ࡱ> 5@ >bjbj22 "XX#8<("r(t(t(t(t(t(t($*RI-`(ڣڣڣ((<<<ڣ r(<ڣr(<<̯ܐ 0&<pN (0(-\-$\-]t<ћE((,A report of the BEACON/NCA Regional workshop PRSPs AND NON STATE ACTORS INVOLVEMENT IN EAST AFRICA, THE GREAT LAKES REGION AND HORN OF AFRICA A REPORT OF THE BEACON/ NCA WORKSHOP HELD AT SPORTSVIEW HOTEL KASARANI, NAIROBI- KENYA 5TH - 9TH DECEMBER 2005 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations APRM African Peer Review Mechanism BEACON Building Eastern Africa Community Network CBS Central Bureau of Statistics CSOs Civil Society Organizations ERSP Economic Recovery Strategy Paper ESAF Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility FBOs Faith Based Organizations FDI Foreign Direct Investment GBS General Budget Support GDP Gross Domestic Product HIPC Highly Indebted Poor Country HIPCI Highly Indebted Poor Countries Initiative IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development IFIs International Financial Institutions KACC Kenya Anti Corruption Authority KIHBS Kenya Integrated Household Budget Survey KRA Kenya Revenue Authority MDGs Millennium Development Goals MKUKUTA Mkakati wa Kukuza Uchumi na Kupunguza Umaskini Tanzania MTEF Mid Term Expenditure Frameworks NACC National Aids Control Council NCA Norwegian Church Aid NESC National Economic Social Council NGOs Non Governmental Organizations NPV Net Present Value NSAs Non State Actors NSGRP National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty PAM Plan for Modernization of Agriculture PEAP Poverty Eradication Action Plan PFP Policy Framework Papers PRGF Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility PRSC Poverty Reduction Support Credit PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper PSF Private Sector Foundation SIP Sector Investment Plan STATCAP Statistics Capacity Building Project SWAPs Sector Wide Approaches TCDD Tanzania Coalition on Debt and Development UDNU Uganda Debt Network UFPE Universal Free Primary Education ULAA Uganda Local Authorities Association 1.0 Background _____________________________________________ The workshop was organized by two reputable organizations namely; BEACON and the Norwegian Church Aid (NCA). Primarily, the workshop was intended to provide a better understanding of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (herein referred to as PRSPs) and determine the involvement of Non State Actors (NSAs) in the process in East Africa, the Great Lakes Region and the Horn of Africa. The specific purpose of the workshop was to empower the churches and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) as a basis for intervention in the PRSPs. To effectively realize this purpose, the workshop had to satisfactorily pursue the following objectives: Create and sharpen the participants knowledge about PRSPs both generally and contextually. Identify the entry points through which the participants can engage in the PRSP process in their respective areas of operation. Forge partnerships through networking to enhance participation in the process. 1.1 Introduction _______________________________________ The workshop was highly participatory in nature and design. There were presentations from a wide range of experienced resource persons on various major themes: Understanding the PRSP approach to development in Low Income Countries Selected Country Experiences; Deepening participants understanding of the PRSP: The link between PRSPs and Key Development processes and issues in developing countries and; Building alliances to engage in the PRSP process in our respective countries and consolidating an action plan for post-workshop activities. Besides the presentations which were followed by plenary discussions (Questions, comments and clarifications), there were group and individual assignments. Debates and panel discussions also marked the workshop sessions. Participants were mainly drawn from the three East African countries: Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania although some organizations in Rwanda and Ethiopia expressed optimism of attending future workshops on the same. The participants expectations of the workshop were varied. Widely sampled, the following constituted their expectations: Acquire more knowledge about PRSP and use it in implementing programmes in their respective countries. Share experiences with other participants and learn from their experiences in different countries. To unravel problems facing Africans and find solutions to the same. To discern the involvement of NSAs in PRSPs. And, understand the genesis and basics of PRSPs. These expectations as observed by the lead facilitator were concomitant with the workshops objectives. Not only did the participants express their expectations but also fears. The fears ranged from insufficient or limited time to properly understand and constructively engage in the PRSPs processes to the possibility that the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) can shift focus from PRSPs to another concept before it is fully owned by actors in the low income countries and, the fear that PRSPs could follow in the tradition of impracticability and failure of other preceding concepts. The workshop intended to achieve the following at its conclusion: Enhance a better understanding of PRSPs among participants to enable them create awareness about the same and, develop their engagement plans. Establish a network of Faith Based Organizations (FBOs) in the region to engage in the PRSP processes in their respective countries. Create wider participation in economic policy mapping and advocacy process by the Faith Based Organizations (FBOs) and other CSOs. 2.0 Getting Started: The Evolution of PRSPs and its main features. A summary of the History of Development Aid given the constantly blowing winds of change in development cooperation, one can be sure that PRSPs will eventually be phased out, hopefully for an even better framework. In the meantime we need to focus our attention on the opportunities that come with the PRS approach in order to maximize benefit from it. Arthur Larok, Lead Facilitator. The Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) approach to development was located within the historical perspective of aid which is traceable to the mid 1940s following the massive destruction administered upon many European countries by the Second World War. To rebuild the destroyed countries, a new world order that prompted the establishment of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), currently the World Bank was set up. America injected a colossal aid programme equivalent to 1% of her Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to help in revamping the economies of Western Europe. This initiative by the USA came to be known as the Marshall Plan. Following termination of the Second World War, observed the presenter, the world divided into two blocks: the Western and Eastern blocks marking the beginning of the cold war. The former led by America championed free markets and democracy while the latter led by the former USSR was socialist or communist in outlook. As a result, development aid to developing countries was influenced by this schism and often used as a leverage to attract these countries to either bloc. This period thus witnessed massive aid flows to developing countries but with little impact. The collapse of the Berlin wall in early 1990s however, witnessed a declining trend in development aid to developing countries. 2.1 The changing face of development aid The many shifts in development aid are mainly tied to conditionalities. These conditionalities on aid delivered to low-income countries by the developed countries have varied from project based conditionality, macroeconomic, and even political conditionality including the demand to subscribe to a specific type of democracy among others. At the inception stage of development cooperation, it was observed that donors invested in projects and provided technical assistance to recipient governments and this included some elements of food aid. The project aid approach however, was unsuccessful due to the following factors: It was propounded on a premise (that of distrust of government) that made it unpopular with the beneficiary governments. The projects were entirely initiatives of donors and lacked recipients ownership. Lastly, many conditionalities were imposed on projects at the expense of state institutions. Consequently, the recipient governments developed very weak institutions. Due to its failures, project aid was replaced with macroeconomic conditionality following financial crisis in most developing countries in the 1980s. It was based on the assumption that project conditionality failed since it did not adequately address macroeconomic policy. Donors thus introduced a new aid instrument based on macroeconomic and structural policies as conditionality for accessing development aid, laying emphasis on budget and balance of payment support. At about the same time, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) introduced Policy Framework Papers (PFP), outlining broad policies both macro and structural, that recipient countries were required to implement. The macroeconomic conditionality was characterized by public expenditure reviews, verification of agreed targets and tranched disbursements. Like its predecessor, this approach had its shortcomings. It equally lacked ownership in recipient countries since PFPs were designed in Washington and imposed on recipient governments and, in spite of poverty dimension to development getting rooted, this new approach had no considerations for the same. The increasing levels of poverty in many developing countries thus revealed that development interventions were not benefiting citizens. In the early 1990s, the World Bank and the IMF sought for possible reasons for failed projects and underdevelopment in poor countries. As a result, they came to the realization that without integrating governments of recipient countries in development programming, all donor efforts would be futile. The undemocratic nature of most of these countries however, presented an obstacle that had to be surmounted by tying development aid to democratic reform. This political conditionality embraced its main weakness in the arbitrary nature in which it was applied by the donors resulting in some major failures. 