination is maintained and energy is put behind
delivering what has already been approved. The risks however are that the engagement is
shallow, given the level of funding and spread of areas. There will be no room for new work
or second phases of current work other than that already approved. Capacity problems with
World Bank support will remain and TTL support will remain limited and primarily based in
Washington. Wider work, such as Communications, ensuring analytic work becomes action
orientated and additional engagement with Government will not be possible. There will be
little scope for engaging in wider transformational processes and pilots will not be possible.
Both these scenarios will result in substantial shortcomings in respect of achievement of the
objectives on the A-MDTF and are not recommended.
46
5: Annexes
Annex 1: Structure of the A-MDTF
47
Annex 2: Financial Tables23
Table A: Donor Flows to the A-MDTF
Donor Country Amount Signed US$ Amount Transferred Balance to
be
transferred
World Bank International 1,000,000 1,000,000 0
DANIDA Denmark 946,690 946,690 0
AUSAID Australia 871,452 871,452 0
GTZ Germany 550,370 550,370 0
EC EU 513,679 513,679 0
CIDA Canada 936,198 468,099 468,09924
DFID UK 1,240,000 1,230,933 9,067
SIDA Sweden 505,919 498,803 7,116
DGIS Netherlands 270,000 270,000 0
NORAD Norway 100,000 99,980 20
USAID USA 200,000 0 200,000
FINNIDA Finland 980,000 180,000 800,000
Embassy of South
Africa
South Africa 0 0 0
Total 8,114,308 6,630,006 1,483, 302
23
Exact financial data to be found at the Donor Centre. http://clientconnection.worldbank.org 24
Canada has notified the World Bank that they do not plan to make this payment – this is due to domestic political
reasons.
48
Table B: Pipeline Activities that have been approved for funding-
TRG Product Cost Stage
ETRG PFMS 900,000 Initiated- additional
allocation needed
CIFA 300,000 Not Contracted but
TOR developed
ASTRG Irrigation Study 150,000 Under Procurement
Land Audit 500,000 No concept note but in
principal agreed
SPTRG SP Framework 150,000 Ready to contract
TA /Capacity
Building
200,000 Ready to contract
ITRG Energy Study 200,000 TOR being developed
Road Study 300,000 TOR being developed
Harare Water 450,000 Ready for Contracting
Tariff Study 120,000 Ready for Contracting
Dam Study 150,000 Ready for Contracting
TA to MoWRDM 100,000 Ready for Contracting
HRBSTRG Facility Survey 350,000 Ready for Contracting
Observatory 300,000 TOR being developed
GAC Payroll Audit 814,000 Initiated- additional
allocation needed
ZERP TA TBD – Proposals
being revised
P-MDTF Preparation 30,000 Ongoing
Total 5, 014,000
49
Annex 3: TRG Activities
i) Activities implemented under the ZERP budget line Output
(ZERP)
Linked Performance
Indicator(s) for MDTF
Statu Impact/Result Primary Bénéficiaires Costs (Based on Core
Consultancy fees)
Cabinet Retreat – Vic Falls Improved policy dialogue Held April 3 - 4 , 2009
Report completed
Successful event. Produced STERP based 100day plan of action and helped to improve dialogue between
political opponents.
Government US$44,000
Cabinet Retreat - Nyanga Improved policy dialogue Held August 22-
23, 2009
Report completed
Successful event. Produced Government work Plan for
2010
Government US$ 27,000
TA - MoF Enhanced institutional
Capacity/improved dialogue
Completed - Nov
30 „09
Support welcomed by MoF. Played a key role in
preparation of the2010 budget and ensuring policy orientated allocation and execution.
Government US$21,680
TA - MoEPIP Enhanced institutional Capacity/improved dialogue
Underway – to be completed by end
of May „10
Support welcomed by MoEPIP – instrumentally in terms of the design, analysis, and production of the draft –
including draft. Has played an important role in ensuring
the report is evidence based and realistic. The report is awaiting Cabinet approval.
Government US$ 21,680
Water Study Tour – MOWRDM
& City Engineers
Enhanced institutional
Capacity/improved dialogue
April 14 – 25
(inclusive for both
teams). Completed –
follow up actions
to be drawn for technical team
Valuable visit for lesson learning and improved
knowledge base of senior Government counterparts.
