* Content * 5. The pledge of further aid to the livestock sector in Kagera made by Prime Minister Kok and Minister Pronk in 1997 has been formally honoured through approval of SDSP in general and extension of the HIT programme in particular, but, up to the time of the inspection mission, had only partly been operationalised. During the visit made by Prime Minister Kok and Minister Pronk to Kagera in October 1997, the KALIDEP Phase II project was in the third year of its five-year implementation. Impressed by the programme, Minister Pronk made it known that he did not want the project to fail due to lack of means on the Tanzanian side, and he promised to inform the Regional Administrative Secretary (RAS) accordingly. That announcement and the promise of a letter was interpreted by the parties involved, and rightly so in the opinion of IOB, as a promise of further Dutch aid to the livestock breeding sector in Kagera. The embassy’s follow-up, however, was not very meticulous. The promised letter was written only six months later (on the RAS’s insistence), was extremely curt, written in defective English, and was not signed by the ambassador or the Head Development Co-operation but by the staff member who dealt with the matter. At the time of the Inspection mission in late August 2001, continuation of the HIT programme – an important element of the SDSP project – had not yet been finalised. IOB regrets the delay in the financing agreement with the newly-established Kagera Dairy Development Trust (KADADET). That delay was caused partly by the embassy’s view that the Trust should be of a temporary nature. It was some time before the embassy realised that interfering in a trust set up by the Tanzanians themselves was not feasible and that, moreover, Tanzanian legislation does not provide for trusts being set up for limited periods. The design of the trust seems to fit into the private sector orientation of SDSP and offers the prospect of more permanent continuation of the livestock breeding programme in Kagera. 6. SDSP does not have a specific gender focus. Declarations of intent to integrate the theme ‘women and development’ have not (yet) been operationalised. In the past, the livestock breeding programme has frequently been praised for its gender focus. Progress reports and evaluations of KALIDEP and TDDP state that 30- 40 percent of contacted farmers are women who for the most part operate independently. On this point IOB has not undertaken any detailed research. On the basis of talks held, however, IOB concludes that although both programmes have contributed in the quantitative sense towards improving women’s access to capital and credit, the figures say nothing about women’s position in the society of the areas concerned. No systematic and orderly research has taken place into women’s working conditions, into the distribution of food and income within the family, or into the general living circumstances of women, and it is consequently unclear whether their position has undergone any structural improvement. In the SDSP project document, the consultant was asked to formulate a ‘gender development strategy’ in his bid which would fit into the new private sector approach. The consultant went little further, however, than to announce that a ‘gender mainstreaming’ plan of action would later be elaborated. There is no evidence of such a plan in the initial report that has meanwhile been presented (April 2001). The SDSP team has at least replaced an economist who left early (in consultation with the embassy) by an experienced female community development specialist who is directing her attention partly towards raising women’s participation in local HIT committees. The SDSP document further indicates that, in November 2000, the embassy was to provide the consultant with recommendations and instructions regarding mainstreaming of the theme women and development. That commitment has not been met by the embassy. The drawing-up of directives and suggestions with regard to mainstreaming is still on the agenda. 1.4 Points for AttentionPoints for Attention IOB has ascertained that during the formulation of the SDSP contract two principles clashed with one another. ‘Ownership’, which is very important under the sectoral approach, requires maximum involvement on the Tanzanian side and preferably that decisions are taken by the Tanzanians. Such involvement was minimal during the formulation phase. In Kagera, in the course of 2000, the Tanzanians themselves decided to establish a trust in order to create a structure that would be able to manage the HIT programme. That initiative was long regarded with distrust by the embassy. The second principle is that of the level playing field required in the tendering process. The embassy has conscientiously and carefully adhered to this. In brief, it can be said that the embassy found the level playing field principle more important than that of ownership. The two principles do not conflict, however, and should not be opposed to one another. Even if maximum ownership is desired, the level playing field should still be an objective of every contract. The conflict was due to the fact that the embassy considered that it had no choice other than to implement the follow-up phase under Dutch legal responsibility. Implementation under Dutch responsibility is not compatible with the ownership concept, however. The Tanzanian Ministry of Water & Livestock Development opposed the decision, but the Ministry of Finance ultimately agreed with the Dutch viewpoint. A factor in that decision was undoubtedly an assessment of the problems that Tanzanian resistance could entail for the continuation of Netherlands aid in Kagera and Tanga. It is questionable whether, if circumstances had necessitated a choice for implementation under Dutch responsibility, the procedures would have been sufficient to ensure maximum involvement. Nothing is laid down in the procedures in this respect. With some developing countries, however, the Netherlands has agreed that the former will be involved in tenders that take place under Dutch responsibility. This could have been agreed in Tanzania. It is also possible to adapt procedures to such an extent that formal moments of endorsement are agreed upon. At present, the procedure for Dutch financed procurement under responsibility of the receiving country states that the Netherlands must approve (1) the tender document, and (2) the award proposal. It would be in harmony with sectoral policy and the emphasis on ownership if the Netherlands were to include analogous requirements in the procedure for procurement under Dutch responsibility, i.e. that the receiving country must agree with (1) the tender document, and (2) the award proposal. It would moreover be preferable that the receiving country be involved in the evaluation procedure. * Content *