2.2 The birth of the PRSP approach _______________________________________________________ Towards the end of the 1990s decade, non-governmental organizations the world over exerted sustained pressure on the Breton Woods Institutions over the failure of their policy prescriptions. The Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) was therefore, introduced in November 1999 at the G8 meeting in Cologne as a conditionality for aid in response to the above failures. The change of strategy was based on the reasoning that developing countries would be incapable of paying back what they owed unless brought back to the threshold and part of their debt cancelled. Extending the argument further, the policies of the two institutions were viewed as having bred poverty while debt servicing siphoned resources that could be spent on the social and other crucial sectors of the economy. Responding to these criticisms, the G8 introduced a debt reduction mechanism in 1996 referred to as HIPCI (Highly Indebted Poor Country Initiative). HIPCI envisaged the conditionality that for a country to qualify, the ratio of its stock of debt in net present value (NPV) to its exports should be 200%. The initiative was heavily criticized for not delivering enough relief and failing to solve the debt question. In 1999, HIPC II was introduced to redeem many countries in a debt-overhung back to the threshold level. The qualification criterion was subsequently revised with the ratio of debt stock to a countrys export reduced to 150% from 200%. Also, the PRSP was made conditionality not only for deeper debt relief but also as a tool for concessional lending by both the World Bank and the IMF. The poverty reduction approach to development was thus established, prompting the IMF to transform its Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility (ESAF), its previous lending tool, to the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) while the World Bank transformed its lending tool to the Poverty Reduction Support Credit (PRSC) in line with the renewed focus on poverty reduction. 2.3 PRSP: Its main features The main features of PRSP are anchored around five pillars: Comprehensiveness; implying that in its proposed interventions, PRSPs should attempt to address the multi-dimensionality of poverty. National ownership; this implies that developing countries governments and their citizens should take this strategy as their own plan for development and should be accountable for its implementation. Poverty Focus; this feature is in line with the realization that unless poverty is addressed, achieving development would be evasive. Widely participatory; it provides that PRSPs should be prepared in a participatory manner. The citizens and civil society must be engaged in the entire PRSP process; formulation, implementation, monitoring and reviews. Results oriented; implies that the poverty reduction strategy should be precise on what it tends to achieve in the medium to long term, with clear and measurable indicators. What makes the PRS approach unique from the previous approaches? To begin with, the approach is unique in that for the first time the World Bank and the IMF together with other bilateral arrangements are willing to involve developing countries in determining what works and what cant in their diverse contexts. PRSPs are also designed to be flexible and in particular draws from country specific realities and not a one size fit all or single blue print to development. To this extent, the presenter observed it would be fair to say that the PRSP framework, its key features together with the programmes and poverty interventions that ensue from it provide a fairly new approach to development planning. Noting that development approaches are very dynamic, he expressed optimism that with time elapse, PRSPs will eventually be phased out but hopefully for an even better development framework. Before then, attention needs to be focused on the opportunities that accompany PRS approach to maximize benefits from it. Key Lessons: From the plenary discussion that followed the above presentation, the following vividly emerged as lessons learnt from the presentation. Interestingly, they closely reflected what the presenter had captured in his concluding remarks. Briefly outlined they are: That earlier development approaches were devoid of recipient governments and citizens participation thus failed in achieving the set goals. Consequently, new approaches have followed and the last in the trend is PRSPs. That PRSPs unlike other approaches, accords recipient governments considerable power to identify priority areas for strategic intervention. That PRSPs emphasis on wider stakeholder participation introduces challenges of coordination but also provides opportunities for enriching the process with unique experiences brought on board. That the multi-stakeholder involvement carries with it opportunities for institutionalizing participation in development planning and empowerment of NSAs as they will inevitably need to invest in capacity building, new ways of organizing, critical reflections on their internal functioning and more innovative strategies of encountering the changing environment. Lastly, it was observed that analysis and discussions on subjects such as industrial policy, trade protection, subsidy support to domestic industries, levels of deficit spending, price supports, and regulation on FDI among others should be integrated into the PRSP discussions for it to be truly comprehensive. 3.0 The status of PRSP implementation in the region The participants from the three represented East African countries proposed two participants to constitute a panel of six. The panel discussion responded to the question; what is the status of the PRSP process in the Eastern Africa region? The panelists were required to present case studies of their respective countries. 3.1 The case of Tanzania Tanzania concluded implementing the first PRSP generation in 2004 which was approved by the World Bank. In the same year, a review of the implementation process of the first generation was conducted before negotiations and meetings with the stakeholders were commenced in preparation for the second generation. The consultations continued until June when the actual implementation of the second generation PRSP begun. The first generation PRSP, domestically referred to as Mkakati wa Kupunguza Umaskini was based on central initiatives and focused on six priority sectors: Education, Agriculture Health, Road Construction and the, Water, Judiciary The second generation PRSP known as the National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP) nationally referred to as Mkakati wa Kukuza Uchumi na Kupunguza Umaskini (MKUKUTA) transformed the mode of deciding priority sectors from sectoral considerations to outcome orientation based on three major clusters namely: Improving growth and reduction of poverty Improving the quality of life and social well-being Good governance and accountability The panelists expounded that underlying the above clusters are targets and, that within the targets there are the goals and operational targets in view of which all activities were to be conducted. They also pointed out that whereas the first generation PRSP covered three years (2001-4), the second-generation spreads over a period of five years (2005-2010). It is believed that this would allow effective implementation with mid-term reviews. Interestingly, it was observed that the areas of focus in both generations were almost similar with the same indicators. The second generation PRSP was thus basically a continuation of the first, with the hope of performing better. 3.2 Consultations The panelists observed that in the first generation PRSP, consultations were mainly at the national level and lacking in grassroots input. However in the second generation, CSOs were widely consulted through the national Non-Governmental Commission and made their contributions to the process. This was not without a hitch as the Faith Based Organizations (FBOs) pulled out of the above frameworks arguing that the initiative lacked moral support. Consequently, the FBOs suggested the introduction of religious teaching as an accompaniment to every cluster. This was adopted and the FBOs were integrated into the process and made their input. The distinct structures of CSOs and FBOs were pointed out as some of the barriers to effective collaboration between the two genres of organizations. 3.3 The status of PRSP in Uganda Whereas the PRSP programmes were adopted in other countries from 1999 onwards, Uganda prides in having developed the first such programme in development planning as early as 1997. In fact, it is argued that the IFIs recommended this model to other developing countries having borrowed leaf from Uganda. They refer to this system of development planning as the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP). Adopted in 1997 as the main tool of planning, PEAP was based on four pillars: Economic growth and structural transformation Good governance and security Improving the capacity of the poor especially, the capacity to improve their income. Improving the quality of life of the poor (specifically in the following areas; education, health-access and how to bolster life expectancy) The panelists confirmed that in 2001, Uganda reviewed the impact of the pillars on poverty reduction and it was realized that there was no major improvements in the living conditions of the poor. Instead, contradictions abound. For instance, despite the rapid growth of the economy at the rate of about 7%, poverty situation staggered between 39% and 56% thus insinuating inherent problems in the approach to development planning. 