Government Estimated Cost US$ 47,000
TA to support Secretariat through
provision of i) a Programme Assistant and ii) a Senior Analyst;
iii) Financial Officer
Improved country/ economic
knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with Government and other
Stakeholders
Ongoing
Programme
Assistant started on 1 April 2009
Senior Analyst
started on 8 March
2010
Finance Officer started 17 May
2010
Has provided secretariat support to the PC, TAG and
TRGs, Administrative support to Task Team Leaders where needed in order to process contracts etc.
Contributed significantly to the review of the A-MDTF.
Government
Development Partners
Senior Analyst
Programme Assistant A-
MDTF
Cost to date: US$ 57,300
50
Output
(ZERP)
Linked Performance
Indicator(s) for MDTF
Statu Impact/Result Primary Bénéficiaires Costs (Based on Core
Consultancy fees)
TA to support TRGs through
provision of i) Economist; ii) Private Sector Specialist; iii)
Social Protection Specialist
Improved country/ economic
knowledge Improved policy dialogue with
Government and other
Stakeholders Enhanced Institutional
Capacity
Ongoing
Economist started
on 1 February 2010
Private Sector
Specialist started
on 4 November 2009
Social Protection
Specialist Started
on2 March 2009
Technical Support to the TRGs has been important to
the running of TRGs and to ensuring engagement with donors and with Government Partners. To date these
inputs have inputted into the Public Expenditure Notes;
are responsible for regular risk monitoring reports. They have also provided specialist input into the
Government‟s Medium Term Plan (2010 – 2015) and
the World Bank‟s strategy planning. They have coordinated, led and participated in World Bank
missions including: i)Microfinance Study Mission:
November 2009; ii) Joint World Bank – IFC Investment Climate mission: November/December 2009 iii)
2011Doing Business Mission: April 2010 and iv)
North-South Corridor Mission – Private Sector Investment and Value Chain Analysis: April 2010
Government/ Dev. Partners Economist
Private Sector Specialist Social Protection Specialist
Cost to date: US$ 92,020
51
ii) ETRG : matrix of past, current and planned activity
Output
(ETRG)
Linked Performance
Indicator(s) for MDTF
Status Impact/Result Primary beneficiaries Costs (Based on Core
Consultancy fees)
Rapid assessment of PFM in
Zimbabwe
Improved country/ economic
knowledge Improved policy dialogue with
Government and other
Stakeholders
Enhanced coordination of donor
assistance
Completed
March 2009
The PFM assessment was used by the IMF team for
Article 4 consultations. The assessment conceptualized and pressed the need for a payroll audit and PFMS TA.
Both of these recommendations were later taken up by
A-MDTF.
Development partners
Ministry of Finance, GoZ
US$28,000
Rapid assessment of situation in the electricity sector
Improved country/ economic knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with
Government and other Stakeholders
Enhanced coordination of donor
assistance
Completed March 2009
Undertaken at the request of the Minister of Finance. It was much appreciated by him and was cited several
times as the kind of help he expected to receive.
Ministry of Finance US$24,000
Support to 2010 budget
preparation
a) Investment and policy priorities in
infrastructure sectors
b) Macro-fiscal framework for 2010
budget
Improved country/ economic
knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with Government and other
Stakeholders
Enhanced coordination of donor assistance
Completed in
November 2009
a - Undertaken at the request of the Ministry of Finance.
The work on infrastructure sector had a big influence on
the 2010 budget which adopted the priorities in capital spending that were identified by the work. Several of the
recommended capital expenditures have now been
undertaken by the government from its own resources. The work also had an impact on the P-MDTF
programme.
b – Undertaken at the request of the Ministry of Finance. The capacity building support has been appreciated
much by the Ministry of Finance and is being continued.
Ministries of finance, energy,
roads, public works, local
government, telecommunications, planning
a-US$230,000
b-US$ 40,000
Public expenditure notes
a) Managing government wage bill
b) Financial and
regulatory challenges in infrastructure
parastatals and sectors
c) Expenditure priorities in social sectors
d) Streamlining
budgetary planning and management
Improved country/ economic
knowledge Improved policy dialogue with
Government and other
Stakeholders Enhanced coordination of donor
assistance
a) Draft shared
with the govt. To be
finalized by
end-June b) Draft shared
with the govt.