3.4 Consultations Civil society organizations and Faith Based Organizations, it was noted, were consulted during the review exercise and together they made their input into the process. A consultative forum for instance, was organized for the FBOs where they advocated for moral issues and introduced the idea of disaster management in national planning. Together with the CSOs, they also advocated for conflict resolution and disarmament. As a result of the consultations, the revised PEAP which is to run for four years (2004-2008) adopted the following pillars: Economic Management Enhancing production, competitiveness and incomes Security, conflict resolution and disaster management Good governance and; Human development. The reviewed PEAP has also witnessed different new policy frameworks developed by the government. For instance, the Plan for Modernization of Agriculture (PAM); Universal Free Primary Education (UFPE) among others. 3.5 The Kenyan Case According to the Kenyan panelists, the PRS approach to development planning was adopted in the year 2000 following consultations between the Kenya government and the World Bank. However, it was realized that it was not consultative and therefore unpopular with the people. Consequently in 2001, consultations were launched right from the locational level to incorporate the grassroots input in identifying development priorities. Following the consultations, these sectors were identified as requiring priority consideration in development planning: Agriculture/ Rural Development Physical infrastructure Human Resource development Tourism, trade and industry Public safety, law and order The provincial Administration and; Information Technology. 3.6 Consultations The panelists noted that PRSP process was really rushed and the CSOs were accorded limited and inappropriate time to make their contributions into the process. For this reason, it has become largely unpopular with the Kenyan citizenry. It was observed that, coming too close to the transition period, the program was not implemented as it was overshadowed by transition politics. With the elevation to power of a new regime, the panelists observed that the incumbent government simply Xeroxed the elements of the PRSP into the Economic Recovery Strategy Paper (ERSP) that has come to be considered by both the government and the donors as Kenyas blueprint of development programs. The following table presents a summary of the above. The status of PRSPS in East African countries: A synopsis of country case overviews CountryName of PRSP/GenerationName of Focus AreasAreas of FocusParticipationCommentsTanzaniaPRSP (Mkakati wa kupunguza umaskini) :first generation, concluded in 2004. National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (second Generation). Also known as Mkukuta.Priority Sectors Clusters Education Health Water Agriculture Road construction Judiciary Improving growth and reduction of poverty. Improving the quality of life and social well-being. Good governance and Accountability.Consultations at the national level, not grassroots. CSOs consulted through the National NGOs Commision. FBOs initially disengaged claiming the process lacked moral support. Later, reengaged and made their input.  FBOs and CSOs have different structures thus presenting a hurdle in their engagement.UgandaPoverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP). PEAP 2.Pillars PillarsEconomic growth and structural transformation. Good governance and security. Improving the capacity of the poor especially, their earnings. Improving the quality of life of the poor. Economic management Enhancing production, competitiveness & income Security, conflict Resolution and Disaster Management. Good governance. Human development The country reviewed PEAP pillars in 2001. CSOs and FBOs consulted and together made their input into the review process  The NERP process was widely consultative through the CSOs that penetrated down to the grassroots.KenyaPRSP NB. PRSP hardly implemented due to the political transition. The incumbent regime Xeroxed PRSP into ERSP SectorsAgriculture. Human Resource Development. Tourism, Trade and Industry. Public safety law and order.PRSP rushed and the CSOs offered a short period for consultation thus, inadequate input. Consequently, PRSP not owned by the people. Plenary Discussions After each country specific presentations, the participants engaged the panelists in a question and answer session. This section generally looks at the various issues raised and the respective responses. What is the level of participation that is representative of the local communities? It was observed that contradictions are evident in the approach itself as a focus on conditionalities from the donors are likely to force governments to meet them at the expense of national consultations and participation. As concerns the above question, it was accepted that it is hard to determine the truly representative sample of the communities as certain groups of people especially the very poor remain aloof to consultative forums even at the lowest possible level. Nonetheless, a consensus was reached that more effort should be put in creating extensive awareness on the PRSP programme by the CSOs to encourage wider representation. What explains the relatively participatory nature of the second generation PRSP in Tanzania as opposed to the first generation? The Tanzanian panelists noted that consultations for the first generation were mainly conducted through NGOs at the national level that were short of grassroots penetration thus excluding a significant proportion of stakeholders in the important process. The second phase, they noted was comparatively more participatory as efforts were made to reach the lower levels but this was again considered inadequate as the peasant villages were not convincingly represented. Due to recurring concerns on participation, the following observation was made: That participation is a question of representation and the problem is perhaps the absence or ineffectiveness of the feedback mechanism. It was also noted that groups do not represent the poor thus the need to find mechanisms of reaching them. This was informed by a study on Western Uganda, Find the groups and you have found the poor. 3.7 PRSPs, National Planning Cycles and the link with national budget processes, the case of Uganda By Daniel Lukwago (But Presented by Arthur Larok) Mr. Daniel Lukwago points out that the PRSP approach is an arrangement that envisages partnership between donors and a country around a mutually agreed agenda for poverty reduction with the donors promising to provide predictable, long-term financial support to governments implementing PRSPs. Budget support stands out as the modality of aid delivery through which donors can effectively discharge their responsibilities in this regard. General budget support (GBS) is perceived by donors as the best way of delivering their commitments to PRSPs. He observes that donors, both bilateral as well as multilateral have been moving progressively from project to programme aid and from import support to direct funding of the national budget. 3.7a Linking PRSPs with Planning and Budgeting It is observed that in many developing countries PRSPs represent a wish-list of policy measures which are poorly prioritized and too often delinked from availability of financial resources in the budget. Consequently, the PRSP outlines in detail the poverty reduction priorities of a country, identifying specific policies and strategies, and ways to monitor progress in each sector. Most countries that pursue PRSPs embrace a consultative budget process and largely implements the PRSP objectives through: Sector Wide Approaches (SWAPS) and the Medium Term Expenditure Frameworks (MTEF) which is a three year rolling plan. The latter are anchored in most PRSP country budgets as strong tools for integrating budget and planning. Currently, MTEFs remain the main planning tool in many PRSP countries; it gives sector-spending ceilings that are consistent with macroeconomic stability and economic growth. As a direct result of the PRSPs, it was observed that planning and budgeting in most countries have undergone a number of reforms such as: Increased focus on poverty reduction with priority setting increasingly guided by interventions under the PRSP. MTEF adopted as a planning and budgeting tool both at local and national government levels. Integration of project aid in the MTEF Development of Sector Investment Plans (SIP) as a basis for programme prioritization and resource allocation. Budget Support as opposed to project support as a preferred mode of funding. The presenter noted that with the PRSP approach, the budget process is becoming more open, transparent and consultative in Uganda. The following were identified as entry points for CSOs in the budget process: Budget formulation and analysis, Monitoring delivery of public services, and Expenditure Monitoring and Tracking. Various challenges on budgeting under the PRSP approach are however evident. For instance, the risk of focusing too much on PRSP priority programmes and expenditures, may lead to imbalanced allocations with over emphasis on the social sectors; limited participation in the budget process as the institutional arrangements built for participation in the PRSP do not link with those built for budget participation; limited capacity of the CSOs to engage in the budget process despite being key players in the PRSPs and; MTEF ceilings usually jeopardizes the PRSP desire to support an expanded resource envelope to accommodate increased aid flows to contribute to poverty reduction. 