To be finalized by
end-June
c) Work begun – expected to
be completed
in August 2010
d) Work begun – to be
completed in
August 2010
Anticipated Impact
The public expenditure notes are being prepared in close
partnership with the government and development
partners. They are expected to have an impact upon government policies and expenditure patterns, and help
improve efficiency of public spending.
Ministries of finance, energy,
roads, public works, local government, health, education,
labor, telecommunications,
planning
US$166,000
52
Output
(ETRG)
Linked Performance
Indicator(s) for MDTF
Status Impact/Result Primary beneficiaries Costs (Based on Core
Consultancy fees)
Support to 2010 mid-term fiscal
review (revision of macro-fiscal framework)
Improved country/ economic
knowledge Improved policy dialogue with
Government and other
Stakeholders Enhanced coordination of donor
assistance
Ongoing – to be
completed by end-June
Anticipated Impact
Undertaken at the request of Ministry of Finance. It will
help build capacity in macroeconomic policy analysis
Ministry of Finance US$21,000
PFMS – preparation and
implementation
Improved country/ economic
knowledge Improved policy dialogue with
Government and other
Stakeholders Enhanced coordination of donor
assistance
Ongoing Anticipated Impact
Undertaken at the request of Ministry of Finance. It will
help build capacity in the full use of electronic PFMS
Ministry of Finance US$165,000
Country Integrated Fiduciary
Assessment (CIFA)
Improved country/ economic
knowledge Improved policy dialogue with
Government and other
Stakeholders Enhanced coordination of donor
assistance
Being planned Anticipated Impact
Being planned as a joint donor-government exercise.
Will underpin future reforms in the area of PFM
All line ministries US$300,000
53
iii) ASTRG matrix of past, current and planned activity
Output
(ASTRG)
Linked Performance
Indicator(s) for MDTF
Status Impact/Result Primary beneficiaries Costs (Based on Core
Consultancy fees)
Achieving Household and National Food Security in
Zimbabwe
Improved country/ economic knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with
Government and other Stakeholders
Enhanced coordination of
donor assistance
Completed. Jan 12, 2009
The report provided a situation analysis of food and nutrition security in Zimbabwe in recent years was
provided. It also identified i) the key drivers of food and
nutrition security including main strategies and ii) the strategic entry points for Donors formulate a core
framework for attaining food and nutrition security in
Zimbabwe
Government Development Partners
US$ 16,000
Zimbabwe Agrarian Sector Baseline Information Study
Improved country/ economic knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with
Government and other stakeholders
Enhanced coordination of
donor assistance
Completed
Jan 8, 2009
The report provided a baseline review of agricultural sector in late 2008 and a listing of priority development
issues
Government Development Partners
US$ 12,000
Improving Input and Output
Markets for Smallholder Farmers
in Zimbabwe
Improved country/ economic
knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with Government and other
stakeholders
Enhanced coordination of donor assistance
Completed
June 30, 2009
The report provided a baseline review of input and
product markets status to early 2009 and a listing of
priority development issues. The report went further and recommended possible investments.
Government
Development Partners
US$ 3,990
National Agriculture Conference
Improved country/ economic
knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with Government and other
stakeholders
Enhanced Institutional Capacity
Completed
1 October 2009
Provided a valuable discussion of priority constraints
and opportunities for agricultural development
Government
Development Partners
US$ 40,133
Policy Options for Optimization
of the use of Land for Agricultural
Productivity and Production in
Zimbabwe
Improved country/ economic
knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with
Government and other
stakeholders
Completed
November 2009
The report provided policy options for an emergency
response to address immediate food security issues for
recovery in the short term, as well as options medium to
long term development frameworks
Government
Development Partners
US$ 58,243
Workshop on policy options for land reform
Improved country/economic knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with
Government and other stakeholders
Completed January 2010
Provided a useful Review of policy and investment options for helping Zimbabwe bring the Fast Track Land
Reform Programme to closure
Development Partners Included in above budget
54
Output
(ASTRG)
Linked Performance
Indicator(s) for MDTF
Status Impact/Result Primary beneficiaries Costs (Based on Core
Consultancy fees)
Agrarian sector assessment
Improved country/ economic
knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with Government and other
stakeholders
Enhanced coordination of donor assistance
Initial draft
completed.
Completion date planned for
December 2010
Anticipated Impact
To contribute directly to the subsequent development of an Agricultural Recovery Strategy and to provide a
review of priority investments for agricultural growth
Government
Development Partners
Estimated Cost: US$
178,217
Irrigation Study
Improved country/ economic
knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with
Government and other
stakeholders
Under
procurement
Anticipated Impact
To provide a Diagnostic assessment of status of small
holder irrigation and to identify priorities for
rehabilitation
Government
Development Partners
US$ 65,000
(Planned allocation)
Workshop on Subsidized Input Delivery and Market development
Improved country/ economic knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with
Government and other stakeholders
Enhanced coordination of
donor assistance
Completed
April 2010
Provided a review of lessons learned from recent efforts to apply market based strategies for subsidized input
delivery. There was also discussion of options for
investment over the next few years
Government Development Partners
US$ 5,000
55
iv) ITRG matrix of past, current and planned activity
Output Linked Performance Indicator
(S) for MDTF
Status Impact/Result Primary beneficiaries Costs (Based on Core
Consultancy Costs)
Engineering Technical Assistance
and Technology Transfer for
Operation of Harare Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants
Enhanced Institutional Capacity
Awaiting
Financing
Better Service delivery of the municipal water supply
system at less cost
Strengthening of institutional capacity Investment plan for future rehabilitation work
Government
Private Sector
Estimated US$ US$ 400,000
Proposals on:
Dam Inspection
Tariff Study
TA for Ministry of Water
Improved country/ economic
knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with
Government and other stakeholders
Enhanced Institutional Capacity
Enhanced coordination of donor assistance
Awaiting
Financing
For dam inspection;
ZINWA enabled to conduct nationwide dam inspections
For tariff study: Understanding of the tariff structures
Enable municipalities to determine their tariffs based on
investments, cost, O and M requirements to ensure sustainable delivery of services
For TA to MoW Assist the MoW in the Revision of National Water
Policy
Government
Development Partners
Private Sector
Estimated US$ 425,000
Renewable Energy proposal Improved country/ economic
knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with Government and other
stakeholders
Awaiting
Financing
Better understanding of the RE sector and possible
identification of investment requirements
Government
Development Partners
Private Sector
Estimated US$ 290,000
Road Sector analysis and Trunk Road Deterioration Impact and
Rehabilitation Needs Assessment
Improved country/ economic knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with
Government and other stakeholders
Awaiting Financing
First step to scope investment requirements and reform needs
Government Development Partners
Estimated US$ 350,000
56
v) HRBSTRG matrix of past, current and planned activity and planned activity
Output Linked Performance
Indicator(s) for MDTF
Status Impact/Result Primary beneficiaries Remarks+
Basic Social Services
Observatories – Household
Survey
Improved country/ economic
knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with
Government and other
stakeholders
Enhanced Institutional Capacity
Decision
made no
longer to
finance the
whole
observatory but to
continue
with household
surveys if
resources are available
Anticipated Impact: Better understanding of the social
dimensions of the economic recovery process as well as
the social impact so f the economic recovery and
stabilization policies as a successor to the
Timely and periodical information on basic trend data provided to Government , donor institutions and
development agencies
Development partners
Government
NGOs
Estimated Cost US$ 350,000
Technical Support to UNICEF to
develop the MIMS Household
Survey
Situational Analysis on main
health indicators which was the
basis for the development of
the National Health Strategic
Plan and Investment Case for Health
Complete This survey was essential to show the impact of the
recent crisis on key health indicators. It helps design and
target adequate health interventions to improve the
health of the population.
Government
NGOs
Development Partners
US$ 30,000
Facility Survey- Health
Improved country/ economic
knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with Government and other
stakeholders
Enhanced Institutional Capacity
Ongoing.
Survey
Instrument developed
Study in
contract phase
Awaiting
funding.