3.8 An overview of key development challenges in developing countries and how the PRSP framework addresses them: The case of Kenya. By Henry Waruhiu (Facilitator) Mr. Henry Waruhiu traces the key challenges to development in Kenya right from the independence period i.e the 1960s. These are not strange to the ones highlighted in the evolution of the PRSP approach in the preceding section. Being very particular to the PRSP initiative in the Kenyan case, he identifies the following challenges: Poverty Analysis: Lack of reliable or availability of unreliable data is a major challenge confronting development initiatives as it deprives planners fundamental data upon which to ground their estimates. Poverty is largely dynamic in nature and demands constant monitoring using data to tailor counter responses. This problem, it is pointed out, is attributable to costs and physical infrastructure and unfortunately, is likely to persist though it receives attention. In response to this problem, the government through the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) conducted a participatory poverty assessment survey to identify weaknesses inherent in its system of planning. Out of this exercise, imperative documents: Kenyas Geographical well-being that locates the poor and, constituency poverty profiles were developed. On the same note, there is an ongoing exercise to verify data on poverty in the country referred to as the Kenya Integrated Household Budget Survey (KIHBS). Lastly, the government has embarked on a STATCAP (Statistics Capacity Building Project) project to enhance the capacity of the CBS which has also released its strategic plan for the next six years. Comprehensiveness in planning processes: In as much as PRSP should embrace a holistic view about development and take into account the multi-dimensionality of poverty by encouraging participation, comprehensiveness in planning continues to pose a challenge as planning is not satisfactorily participatory. The facilitator observes that the further one moves away from the urban areas, so does the interministerial coordination weakens. Responding to the challenge, the government has introduced Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) to monitor government expenditure. In addition, budget forecasts for 2005 2008 are now available to furnish citizens with information on the same to facilitate better engagement in the process. Lastly, the coordination mechanisms have been operationalized for instance the National Aids Control Council (NACC) and Social Welfare groups have been established to facilitate coordination. (Over) Dependence on development aid. Developing countries reliance on development aid remains a major challenge that has been carried all the way since the attainment of independence by most of these countries. Complicating the equation further is the fact that aid has been flowing in, yet development still remains a far cry. The Kenya government has in turn established the National Economic Social Council (NESC) to focus on both the economic and social aspects of development as the donor driven PRSP largely concentrates on the social dimensions of development. The Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) has also been revitalized to increase domestic revenue collection. In fact, the Authority has exceeded set targets for the last three years and lastly, the government did not factor in donor aid in the 2005/6 budget showcasing a step from relying on aid. Weak institutions: Although there are watchdog institutions to oversee public expenditure, they can only be described as toothless for they have limited powers and do not exercise reasonable autonomy for instance the Kenya Anti Corruption Commission (KACC), the Auditor Generals office among others. To confront this challenge, the government through the ERS has pursued privatization of seriously destabilized enterprises and has introduced reforms in the civil service, the financial sector among others all with the intention of improving governance and performance. Weak Monitoring and Evaluation systems: PRSP require complex M &E systems that are multi-dimensional in method, multi-purpose, multi-layer and multi-criteria. Perhaps this presents the greatest challenge to PRSP in Kenya as such systems remain woolly and difficult to monitor. The Non State Actors themselves are poorly coordinated to undertake the task while the government cannot monitor and evaluate herself. To make the task less in magnitude, the government has introduced the District Monitoring and Evaluation Committees. Problems of Governance: The main governance problem relates to questions of accountability that is widely compromised. Vertically, the government accounts to the donors and this is sometimes cosmetic for purposes of opening the aid valves. Horizontally, the CSOs are not transparent in their financial accountability due to vested interests and as a result fail to account to their peers. The expanded democratic space in the country has to an extent checked against such malpractices. The media has specifically played a leading role in checking against government excesses. Participation in the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) has also assisted the government realize the weak points and consequently, encouraged the District Peer Review Mechanisms. PLENARY Compared to other East African countries, what explains the slow and almost unclear implementation of the PRSP in Kenya? The facilitator pointed out that the development of the PRSP was rushed and the CSOs were consulted for a limited period of time that could not permit meaningful input into the process. More over, the development of the PRSP was concluded at the height of the transition politics implying that politics overwhelmed its implementation and with the ascension to power of a new regime, time was lost in developing the ERSP (the official blue print of development programs) which is almost a replica of the PRSP. 4.0 Synergies between PRSP and MDGs By Henry Waruhiu (Facilitator) A Brief Historical Background of MDGs Despite concerted efforts to fight poverty and related problems, no significant achievements had been realized by the end of the previous Millenium. For this reason, 191 world leaders and 189 countries (Kenya included) adopted the Millenium Declaration. They set goals to be achieved by 2015 and the United Nations (UN) member countries and International Organizations made commitments to ensure basic development for all by the above period through the attainment of MDGs. In total, there are eight MDGs namely: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Achieve Universal Primary Education Promote Gender quality and empower women Reduce Child Mortality Improve Maternal Health Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases Ensure Environmental Sustainability Develop Global Partnership for Development Generally, the following observations can be made about the MDGs: that the eight goals comprise 18 targets and some 48 indicators; that costing the goals is incredibly difficult; and that they are UN inspired while PRSPs were IMF/WB inspired. Despite this bleak observation, they also have certain merits. For instance, they represent a world wide compact, focus on poverty as an overarching objective, capture many if not all of its dimensions, seem to harness commitment and are measurable. As pointed out by the facilitator, serious limitations are inherent when using MDGs at a lower than global level: They lack country specificity as they adopt a one-size-fits-all approach based on global average poverty trends and indicators that are not particularly helpful. They contradict national ownership as low-income countries develop own strategies for reducing poverty (PRSP) in which they set their own objectives and targets. In line with this role, they consult their own civil society and donors and the targets form the basis for a results-based contract with donors which often do not strictly tally MDGs. MDGs constitute a poor planning guide since they are high on monitorability but low on evaluability. Lastly, they underestimate governance issues by concentrating largely on the social dimensions. As observed by the presenter, when governance is poor, just throwing in more aid money is not a wise idea. 4.1 PRSPs and MDGs: The synergy Synergies can be drawn between the two approaches in the following respects: Both emphasize social spending but MDGs acknowledges the need for global partnership. In both cases, economic growth is necessary but not sufficient for poverty reduction. There is need for alignment either aligning PRSPs to MDGs or vise versa. The former is highly preferable as it responds to country specific cases. Both are poverty focused. That country ownership for MDGs in setting its targets is crucial. MDGs thus need to be localized. Lastly, MDGs are a good tool for checking on donor promises which PRSPs falls short of. 4.2 A Critique of the PRSP framework: major gaps and criticism of PRSPs in developing countries. By Annabel Waititu The presenter concisely delved into the weaknesses or gaps in the PRSP framework. To begin with, she noted that participation in the approach is not properly inclusive. This alludes to the fact that the framework of participation is exclusionary as it outlines the youth, women and other seven groups that are allowed to submit their interventions at the UN summit in five minutes which is quite inadequate. The approach also confuses consultation for participation. The former although good does not necessarily imply participation which has been poor in the previous exercises. Secondly, the approach is shadowed by heavy donor presence and control as it is subjected to the approval of the World Bank and the IMF. The recipient governments are therefore obligated to account to the donors rather than the people. Thirdly, the PRSP approach requires a well established and efficient Monitoring and Evaluation process that remains a major challenge in most developing countries. For this reason, the presenter noted that the data used in planning is old and unreliable thus fails to cater for moving targets. Lastly, she observed that whereas PRSPs seeks to reduce poverty, some of its contents are not pro-poor for example privatization that culminates into increased costs of services. She also points out the various elements of unfair trade such as trade barriers and subsidies that are not adequately addressed by the approach. In her concluding remarks, she addressed the question, are PRSPs a panacea to Africas quest for development? To respond to the question, she advised that is necessary that one identifies Africas problems first for instance, poverty, disease burden, governance crisis, growing population, diminishing resources, external vulnerabilities: trade, capital flows among others. In this regard she noted, unless PRSPs confront and respond to the multifaceted nature of Africas problems, it is unlikely to succeed like the SAPs. As a parting shot, CSOs were encouraged to exert pressure on their respective governments to develop local development frameworks and seize relying on donor funding in their planning. 5.0 The Big Debate: Are PRSPs a panacea to developing countries development challenges? To constitute the panelists for the debate, eight names were proposed. They in turn randomly picked folded sheets of paper that grouped them either on the opposers or proposers side. Each side was given five minutes to present their case and a couple of minutes to every panelist to state individual arguments. In a summarized form, the below were the cases made for or against PRSPs in the debate. According to the proposers, PRSPs provide the best solutions for Africas development challenges: it presents the opportunity for Africans to define and take charge of their own development goals. It thus allows Africans to look at development more holistically and in a more comprehensive manner. They further argued that the approach is virtually inclusive as participation trickles down to the grassroots. They also acknowledged that currently PRSPs, although not perfect provides a development launching pad for we have no better alternative approach to development. The opposers on the other hand were categorical that PRSPs doesnt work in the interests of the poor as it contravenes its own elements. They point out that whereas the approach champions participation, it is untimely and hardly penetrates to the grassroots. They also underscored the point that PRSPs are unpopular with the people and are largely viewed as WB and IMF ideas. In strong terms, the opposers stated that PRSPs are a looming failure due to the requirements that are missing or ill established in developing countries for instance up-to-date and reliable data and, its over emphasis on social issues without adequate attention to economic dimensions. The proposers emerged with a landslide victory when the participants voted using the secret ballot method. This implies that there was a wide consensus among the participants that even though there are certain weaknesses of the approach that are known, there are also merits of the same that are explicit. Therefore, the approach should be implemented in view of the latter and modified in respect to the former to achieve development. The debate also depicted that the workshop had realized its goals as the participants expressed a good understanding of the main issues underlying the PRSP approach. 6.0 Building an agenda for Non State Actors in the PRSP process: What are the entry points for NSAs? (Annabel Waititu) Participants were urged to actively engage in the PRSP process for the simple reason that, whether they do or dont, governments were already involved and decisions will be made anyway. Thus it is better to influence those decisions from the inside than from the outside. The table below captures the various levels of entry for NSAs in the PRSP process identified by Annabel. Entry points for NSAs in the PRSPs Level of entrySpecific ActivitiesThe Local levelCapacity building for effective participation, facilitating information sharing and exchange, Educating communities about PRSPs and how they can engage, Building networks, promoting best practices from network (articulate and integrate cross-cutting issues e.g gender and vulnerable groups, governance, HIV, environment among others.The National levelConducting Monitoring and Evaluation studies to assess the implementation process and impact; expenditure monitoring and tracking; public service delivery monitoring; developing mechanisms of holding service providers accountable; developing annual Mid-Term Expenditure framework requires that a certain portion of non-salaried expenditure be poverty focused (for instance, in Kenya 40% is devoted to education); and poverty diagnostics .Policy FormulationInfluence the current agenda/policy to respond to poverty reduction; Building case studies that can inform policy; Influence participatory processes in PRSPs: proposing models that can be explored for adoption and consideration.Regional and InternationalIdentifying forums at the regional and international levels and if possible developing position papers on issues of interest; Establishing regional and International networks. 7.0 The role and experience of civil society organizations and other non-state actors in engaging with the PRSP process: Experiences from Uganda. By Arthur Larok (Facilitator). The Ugandan government embarked on the process of revising the PEAP in November 2002 which resulted in the development of the Poverty Status Report for 2003. During the process, three stakeholder workshops were organized by the MoFPED, each focusing various aspects of the review. As noted by the facilitator, the consultative aspects of the revision process had four main distinctive strands of consultation: Central government-led consultations; essentially through line ministries. Local government led consultations through the Uganda Local Authorities Association (ULAA) Civil Society-led consultations through the Uganda National NGO forum Private sector-led consultations through the Private Sector Foundation (PSF) He also points out that other working groups that operated independently of the above but sometimes with the above strands also played a key role in the process for instance: a donor working group for PEAP revision and select cross cutting working groups for gender, environment, HIV/AIDS e.t.c. 7.1 CSOs Participation and Engagement in Uganda The close proximity of CSOs to the realities of the poor make them key players in making citizens aware of their rights and responsibilities and preparing them to exercise those rights. They are also known to have the expertise, values and ethical underpinnings that can make development policies and plans more responsive to the needs, realities and rights of the poor and more equity-enhancing in terms of gender, regional balance, children, disabled and minority groups. The hallmark of CSO participation in 1999/00 PEAP revision exercise coordinated by Uganda Debt Network (UDN) was regional consultations done in eight zones of Uganda bringing together over 644 CSO representatives. Their active and collective involvement started after a draft PEAP was already produced and this notes the facilitator, probably explains the nature and overarching focus on regional consultations. The strong voices emerging from the periphery also provided the basis for synthesis and analysis. CSOs made significant impact in the process. Notably, they made two fundamental observations as a foundation for their PEAP revision proposals: That the conflict in northern Uganda is a major challenge to poverty reduction and unless resolved, neither PEAP nor the MDG targets will be achieved. That unless corruption that has percolated both the Ugandan public and private fabric is curbed, poverty eradication efforts will come to naught as considerable amounts of resources get diverted for personal reasons. CSOs argued that if these challenges are surmounted significant resources would be directed to finance priority poverty reduction and socio- economic welfare initiatives among other priorities. In summary, it is fair to state that CSOs did make some significant impact in the 2003/04 PEAP revision process as they principally focused on people centered issues and consultative processes that made their contributions quite unique and challenging. PLENARY What is the nexus between politics and development? This short and clear question attracted the longest discussion in the workshop with varied views. In all that divergence of thought, this view could be condensed as consensual among the participants: That resources whether material or human provide an impetus to development initiatives and that, the government is a principal player in politics which is primarily concerned about resources. Drawing from Harold Lasswel, politics was defined as an activity concerned about who gets what, when and how? Due to the foregoing reasons, the participants agreed that CSOs and other NSAs could not afford to be apolitical and at the periphery of the entire process but to actively and tactfully engage in it. Poor leadership was also perceived as prevalent in the region and that there was need for the NSAs to provide checks and balances by playing the watchdog role in order to hold the leaders accountable to the people. 