This study will provide the baseline for the program to
revitalize the health service delivery on primary care
level. It will provide input on needs for capital investments, human resource issues, quality of care,
supply chain and user fees.
Development Partners
Government
Estimated Cost US$ 250,000
Facility Survey - Education Improved country/ economic knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with
Government and other stakeholders
Enhanced Institutional
Capacity
Ongoing. Awaiting
funding.
This study will provide the baseline for the program to revitalize the service delivery in education. It will
provide input on needs for capital investments, human
resource issues, quality, supply chain and user fees.
Development Partners Government
US$ 50,000
Technical Support to Government
to develop an Investment Case
Analysis for the Health Sector
Improved country/ economic
knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with Government and other
stakeholders
Enhanced Institutional
Capacity
Complete This report outlines the prioritization of key health
services that supports decision making on high impact
investments in the sector. It is also the baseline for the design of the service package of the new Results Based
Finance Project.
Government
Development Partners
US$ 50,000
57
Output
(HRBSTRG) Linked Performance
Indicator(s) for MDTF
Status Impact/Result Primary beneficiaries Remarks+
User Fee Study
Improved country/ economic knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with
Government and other
stakeholders
Ongoing Anticipated Impact: Better understanding of the role of user fees in law and in practice in the education and
health sectors. Plan, justification and strategy developed
for restructuring user fee policy set out in the context of
broader financing issues, social welfare policy and
national health and education goals.
Development Partners Government
NGOs
Quantitative data collection through health facility survey.
Qualitative data collection by
consultant through in depth
interviews and side visits. Final
report has comprehensive analysis
and policy recommendations
Estimated Cost US$ 50,000
Human Resource Development
and Management
Improved country/ economic
knowledge Improved policy dialogue with
Government and other
stakeholders Enhanced Institutional
Capacity
Report
received in draft - June
2010
Anticipated Impact: An assessment of human capacity
gaps in the basic series sectors that provide a mapping of skills areas that require priority attention. Information
on the actual and potential capacity of the existing
national network of training institutions for the development of human resources to support delivery of
basic services. Information on the basic service sectors capacity for planning , management and supervision of
available human, material and financial resource to
support delivery
Development Partners
Government NGOs
Estimated cost US$ 150,00
58
vi) SPTRG matrix of past, current and planned activity
Output
(SPTRG)
Linked Performance
Indicator(s) for MDTF
Status Impact/Result Primary beneficiaries Costs (Based on Core Consultancy
fees)
Baseline Study of in
Social Protection in
Zimbabwe,
Improved Country/ economic
knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with
Government and other
Stakeholders Enhanced coordination of donor
assistance
Complete,
May 2009
Provided guidance as to the gaps in social protection
provision in Zimbabwe. This helped identify where
further analysis and study was needed.
Led to dialogue between various stakeholders and the better sharing of information. Provided a key tool for
donor harmonization in the sector – help agree priorities
for immediate funding and a strategy beyond.
Provided a foundation for development partners to be
prepared to re-engage in a prioritized re-engagement plan
Development Partners
NGO policy Makers
Private Sector
Government Policy Makers
US$7,000
An analysis of
Government and NGOs
Public Works/ Food for Work approaches in
Zimbabwe,
Improved country/ economic
knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with Government and other
stakeholders
Complete,
December
2009
Provided options for future development of the public
work programs using good practice approaches to
program design by drawing on local practical experiences and international best practices from other countries.
Government acknowledged they would use information from the study to design a national Public Works program
framework to be used by all stakeholders involved or who
are going to be involved in PWPs
The study is a valuable instrument for dialogue and
coordination amongst institutions and organizations involved in safety nets in Zimbabwe, and particularly
those working with Public Works, Food for Works
programs. It can be a solid basis for building a common vision and framework around Public Works, Food for
Works in the country. The study provides a monitoring
and evaluation instrument, and has also the potential for improving M&E framework in the area.