7.2 Best practices in PRSP Monitoring: The case of Tanzania By Max Kajege Noting that the targets set in the PRSP are ambitious although not impossible to achieve, Mr. Kajege argues that the resources devoted to development should be used effectively and efficiently. This demand for accurate and timely data and information on the various aspects of planning as reliable information empowers policy makers to assess achievements and failures under the PRS and hence, take appropriate actions in response. In addition, reliable information equips the civil society with facts for lobbying and advocacy for policy changes while engaging effectively in policy dialogue to hold the government accountable and transparent. As pointed out by the presenter, Tanzania has one of the most elaborate institutional frameworks for PRSP monitoring. Consider the following for instance: The National Poverty Steering Committee; This is a broad based committee constituted of members representing key ministries involved in the PRSP, CSOs, academic institutions, the private sector, major faith groups and international development agents. The Poverty Monitoring Secretariat; The secretariat is comprised of staff from the key ministries and the Vice presidents office. It provides services to the Committee of Ministers, Poverty Monitoring Committee and the PRS Technical committee. Survey and Census Group that includes representatives of the NBS, EASTC, BOT, academic institutions, the planning commissioner and the development partners. Routine Data Group: This group coordinates routine data sources which contribute to poverty monitoring indicators. It consists of representatives of the PO-RALG, LGRP and Ministries responsible for the major sectoral routine data system, the National Bureau of Statistics and development partners. Research and Analysis Group that draws its members from PO-PP, VPO, BOT, NBS, academics, CSOs and development partners. Its core duty is to coordinate research and analysis related to the PRSP. Dissemination, Sensitization and Advocacy Group: It is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that data and information used by poverty monitoring system is presented to the relevant stakeholders in a user-friendly format. It is constituted by representatives from the VPO, PO-RALG, PO-PP, NBS, MoF, MoH, MoEC, CSOs and Development Partners. From the above institutional framework noted the presenter, it clearly seems that the CSOs in Tanzania are adequately involved in the Poverty Monitoring System. He however, critically observed that there is no structure that allows CSOs to directly involve in data and information generation at the local level thus, the urgent need for CSOs to find means for effective engagement in the actual process of monitoring. 8.0 After the workshop, what next? Action Plans Developed. Following the extensive deliberations that marked the three days and having reflected on the PRSP process in the respective participating countries, participants agreed to develop action plans that would guide their operations back home. Below are samples of the various action plans. TANZANIA ACTION PLAN AREA/ ENTRY POINTSPECIFIC ACTION(S) RESPONSIBILITY TIME FRAMEFormulation PlanningEngagement for the research for next PRSP reviewTCDD (C. M. KAJEGE)2006/08ImplementationService delivery Capacity building in conflict transformationCCT ( A. MAPUNDA) WCRP ( S. ZAGAR)2006/08 2006/08MonitoringPublic expenditure, monitoring & budget tracking TCDD ( C. M. KAJENGE)2006/08Evaluation & ReviewUndertaking impact assessmentACT/ DMK ( A. MWAIMU)2006/08 UGANDA ACTION PLAN AREA/ ENTRY POINTSPECIFIC ACTION PLANRESPONSIBILITYTIME FRAMEFormulation and planningResearch on how to train other stakeholders. Developing training materials DocumentationOneka Joseph Uganda team UJCCJan- Feb 06 3rd week of March April 06ImplementationNational T.O.T Regional SensitizationUJCC UJCC2nd week of May June 06Monitoring Design a monitoring tool Implementation based on work plansUganda team Dec 06Evaluation & ReviewIndicators based on work plans Uganda team Dec 06 Jan 07 Kenya Plan of Action LEVELSSPECIFIC ACTIONSRESPONSIBILITYTIME FRAMEPlanningBaseline survey Action plan drawingBeacon national office Consultants and survey teamEnd of Feb 06ImplementationCreate awareness of the outcome of Baseline Survey Aligning of PRSP on organization activities Enhance further understanding of PRSP through readingAll organizations represented On- goingMonitoringBudget tracking ( Develop a monitoring tool and approaches)Individual organization MAYEvaluation And Review Position papers District assemblies District monitoring and Evaluation committees National monitoring and Evaluation committeesALL Bi- Annual June & Dec  The presentation of the action plans concluded the three day workshop and one participant; Mr. Ereniko was unanimously selected to give a closing speech before BEACON representative gave a closing remark. Mr. Erenikos closing speech to the workshop participants I would like to thank God for this privileged opportunity to address the participants of this workshop and BEACON and Norwegian Church Aid specifically, for making this event a success. I also extend my sincere gratitude to the able facilitators for the important and informative work. If our brains weighed five kilograms at the start of the workshop, it is beyond doubt that they are now much heavier. Let me request my colleagues to always bear at the back of their mind that work which relates to the poor is divine. God identified with the poor, not because they are clean but because they need help and that this should be our overriding responsibility. Our organizations have particular roles to improve life in the society and should endear themselves to this course. If we tailor them to our personal rehabilitation centers, we shall be judged: when I was hungry, you did not feed me, when naked, you did not clothe me. Failure to implement the resolutions arrived at in this workshop is a waste of time and highly irrational. Let us remember that, whenever we complain and point fingers at others, three fingers always point at us. Thank you and may God the almighty bless you. Regional Training Workshop on PRSPs and Non State Actors Involvement in East Africa and Eritrea [6th to 8th December 2005, Nairobi - Kenya] Program of the workshop TimeframeTuesday Understanding the PRSP approach to development in Low Income Countries Selected Country ExperiencesWednesday Deepening our understanding of the PRSP: The link between PRSPs and Key Development processes and issues in developing countries Thursday Building alliances to engage in the PRSP process in our respective countries and consolidating an action plan for post-workshop activities 08:30 09:30 am Introductory Sessions: Welcome Remarks and Official Opening by Organizers - [BEACON & NCA] Self Introductions and Experience sharingPRSPs, National Planning Cycles and the link with national budget processes [Daniel Lukwago, Uganda] Building an action agenda for Non State Actors in the PRSP process: What are the entry points for NSA?  09:30 10:30 am Purpose and Objectives of the Workshop, Methodology & Participants Expectations and preliminary sharing - [Arthur Larok]An overview of key development challenges in developing countries and how the PRSP framework addresses them: The case of Kenya [Henry Waruhiu, Kenya]Case Study: The role and experience of civil society organisations and other non-state actors in engaging with the PRSP process: Experiences from Zambia [Gregory C. CSPR in Zambia] 10:30 11:00 am  Tea and Health Break 11:00 12:00 noonA Background to PRSPs: The Evolution of the Poverty Reduction Approach to Development - [Arthur Larok]Group Work: Reflect on your countrys PRSP process with special attention to the extent of the following: Comprehensiveness, Level of Peoples participation in the process Who are the main PRSP protagonists? Best practices in PRSP Monitoring: The case of Tanzania [To be identified]12:00 12:45 pm Plenary Discussions: Questions, Comments and ClarificationsPlenary Feedback and general discussions Plenary Discussions and an introduction to practical sessions of the workshop (how do you plan to engage back home?)  1:00 2:00 pm  Lunch Break 2:15 3:00 pmA generic overview of PRSPs: Its major features and tenets - [Arthur Larok]Exploring the synergies between PRSPs and MDGs [To be identified] Group Work: Reflect on the PRSP process in your country and the entry points identified above and develop a realistic action plan. Pay special attention to the following: Engagement in: Formulation and planning; Implementation; Monitoring; Evaluation and reviews; Cross cutting elements (public education, poverty research, etc)  3:00 4:30 pmPanel Discussion: What is the status of the PRSP process in the Great Lakes region (Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania and Kenya)-[Selected Panelist]A critique of the PRSP framework: Major gaps and criticism of PRSPs in developing countries [To be identified] Plenary Debate and Discussion: Are PRSPs are a panacea to developing countries development challenges? [Facilitated by a participant]Group Work continues Presentation of draft actions plans by the different groups 4:30 4:45 pm  Evening Tea4:45 5:15 pm Major lessons and conclusions from the day [Selected Participant] Major Conclusions for the day