Government Policy makers
Development partners
NGOs Private sector
US$ 15,750
59
Output
(SPTRG)
Linked Performance
Indicator(s) for MDTF
Status Impact/Result Primary beneficiaries Costs (Based on Core Consultancy
fees)
Feasibility study for
adapting the public works approach in
private sector projects,
government and municipality Civil
Works,
Improved country/ economic
knowledge Improved policy dialogue with
Government and other
stakeholders
Complete,
December 2009
Provided options for future development of the public
work programs using good practice approaches to program design by drawing on local practical experiences
and international best practices from other countries.
Government
Private sector Local authorities
NGOs
US$ 9,932
National Social
Protection Consultative
Forum
Improved country/ economic
knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with Government and other
stakeholders
Improved coordination of donor assistance
Complete,
November
2009
Disseminated key findings from the Baseline Study.
Enabled dialogue around defining the key social
protection priorities for 2010.
Government policy makers and
technical officers
Development partners Civil society organizations
Private sector
US$ 13,581
Studies dissemination
workshop– Public Works Studies
Improved country/ economic
knowledge Improved dialogue with
Government and other
Stakeholders Improved design of effective and
sustainable productive safety net
programs
Completed
April 7, 2010
Dissemination of key findings from the two public works
studies. Critical baseline information to inform the design of a national Public Works Framework by government.
Government policy makers and
technical officers Development partners
Civil society organizations
Private sector Local authorities
US$ 802
Social Protection Framework to lay the
ground work for the
transition from short-to long term development
strategy
Policy note on social protection strategy
within a future re-
engagement framework in the transition from
Improved country/ economic knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with
Government and other stakeholders
Enhanced coordination of donor
assistance
Still being planned not
yet sure of
the actual dates
Anticipated impact: Improved dialogue between stakeholders. SP framework adopted by stakeholders-
more harmonized and coordinated implementation of SP
activities
Development partners Private Sector Institutions
Government
NGOs
US$ 15,000
Capacity Building in the Ministry of Labour-
training of SP officers
Enhanced Institutional Capacity on ministry‟s mandate
May 2010 -December
2010
Anticipated impact: Ministries SP officers enhanced capacity to design, implement and monitor SP Programs
Ministry of Labour and social services and other relevant
ministries officers at headquarters,
provincial and district level
US$ 198,040
60
vii) GAC matrix of past, current and planned activity
Output
(GAC)
Linked Performance
Indicator(s) for MDTF
Status Impact/Result Primary beneficiaries Costs (Based on Core
Consultancy fees)
Payroll, Skills and
Systems Audit
Improved country/ economic
knowledge
Enhanced Institutional Capacity
Physical
Audit
completed December
2009. Data
Collection to be completed
April 2010
Expected Completion
date:
October 2010.
The TA will improve payroll controls; provide baseline data for a
medium-term pay and employment strategy; inform a HRM
strategy; create an electronic records-management system; and build the foundation for broader civil service reforms. It is too
early to measure this as it is still in the implementation phase
Government
Support given at the request of
Government, funded through the
A-MDTF with financial support from UNDP and AfDB.
Estimated total cost: US$
4,775,663. US$ 3,275,000 is the approved World Bank
contribution.
The Political Economy
and Governance Context of Transition
and Recovery in
Zimbabwe
Improved country/ economic
knowledge Improved policy dialogue with
Government and other
stakeholders
Completed
September 2009
The analysis is robust and relies on sound theoretical basis. It has
the possibility of providing A-MDTF donors, The World Bank and other stakeholders with enhanced and common understanding
of the macro –environment in order to enhance coordinated
efforts. The study, which was presented at the October 2009 meeting of
the Friends of Zimbabwe in Berlin, is viewed to have contributed
significantly to enhanced country knowledge.
Development Partners US$ 53,000
Governance Assessment
Tool for P-MDTF
Improved country/ economic
knowledge Improved policy dialogue with
Government and other
stakeholders Enhanced coordination of donor
assistance
Completed
September
2009
Tool developed and ready to be used with proposals submitted
under the P-MDTF should it become active. Too early to tell if it will be successful in mainstreaming governance activities into the
programmatic activity.
Tool given positive reception by donors but has yet to be piloted
once projects are carried out by the Bank, but has the potential to
contribute significantly to improved governance, capacity building and accountability across sectors.