and preview of day 3 [Raportuer Lead Facilitator]Presentation of draft action plans Major Lessons from the workshop and official closure by the organizers  List of Participants No. NAMEORGANIZATIONPOSITIONTELEMAIL1Augustine MwaimuACT-DMKDDO+255-744-398458 HYPERLINK "mailto:Dmk.dev@habari.co.tz" Dmk.dev@habari.co.tz2Angelus MapundaCCT-TZProgram Officer+255-26-2324445 HYPERLINK "mailto:Cct-dds@maf.or.tz" Cct-dds@maf.or.tz3Salim A ZagarWCRP-TZCEO+255-744-286932 HYPERLINK "mailto:wcrptz@bol.co.tz" wcrptz@bol.co.tz  HYPERLINK "mailto:zagarsalim@yahoo.com" zagarsalim@yahoo.com 4Sigrid ArcherBEACONProgramme Assistant0725-717218 HYPERLINK "mailto:Sigrid@tca.no" Sigrid@tca.no 5Chamba Max KajegeTCDDCoordinator+255-22-2820816 HYPERLINK "mailto:ttcdd@yahoo.com" ttcdd@yahoo.com6Bilal MohamedCAF ActionCEO0722-736928Caf_actionkenya.com 7Tumusiime EdwinCOU-PDRProgramme Officer077-729837 HYPERLINK "mailto:edwintumusiime@yahoo.com" edwintumusiime@yahoo.com8Mohammed A. SheikhCAF ActionProject Officer0724-642566 HYPERLINK "mailto:Gelley33@hotmail.com" Gelley33@hotmail.com9Jayne A Imbuye WasongaSTIPAProgramme Coordinator0722-782869 HYPERLINK "mailto:stipa@africaonline.co.ke" stipa@africaonline.co.ke10Jacqueline A MugishaBEACON/EACORFocal Point Officer020-2715739 HYPERLINK "mailto:eaco@africaonlie.co.ke" eaco@africaonlie.co.ke11Nahashon A. OdhiamboC.I.RResearcher0723-295630 HYPERLINK "mailto:aloudhimabo@yahoo.co.uk" aloudhimabo@yahoo.co.uk12Festus AshisomaAbalekwa Development OrganizationExecutive Director0721-550395 HYPERLINK "mailto:Abalekwa_devorg@yahoo.com" Abalekwa_devorg@yahoo.com13Musiimenta RodgersKSC Ltd UgandaProgrammes071-527585 HYPERLINK "mailto:Namara_Andrew@yahoo.co.uk" Namara_Andrew@yahoo.co.uk14Kamari EricK.R.C.D.IChairaman15F. Mabel Gogo (Mrs)ICCE Church Mt. Elgon DioceseChairperson HIV/AIDs Program078-981855 HYPERLINK "mailto:gogomabel@yahoo.com" gogomabel@yahoo.com16Joseph OnekaUJCC Programme Officer077-603530 HYPERLINK "mailto:ujcc@utlonline.co.ug" ujcc@utlonline.co.ug17Tegeret K. BonifaceORIPProgramme Officer0721-634461 HYPERLINK "mailto:btegeret@yahoo.com" btegeret@yahoo.com18Doughlas MagombolaACT/Diocese of SWTDev. Officer+255-262782010 +255-748-367620 HYPERLINK "mailto:dswt@africanline.co.tz" dswt@africanline.co.tz  HYPERLINK "mailto:magombola_2004@yahoo.com" magombola_2004@yahoo.com 19Ereniko AthanasyChristian Proffessionals of Tanzania (CPT)HR Officer20Timothy KariukiCETRADINSecretary+254-722-604734 HYPERLINK "mailto:cetradin@yahoo.com" cetradin@yahoo.com21Larok ArthurUganda National NGO ForumLead Facilitator+256-78-385818 HYPERLINK "mailto:ngofoum@infocom.co.ug" ngofoum@infocom.co.ug  HYPERLINK "mailto:jothur2000@yahoo.com" jothur2000@yahoo.com 22Henry WaruhiuSNVFacilitator Development Advisor0722-701532 HYPERLINK "mailto:Hwarihiu@mitsuminet.com" Hwarihiu@mitsuminet.com23Rebecca TanuiBEACONProgrammes Department+254-20-2712700 HYPERLINK "mailto:beacon@bidii.com" beacon@bidii.com  PAGE  PAGE 33 -./   6 ve G$$D00W8{8@&@E3FyGGrIIJJNNQQVVgZZp]]i```aa$acdKfff>@@&@-A.A BBWCDEEEEE3FxGyGG!q$!!O !!!O !!R !!{ !"!X!!!!!!O !!1$ & F dh$d%d&d'dNOPQ] a$$ dh] ^`a$ $ dh] a$G:I;IIIJ&JlKKKKLLNNNNQQQQ!!!!!!!"!-!-!-!{ !!!!!!E(!!!$ dh] ^`a$$ & F  dh] a$$ & F  dh] a$$ & F  dh] a$ $ dh] a$QSSTpTTTVVVVlXmXXX0YfY{YYfZgZhZiZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!{ !!!$ & F dh] a$$ dh] ^`a$$ & F dh] a$ $ dh] a$iZZZ0\1\\\\\]4]X]p]q]]h`i`j`k```!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!q$!!!!!$a$$ dh] `a$$ & F dh] a$$ dh] ^`a$ $ dh] a$````aaaa$aoapaqarasataaaaaaaaaaaab7/;Ut4 7//////; $ & F$Ifa$FfB $$Ifa$b bbb-b7b8b9b:bebbbbbbbbbbbcccccc;;;;;;;;;;UUUUUUUUUtttt $$Ifa$ $h$If^ha$ $ & F$Ifa$cccccccccd-d.d/d0d1d2d3d4d5d6d7d8d9d:d;dd?dtttttt7///////////////////Fft $$Ifa$?dGdOdPdQdRdSdTdUdVdWdXdYdZd[d\d]d^d_d`dadbdcdddldddd/;;; $ & F$Ifa$ $$Ifa$d#e$e8egeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeJfKfLf;;;;;;UUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUt $$Ifa$ $h$If^ha$ $ & F$Ifa$LfMfNfOfPfQfRfSfTfUfVfWfXfYfZffffffffffffff*aJ *h1l; h1l;aJ h1l;5aJh1l;5B*ph3f h1l;5h1l;B*ph3fh1l;h1l;B*phHRppplssuu(w)ww$xxxybyzzP}Q}}}}D !!!q$!!"!!!!!!!!!!O !!q$!!!!!O !!$ & F dh] a$$ & F dh] a$ $ dh] a$ ӈԈ&'<=ŐƐ89:B!E(!!!!!!"!! !!O !!O !! !!!!"!!!$ dh] ^`a$ $ dh] a$$ & F dh] a$$ dh] ^a$B&*Os˗F56!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$ & F dh] a$$ dh] `a$ $ dh] a$$ dh] ^a$L ؝ٝG`a ՠyzAB!{ !"!!{ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,!!q$!!!$ & F dh] a$ $ dh] a$$ & F dh] a$ժ֪op ghi[\]!O !!q$!! !!q !!!!"!!!!$ dh$If] a$-$ dh$d%d&d'dNOPQ] a$ $ dh] a$ww!$ dh$If] a$xkd $$Ifl03," t0644 laϷww! $ dh$If] a$xkd[ $$Ifl03," t0644 laϷзȸ ww!O $ dh$If] a$xkd $$Ifl03," t0644 laȸɸN ww!{ $ dh$If] a$xkde$$Ifl03," t0644 la)HI0Ӽ H{ {!{!{!{!{!{!l!l!l!l!{!O $ & F dh] a$ $ dh] a$xkd$$Ifl03," t0644 la HIJK{|WXXY['[$1?@!!!!!!!!!!!!{ !!!!!!!{ !q$!!!!$ dh] ^`a$$ & F dh] a$ $ dh] a$@daV?@#ABWis}~! !!!O !O !{ !O !{ !"!!!!!O !!Ph h    $$Ifa$$ hdh] ^ha$$ & F dh] a$ $ dh] a$^UPUPHh U U U $h$If^ha$ $$Ifa$kdo$$Ifl\(#(@   t0#44 la KO]bn`WPJh Jh W W W W  $ & F$Ifa$ $$Ifa$kd.$$Ifl\(#(@   t0#44 lanvwW( PJh h   $ & F$Ifa$kd$$Ifl\(#(@   t0#44 la $$Ifa$$, W4 PJh    $h$If^ha$kd$$Ifl\(#(@   t0#44 la $$Ifa$,-.AShw`YT!T!KK K K $$Ifa$ $ dh] a$kd_$$Ifl\(#(@   t0#44 la`YWJ J J J J J  $ & F$Ifa$ $$Ifa$kd$$Ifl\:(#   t0#44 la!3=>M\sxWN J J J  $ & F$Ifa$kd$$Ifl\:(#   t0#44 la $$Ifa$x} J   kd$$Ifl\:(#   t0#44 la $$Ifa$ $ & F$Ifa$ () J^ =   $ & F$Ifa$kdK$$Ifl\:(#   t0#44 la $$Ifa$ $h$If^ha$)56>FG  =kd$$Ifl\:(#   t0#44 la $$Ifa$ $h$If^ha$ $ & F$Ifa$GHIJKLMNOPQRSho!!!!!!!!!!!!!  '$$+&@#$/Ifa$ $ dh] a$UYE1 1 1 $ & F$+&@#$/Ifa$$$+&@#$/Ifa$kd$$Ifl\*-," t 6@+0644 la M '1f  kdz$$IflR\*-," t 6@+0644 la$$+&@#$/Ifa$$ & F$+&@#$/Ifa$My       '$$+&@#$/Ifa$$h$+&@#$/If^ha$$ & F$+&@#$/Ifa$&>UE1 1 1 $ & F$+&@#$/Ifa$$$+&@#$/Ifa$kd3$$Ifl \*-," t 6@+0644 la>?@DE[  '1f kd$$IflR\*-," t 6@+0644 la$$+&@#$/Ifa$$h$+&@#$/If^ha$[\]^_`p      ''''''''$h$+&@#$/If^ha$$ & F$+&@#$/Ifa$$$+&@#$/Ifa$UI!I!{ I!I!I!I!I! $ dh] a$kd$$Ifl\*-," t 6@+0644 laWXpq!!!!"!!!!O !!!!!!!!!!!!Y!v:!!v:^$`&d P ^``a$$a$$^a$ $ dh] a$-/46WXpqsw{q9TV -z!Vl-.役 h1l;CJh1l;5>*CJOJQJh1l;5CJOJQJh1l;CJOJQJh1l;h1l;CJOJQJaJh1l;5CJOJQJaJh1l;5CJH*OJQJaJh1l;5CJOJQJaJh1l;5CJOJQJaJ8qrstuvw{!!v:v:v:v:v: v: v:h v:h v:Tv:Tv: $$Ifa$ $,$If^,a$ $ dh] a$ $.^ (v:(v:(v:$Ifkd^$$Ifl\00* @ ,  t(0-644 lap($;z{|} v:  h v:Tv:N v:v:kd$$Ifl\00* @ , t0-644 la & F $If$If}UVWiv: G h v:Tv:N^ v:v:kdE$$Ifl\00* @ , t0-644 la & F $If$Ifijg<'v:<'v:_Yv:Yv:Yv:Y v:O Yh v: & F!$If$Ifkd$$Ifl)000*(  t0-644 lap $$Ifa$ g.j h h Tv:NYUv: v:h v:Tv:kd$$Ifl\00* @ , t0-644 la$If & F!$If  ,^`Xv:Xv:O<'v:O<'v: $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$Ifl\00* @ , t0-644 la,-.=wh"bv:bv:b v:bh v:bh v:bTv:bTv:X & F#$If$Ifkdl$$Ifl000*(  t0-644 lap '"^Xv:Xv:X v:Nh G Nh ] NT^XTv: & F"$If$Ifkd< $$Ifl\00* @ , t0-644 la TTANv:Nv:E<'v:E<'v: $$Ifa$$Ifkd $$Ifl\00* @ , t0-644 la & F"$If+n+h`bv:b v:bh v:XT^bTv:bTv: & F$$If$Ifkd!$$Iflu000*(  t0-644 lap+,-./01234^r \!v:\!v:P!P!P!P!P!P! $ dh] a$kd"$$Ifl\00* @ , t0-644 la 456789:;<=>?@ABW\anw{!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!zi/ $ dh$If] a$ $ dh] a$F666z66i$ dh$If] a$kdc#$$Iflֈ|V Y`'ZRpA 0*4 la-.TUVghKLnop}~gh./rsj0h1l;Uj.h1l;Uj ,h1l;Uj_*h1l;Uj(h1l;Uj'h1l;Uj&h1l;U h1l;0JjR$h1l;Uh1l;jh1l;U: / 6zkd)%$$Iflֈ|V Y`'ZRpA 0*4 la$ dh$If] a$-ijlzi/ 6zkd&$$Iflֈ|V Y`'ZRpA 0*4 la$ dh$If] a$i/ / / 6{ kdp)$$Iflֈ|V Y`'ZRpA 0*4 la$ dh$If] a$$+?Kzi/ / $ dh$If] a$F66{ 6z66i$ dh$If] a$kd+$$Iflֈ|V Y`'ZRpA 0*4 la / 6{ zkd,$$Iflֈ|V Y`'ZRpA 0*4 la$ dh$If] a$./02Bi/ / 6kd-$$Iflֈ|V Y`'ZRpA 0*4 la$ dh$If] a$BJ\gzi/ 6kd/$$Iflֈ|V Y`'ZRpA 0*4 la$ dh$If] a$01zi/ 6kdW1$$Iflֈ|V Y`'ZRpA 0*4 la$ dh$If] a$13JPfr{ zi/ $ dh$If] a$./0FG~JKLefst'(de$j?h1l;Uj!>h1l;Uj_<h1l;Uj9h1l;Uj7h1l;Uj5h1l;Uj4h1l;Uh1l; h1l;0Jjh1l;UjF2h1l;U8F{ 666z66i$ dh$If] a$kd-3$$Iflֈ|V Y`'ZRpA 0*4 laHILagr/ 6zkd4$$Iflֈ|V Y`'ZRpA 0*4 la$ dh$If] a$r~i/ 6z"kd6$$Iflֈ|V Y`'ZRpA 0*4 la$ dh$If] a$ghk~i/ 6kd8$$Iflֈ|V Y`'ZRpA 0*4 la$ dh$If] a$~zi/ 6kd:$$Iflֈ|V Y`'ZRpA 0*4 la$ dh$If] a$ zi/ 6kdp;$$Iflֈ|V Y`'ZRpA 0*4 la$ dh$If] a$-KhszO { i/ $ dh$If] a$FN 666z66i$ dh$If] a$kd2=$$Iflֈ|V Y`'ZRpA 0*4 la)*-AFX/ 6zkd>$$Iflֈ|V Y`'ZRpA 0*4 la$ dh$If] a$Xdi/ 6z{ kd@$$Iflֈ|V Y`'ZRpA 0*4 la$ dh$If] a$>ii/ / / $ dh$If] a$$%&<=>?lmn 567IJ_` #$*+,./56▐▐ h1l;0Jjh1l;0JUjzKh1l;UjIh1l;UjGh1l;UjGh1l;UjIEh1l;UjBh1l;Uh1l; h1l;0Jjh1l;UjAh1l;U7FN 666z"66i$ dh$If] a$kdkC$$Iflֈ|V Y`'ZRpA 0*4 la/ 6"zkdZD$$Iflֈ|V Y`'ZRpA 0*4 la$ dh$If] a$ KLO\vi/ 6kdF$$Iflֈ|V Y`'ZRpA 0*4 la$ dh$If] a$vi/ / / 6kdH$$Iflֈ|V Y`'ZRpA 0*4 la$ dh$If] a$!/3?S_zi/ $ dh$If] a$Fw 666z66i$ dh$If] a$kdJ$$Iflֈ|V Y`'ZRpA 0*4 la !"#/ / 6*! $ dh] a$kdAL$$Iflֈ|V Y`'ZRpA 0*4 la$ dh$If] a$#,-.:;<=>!! $ dh] a$&`#$689:>h1l; h1l;0Jjh1l;0JUh1l;0JmHnHu 1h/ =!"