The tool represents an excellent opportunity to not only improve
development effectiveness of MDTF projects but could for a basis
for future projects in Zimbabwe even outside MDTF. Moving forward it is important that efforts are made to make the tool
available and promote its use by the MDTF donors and other
development partners in their supported activity.
Government
Development Partners
US$ 30,000
61
Output
(GAC)
Linked Performance
Indicator(s) for MDTF
Status Impact/Result Primary beneficiaries Costs (Based on Core
Consultancy fees)
Decentralized
Capacities for Basic
Service Delivery
Improved country/ economic
knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with Government and other
stakeholders
Completed
October
2009
The study highlights critical legal and regulatory hindrances as
well as capacity constraints for local authorities to fulfill their
mandate. While it has contributed to country knowledge as a baseline study, it assisted more in informing prioritization of the
larger governance portfolio.
Government
Development Partners
US$ 19,800
Anti Corruption Baseline Study
Improved country/ economic knowledge
Improved policy dialogue with
Government and other stakeholders
Enhanced coordination of donor
assistance
Completed January 2010 The study has the potential to significantly enhance the knowledge
base for dialogue on governance interventions and guide further
studies.
Despite some methodological limitations (lack of national indicators, generalized lack of information base on public
institutions, and accessibility to some critical players), the study is
a significant contribution to the knowledge on anticorruption legal framework and practices at institutional level in Zimbabwe. It was
timely commissioned to form a good basis for policy dialogue
between various stakeholders and to guide further work under the A-MDTF.
Further dissemination will take place in the context of a U4 workshop that the GAC-TRG applied for and successfully were
granted. The workshop is tentatively planned for September 2010.
Development Partners Government
Private Sector
US$ 17,400
62
Annex 5: Diagram of proposed new Governance Structure for A-MDTF
12
PC
TRG
Agrarian
TRG
Infrastructure
TRG
PSD/ PFM,
PSM, Econ
WB Secretariat
TA / Expert
Placements
Workshops,
Conferences &
Field Visits
1 Manager3 sector expertsOther Staff
Data
Management
Systems
Analytical
StudiesPilots
Pro
du
cts
Gov
ern
an
ce
63
Annex 6: List of people interviewed
World Bank Role
Mungai Lenneiye Country Manager
Reinhard Woytek Operations Manager A-MDTF and ZERP TTL
Camilla Blomquist GACTRG TTL and Co-Chair
Anush Bezhanyan SPTRG TTL and Co-Chair
Ruth Wutete Member of SP and BSTRGs
Susan Hirshberg HRBSTRG TTL and Co-Chair
Monique Vledder HRBSTRG TTL and Co-Chair
David Rohrbach Agriculture TRG TTL and Co- Chair
Caesar Chidawanyika Previous Agriculture TTL
Best Doroh Member of ETRG
Priscilla Mutikani Programme Assistant – A-MDTF
Donors Role
Dave Fish PC Member - DFID
Michael Hunt PC Member- Australia
Dominique Davoux PC Member EC
Marie Nyiramana PC Member and Chair GAC- Canada
Karen Freeman PC Member and Chair of the PC, USAID
Thomas Schild PC Member, GTZ
Göran Engstrand PC Member- Sweden
Marchel Gerrmann PC Member and Chair of the ASTRG- NL
Tor Kubberud PC Member -Norway
James Wakiaga UNDP
Helmut Lang Co-Chair ITRG- GTZ
Indranil Chakrabarti Co-Chair SPTRG- DFID
Louise Robinson Co-Chair BSTRG - DFID
Brechtje Klandermans TAG Member - NL
Nikki Forfar TAG Member - CIDA
AmyTohill Stull TAG Member- USAID
Claire Chivell TAG Member- AusAID
Pietro Toigo Co- Chair ETRG - DFID
Doreen Nyamukapa GAC TRG Member- UNDP
Joylyn Ndoro ATRG Member- NL
Damoni Kitabire Africa Development Bank, Observer at PC
Cephas Zinhumwe Head of National Association of Non- Governmental Organisations.
(NANGO)
Government
Moses Chundu PMO
Paul Mavima DPMO
Rogers Sisimayi Ministry of Public Service
George Mutowa Ministry of Public Service
Margaret Makuwaza Ministry of Finance