#$%@$$If!vh55555-5L#v#v#v#v#v-#vL:V l  t20    65/ p2kd$$Ifl    ֈ ,"  t20    644 lap22$$If!vh55555-5L#v#v#v#v#v-#vL:V l  t20    65p2kd@$$Ifl    ֈ ,"  t20    644 lap22$$If!vh55555-5L#v#v#v#v#v-#vL:V l  t20    65p2kdr$$Ifl    ֈ ,"  t20    644 lap22$$If!vh55555-5L#v#v#v#v#v-#vL:V l  t20    65p2kd $$Ifl    ֈ ,"  t20    644 lap2$$If!vh55#v#v:V l t065$$If!vh55#v#v:V l t065$$If!vh55#v#v:V l t065$$If!vh55#v#v:V l t065$$If!vh55#v#v:V l t065$$If!vh5(5@ 5 5#v(#v@ #v #v:V l t0#5(5@ 5 5$$If!vh5(5@ 5 5#v(#v@ #v #v:V l t0#5(5@ 5 5$$If!vh5(5@ 5 5#v(#v@ #v #v:V l t0#5(5@ 5 5$$If!vh5(5@ 5 5#v(#v@ #v #v:V l t0#5(5@ 5 5$$If!vh5(5@ 5 5#v(#v@ #v #v:V l t0#5(5@ 5 5$$If!vh55 5 5#v#v #v #v:V l t0#55 5 5$$If!vh55 5 5#v#v #v #v:V l t0#55 5 5$$If!vh55 5 5#v#v #v #v:V l t0#55 5 5$$If!vh55 5 5#v#v #v #v:V l t0#55 5 5$$If!vh55 5 5#v#v #v #v:V l t0#55 5 5$$If!vh55 5Z 5#v#v #vZ #v:V l t 6@+065$$If!vh55 5Z 5#v#v #vZ #v:V lR t 6@+065$$If!vh55 5Z 5#v#v #vZ #v:V l t 6@+065$$If!vh55 5Z 5#v#v #vZ #v:V lR t 6@+065$$If!vh55 5Z 5#v#v #vZ #v:V l t 6@+065"$$If!vh55 5@ 5,#v#v #v@ #v,:V l  t(0-655 5@ 5,ap($$If!vh55 5@ 5,#v#v #v@ #v,:V l t0-655 5@ 5,a$$If!vh55 5@ 5,#v#v #v@ #v,:V l t0-655 5@ 5,/ a$$If!vh55(#v#v(:V l)  t0-655(ap$$If!vh55 5@ 5,#v#v #v@ #v,:V l t0-655 5@ 5,a$$If!vh55 5@ 5,#v#v #v@ #v,:V l t0-655 5@ 5,a$$If!vh55(#v#v(:V l  t0-655(ap$$If!vh55 5@ 5,#v#v #v@ #v,:V l t0-655 5@ 5,a$$If!vh55 5@ 5,#v#v #v@ #v,:V l t0-655 5@ 5,/ a$$If!vh55(#v#v(:V lu  t0-655(ap$$If!vh55 5@ 5,#v#v #v@ #v,:V l t0-655 5@ 5,a$$If!vh5Z55R5p5A5 #vZ#v#vR#vp#vA#v :V l0*5Z55R5p5A5 4aDyK Dmk.dev@habari.co.tzyK 8mailto:Dmk.dev@habari.co.tz$$If!vh5Z55R5p5A5 #vZ#v#vR#vp#vA#v :V l0*5Z55R5p5A5 4aDyK Cct-dds@maf.or.tzyK 2mailto:Cct-dds@maf.or.tz$$If!vh5Z55R5p5A5 #vZ#v#vR#vp#vA#v :V l0*5Z55R5p5A5 4aDyK wcrptz@bol.co.tzyK 0mailto:wcrptz@bol.co.tzDyK zagarsalim@yahoo.comyK 8mailto:zagarsalim@yahoo.com$$If!vh5Z55R5p5A5 #vZ#v#vR#vp#vA#v :V l0*5Z55R5p5A5 4aDyK Sigrid@tca.noyK *mailto:Sigrid@tca.no$$If!vh5Z55R5p5A5 #vZ#v#vR#vp#vA#v :V l0*5Z55R5p5A5 4aDyK ttcdd@yahoo.comyK .mailto:ttcdd@yahoo.com$$If!vh5Z55R5p5A5 #vZ#v#vR#vp#vA#v :V l0*5Z55R5p5A5 4a$$If!vh5Z55R5p5A5 #vZ#v#vR#vp#vA#v :V l0*5Z55R5p5A5 4aDyK edwintumusiime@yahoo.comyK @mailto:edwintumusiime@yahoo.com$$If!vh5Z55R5p5A5 #vZ#v#vR#vp#vA#v :V l0*5Z55R5p5A5 4aDyK Gelley33@hotmail.comyK 8mailto:Gelley33@hotmail.com$$If!vh5Z55R5p5A5 #vZ#v#vR#vp#vA#v :V l0*5Z55R5p5A5 4aDyK stipa@africaonline.co.keyK @mailto:stipa@africaonline.co.ke$$If!vh5Z55R5p5A5 #vZ#v#vR#vp#vA#v :V l0*5Z55R5p5A5 4aDyK eaco@africaonlie.co.keyK <mailto:eaco@africaonlie.co.ke$$If!vh5Z55R5p5A5 #vZ#v#vR#vp#vA#v :V l0*5Z55R5p5A5 4aDyK aloudhimabo@yahoo.co.ukyK >mailto:aloudhimabo@yahoo.co.uk$$If!vh5Z55R5p5A5 #vZ#v#vR#vp#vA#v :V l0*5Z55R5p5A5 4aDyK Abalekwa_devorg@yahoo.comyK Bmailto:Abalekwa_devorg@yahoo.com$$If!vh5Z55R5p5A5 #vZ#v#vR#vp#vA#v :V l0*5Z55R5p5A5 4aDyK Namara_Andrew@yahoo.co.ukyK Bmailto:Namara_Andrew@yahoo.co.uk$$If!vh5Z55R5p5A5 #vZ#v#vR#vp#vA#v :V l0*5Z55R5p5A5 4a$$If!vh5Z55R5p5A5 #vZ#v#vR#vp#vA#v :V l0*5Z55R5p5A5 4aDyK gogomabel@yahoo.comyK 6mailto:gogomabel@yahoo.com$$If!vh5Z55R5p5A5 #vZ#v#vR#vp#vA#v :V l0*5Z55R5p5A5 4aDyK ujcc@utlonline.co.ugyK 8mailto:ujcc@utlonline.co.ug$$If!vh5Z55R5p5A5 #vZ#v#vR#vp#vA#v :V l0*5Z55R5p5A5 4aDyK btegeret@yahoo.comyK 4mailto:btegeret@yahoo.com$$If!vh5Z55R5p5A5 #vZ#v#vR#vp#vA#v :V l0*5Z55R5p5A5 4aDyK dswt@africanline.co.tzyK <mailto:dswt@africanline.co.tzDyK magombola_2004@yahoo.comyK @mailto:magombola_2004@yahoo.com$$If!vh5Z55R5p5A5 #vZ#v#vR#vp#vA#v :V l0*5Z55R5p5A5 4a$$If!vh5Z55R5p5A5 #vZ#v#vR#vp#vA#v :V l0*5Z55R5p5A5 4aDyK cetradin@yahoo.comyK 4mailto:cetradin@yahoo.com$$If!vh5Z55R5p5A5 #vZ#v#vR#vp#vA#v :V l0*5Z55R5p5A5 4aDyK ngofoum@infocom.co.ugyK :mailto:ngofoum@infocom.co.ugDyK jothur2000@yahoo.comyK 8mailto:jothur2000@yahoo.com$$If!vh5Z55R5p5A5 #vZ#v#vR#vp#vA#v :V l0*5Z55R5p5A5 4aDyK Hwarihiu@mitsuminet.comyK >mailto:Hwarihiu@mitsuminet.com$$If!vh5Z55R5p5A5 #vZ#v#vR#vp#vA#v :V l0*5Z55R5p5A5 4aDyK beacon@bidii.comyK 0mailto:beacon@bidii.com$$If!vh5Z55R5p5A5 #vZ#v#vR#vp#vA#v :V l0*5Z55R5p5A5 4a@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH Z@Z Heading 1$$$  dh@&] ^ a$ 5CJ \h@h Heading 2$  dh@&] ^ 5CJOJQJ\^JmH sH d@d Heading 3$  dh@&] ^ 6OJQJ]^JmH sH D@D Heading 4$$@&a$ 5\aJDA@D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k@(No List 4 @4 Footer  !.)@. Page NumberLB@L Body Text$ dh] a$ 5CJ \6U@!6 Hyperlink >*B*ph>(!z!z!z!z!z!z!z!z! z! z! z! z! z!z!z!z!z!z!z!z!z!z!z!z!z!z!z!z!z!z!z! z!!z!"z!#z!$z!%z!&z!'z!(zw<$,4;&BIlPXUYYoZZ/[[[[[]]^^bjryԀ ›Σ߫)iQ@Xalv>,/! F   SSS`2P3d|a, !"#$#J$%&%& &'&'&'-./   6[-Nn9e;aX@_|8cdefghijklmnopqrstuvw; < 8  d e { z{]1bc  gh^_* ##%%C(D(k((++..V0W0{0|00=122h3446688&8-9.9 ::W;<=====3>x?y??:A;AAAB&BlCCCCDDFFFFIIIIKKLpLLLNNNNlPmPPP0QfQ{QQfRgRhRiRRR0T1TTTTTU4UXUpUqUUhXiXjXkXXXXXXYYYY$YoYpYqYrYsYtYYYYYYYYYYYYZ ZZZ-Z7Z8Z9Z:ZeZZZZZZZZZZZ[[[[[[[[[[[[[[\-\.\/\0\1\2\3\4\5\6\7\8\9\:\;\<\=\>\?\G\O\P\Q\R\S\T\U\V\W\X\Y\Z\[\\\]\^\_\`\a\b\c\d\l\\\\#]$]8]g]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]J^K^L^M^N^O^P^Q^R^S^T^U^V^W^X^Y^Z^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<_D_Q_m___-`.`/`0`1`E`afacccpdEfFffggRhhhlkkmm(o)oo$pppqbqrrPuQuuuuDwy y{{}}ӀԀ&'<=ňƈ89:B&*OsˏF56L ٕؕG`a˜՘yzABբ֢op ghi[\]ϯЯȰɰ)HI0Ӵ HIJK{|WXXY['[$1?@daV?@#ABWis}~ KO]bnvw$,-.AShw!3=>M\sx} ()56>FGHIJKLMNOPQRSho My&>?@DE[\]^_`pWXpqrstuvw{$;z{|}UVWijg.j  ,-.=w'" +n+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABW\anw{ -ijlz$+?K ./02BJ\g013JPfrHILagr~ghk~ -Khs)*-AFXd> KLO\v!/3?S_ !"#,-.:;<?(0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 00000000000 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 00000000000000000 0 0 0000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 000000000 0 0 0 0 000000000000 0 0 00 0B 0B 0B00000000000 0 0 0 000000000 0 0 0 0 0000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0000000000  0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0000000000 00000000000 0 0 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000  0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000000000 0000000000000000 0 0 00000000000 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 000000000 0000 0000 0000 0000 00 0000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 000000000000 0 0000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 000000000 00 00 00 0 00 0 00 0 0 0  0 0 0000 000 0 0  00 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0  0 0 0 000 0 0  0 0  0 0 00 0 0  0 0  00 0 0 0  00  00 00 0 00000000000000 0 0 0 0 0  0 0  0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0  00 00 0 0 0 0  0 0  000 0 0 000000  0 0 0 0  00 00000000 0 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 00 00 00 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 000 0! 0 0! 0! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 00 0 00 00# 0 0 00 0 " 0" 0 " 00" 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 $ 000 0 000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0M90 M90M9000M90M90 i$6> f(<GQiZ`bc?ddLf[q$}ig ,+4B1r~Xv#>=-UgKo}g.r/F~Kes'd%<>m 6I_ >XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX !!8@0(  B S  ?X'L$( )*+ k,$-L.u/> 0D1? 2\? 3\> 4Ĭ56> 78> 9:E;D<\!=< >!? $@#ABa#CԦDEF<*"G\Hԥ I 0#J K|#L$MVNIOJPKQTLRMS4NTNUOVdW,$X$Y\$Z[t\ ]^<_`ta b*"c\+"d"e "f"gh8$i8$j$k$l$m$n4otp4qtrsĉt u v*w$,x,y-z-{<.|.}/~T0Zktkk22>>((33%%LL..))SS##FFPP }00MMW$.?      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWevzpp::DD ..;;,,RR44 //XX**MMUU"66SSg",<?  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVW9'*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsStatehT *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity0http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsVX *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplacehttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/_S*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-regionhttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/ZG*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceTypehttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/ZH*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceNamehttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/8 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagstime  0101112131415304589HourMinuteXXXXTSXXSXSXSXSXHGXHHGXSXSXSXXSXSXSXSXSXSXXSXSXSX'XSXSXSXSXSXXSXTXS XS XSXSXSXS      XS        -19=   ()13="&}NSEN$$n6x6;;rAyAzA|A}AAAABBBBBBBBBBBBBBHHHHHHXI\IJ JoJxJJJOOSS*Y1Y2Y4Y5Y>Y?YGYYY#[,[/[3[[[^ ^cc\hch}hhhhk%k&l.lnnpp2sbi-hjklqty+4K~2;JSg/1238;ABIPYrGIKLTX`~fhjku "&(+=B[_s(*,-4FOd=n JLNOT '._"#+.9<?  AD2 G (a)c)"#.9?:::::  c)&X;}Wj="#?#?useruseruseruseruseruseruseruseruser SAMUEL ONDIEK$.qad2\^4C ba1 4:: " 0uv[)z/<5]rqTvQ쇌Hhv'‘f!`4x$jan'֜r'~pdW/3*=b:9  \ Ms} )6FGho &@DE`s{$z{UVi.j ,-=' +n+,W\anw{ -ijlz$+?K /02BJ\g013JPfrHILagr~ghk~ -Khs)*-AFXd KLO\v!/3S_!"?@z>@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z ArialWBell MTTimes New Roman9Garamond;Wingdings?5 : Courier New?Wingdings 3"1hSdžSdžp$(|p$(|Y4d 3QH(?1l; Backgrounduser SAMUEL ONDIEK$                           ! " # Oh+'0t  0 < HT\dl BackgroundackuserrouserserNormaluSAMUEL ONDIEKo2MUMicrosoft Word 10.0@F#@^@^(p$՜.+,D՜.+,< hp  noneD|A  Background Title  8@ _PID_HLINKSA .Bmailto:beacon@bidii.comsH?mailto:Hwarihiu@mitsuminet.com"<mailto:jothur2000@yahoo.com$J9mailto:ngofoum@infocom.co.ugJr6mailto:cetradin@yahoo.com 3 mailto:magombola_2004@yahoo.comh0mailto:dswt@africanline.co.tzBj-mailto:btegeret@yahoo.comu*mailto:ujcc@utlonline.co.ugAq'mailto:gogomabel@yahoo.com1$!mailto:Namara_Andrew@yahoo.co.uk!2!!mailto:Abalekwa_devorg@yahoo.comN7mailto:aloudhimabo@yahoo.co.ukgmailto:eaco@africaonlie.co.keO. mailto:stipa@africaonline.co.ke{Umailto:Gelley33@hotmail.com< mailto:edwintumusiime@yahoo.comUamailto:ttcdd@yahoo.comN} mailto:Sigrid@tca.no%  mailto:zagarsalim@yahoo.com` mailto:wcrptz@bol.co.tziRmailto:Cct-dds@maf.or.tz2mailto:Dmk.dev@habari.co.tz  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~     !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F kData 0M1Table E.WordDocument"SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89qRoot Entry F%;Data 0M1Table E.WordDocument"՜.+,D՜.+,< hp  noneD|A  Background Title  8@ _PID_HLINKSA .Bmailto:beacon@bidii.comsH?mailto:Hwarihiu@mitsuminet.com"<mailto:jothur2000@yahoo.com$J9mailto:ngofoum@infocom.co.ugJr6mailto:cetradin@yahoo.com 3 mailto:magombola_2004@yahoo.comh0mailto:dswt@africanline.co.tzBj-mailto:btegeret@yahoo.comu*mailto:ujcc@utlonline.co.ugAq'mailto:gogomabel@yahoo.com1$!mailto:Namara_Andrew@yahoo.co.uk!2!!mailto:Abalekwa_devorg@yahoo.comN7mailto:aloudhimabo@yahoo.co.ukgmailto:eaco@africaonlie.co.keO. mailto:stipa@africaonline.co.ke{Umailto:Gelley33@hotmail.com< mailto:edwintumusiime@yahoo.comUamailto:ttcdd@yahoo.comN} mailto:Sigrid@tca.no%  mailto:zagarsalim@yahoo.com` mailto:wcrptz@bol.co.tziRmailto:Cct-dds@maf.or.tz2mailto:Dmk.dev@habari.co.tzSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjj