Tanzania SME Development Policy 2003

“ten years after”Implementation Review

Dissemination Workshop

Nilgün TaşChief, Competitiveness, Upgrading and Partnerships Unit

Business, Investment and Technology Services Branch

Dar es Salaam, 12 April 2013

1

Outline• Purpose and approach• Context• SME Development Policy 2003

– Statements, action matrix• General assessment• Assessment against objectives and

actions• Conclusions• Recommendations• Questions for discussion

2

Purpose and Approach• Policies are generally reviewed after 10 years of implementation

in Tanzania

• This rapid review is intended as a modest contribution of UNIDO to MIT in this process and contains recommendations on the way forward for discussion and consideration by stakeholders

• A desk review, short field mission, including SME case stories is the basis of the “forward looking” recommendations for stakeholders; these were prepared by Ms. Leny Van Oyen and Mr. Linus Gedi, UNIDO consultants

• Review does not evaluate the performance of specific interventions and their outcomes beyond a general assessment against SME policy objectives

3

Core review questions• Measures/initiatives taken, when, and by whom?

• Results to date and their impact (for private sector; for the Government of Tanzania)?

• Obstacles/constraints faced in implementing the objectives and respective activities planned for each of the objectives? Reasons?

• In case of problems in implementation, remedial actions taken or foreseen to be taken?

• Lessons that were drawn to guide the way forward as regards the SME policy?

• Main challenges and risks ahead? 4

SME definition

• Definition contained also “micro” enterprises• Definition did not cover “self-employed” or micro

businesses that only employed unpaid family workers

5

6

Policy Environment

SME Policy 2003-Statements1. Legal and Regulatory Framework: the Government will enhance

implementation of programmes aimed at simplification and rationalization of procedures and regulations so as to encourage compliance and minimize transaction costs.

2. Physical Infrastructure: the Government will continue to improve the physical infrastructures and provision of utilities in collaboration with Local Authorities, private sector and development partners.

3. Business Development Services:a. Entrepreneurship Development: the Government will promote entrepreneurship

development through facilitating improved access of SMEs to financial and non-financial services;

b. Business Training: the Government will enhance the capacity of institutions providing business training to SMEs;

c. Information: the Government will facilitate and support programmes aimed at increased access of information pertinent to the development of SMEs;

d. Technology: the Government will facilitate acquisition and adaptation of technologies as well as enhance networking between R&D Institutions and SMEs in a bid to upgrade technologies so a to raise the productivity and competitiveness of the sector;

e. Marketing: the Government is committed to facilitating support programmes aimed at improving SMEs’ access to market;

7

SME Policy 2003-Statements4. Access to Finance: the Government will enhance financial reforms aimed at

further liberalization of the financial sector and the creation of financial intermediaries to cater for SMEs.

5. Institutional Framework for SMEs Development: the Government will facilitate strengthening of institutions and associations supporting the SME sector.

6. Rural Industrialization: the Government will facilitate the establishment of manufacturing enterprises in rural areas so as to add value to agro products.

7. Cross Cutting Issues:

– Environmental considerations: the Government will ensure that environmental considerations are given due emphasis in all SME development interventions.

– Gender and the Disadvantaged Groups: the Government will ensure that gender mainstreaming is enhanced in all initiatives pertaining to SME development.

– HIV-AIDS: the Government will continue to implement programmes that check the spread of HIV-AIDS amongst SME operators.

8

9

SME Policy Actions

General assessment• Are key pillars/7 objectives of the SME

Development Policy 2003 still valid?

• What about implementation?

• Recent evidence– Socio-economic trends– Basic SME data & case stories from SMEs– Perceptions of business environment– Present external (development partner-DP) support– Perceptions of the SME Development Policy

implementation

10

General assessment• Socio-economic trends

– Increase in manufactured exports as a proportion of total merchandise exports

– Leading other countries in region in terms of growth rate of manufactured exports

– However, growth is fragile:• Limited number of export products• Limited processing of resources• Associated with rise in gold prices• Concentrated in small number of larger enterprises

11

General assessment• Basic SME data

– Vast number of businesses (~3 million, creating ~5.2 million jobs)

– Industrial sector of 25,000 enterprises, 40 large manufacturing enterprises with 500+ employees

– Huge informal sector, largely of micro size, operating from HH, with predominance of women, for livelihoods

– Low formalization, 400 large taxpayers– Low formal education, limited training, weak business

records, limited use of internet for business– Low level of business association membership, gaps in

knowledge of service providers– Lack of credit facilities, challenges in getting

workspace, unreliable power supply, poor quality of infrastructure, high transport costs, access to markets

12

Perceptions of business environment in 2012

13

14

Present DP Support

Perceptions on implementation of SME Policy

Strong points Weak points

• key pillars/objectives are still valid • shows where to go• mobilized stakeholders • home grown• prepared in truly participatory manner

• no legal basis (no Act followed)• gaps in resource allocation and

monitoring• lead agencies not assigned• scattered interventions-everyone

implements it

MIT’s SME Desk evolved into SME Department; shows importance attached to SME sector

• MIT as line Ministry does not have mandate to coordinate

• SME Department has too few staff

Several support institutions and networks • Overlaps in mandates; e.g. SIDO versus National Economic Empowerment Council

• Role of local government underestimated

• No “one private sector voice”

Other policies referred to it and borrowed from it, including by other countries

Policy environment fragmented: too many policies, each referring to SMEs, but not systematically to SME Policy

15

Perceptions on implementation of SME Policy

Opportunities Threats

• Possibility of updating policy, with no major changes in key pillars

• Opportunity to define implementation strategy, with rigorous monitoring

• Tendency to implement interlinked and supportive policies in a “silo” manner

• Duplications• Some ask why a separate policy is

needed

• Government sensitized at highest level (Mkukuta, FYDP refer to SME support as priority)

• Forthcoming Country Economic Memorandum/WB 2013 will place high priority to SMEs

• Perception that SME is mainly micro enterprise, gaps in understanding of SME need to be addressed

EPZ and EEZ emerge as priority tools in FYDP; there’s scope to ensure domestic SMEs benefit from these schemes

• Limited involvement of private sector in formulation of FYDP

• Several regulations streamlined, but many obstacles persist

Possibility to focus on fostering youth employmentOpportunities for regional integration; e.g. SME in East African Charter

Market access and focus on production and productivity should go hand in hand

16

17

Assessment against objectives and actions-examples (1)

18

Assessment against objectives and actions-examples (2)

19

Assessment against objectives and actions-examples (3)

20

Assessment against objectives and actions-examples (4)

21

Assessment against objectives and actions-examples (5)

22

Assessment against objectives and actions-examples (6)

23

Assessment against objectives and actions-examples (7)

Conclusions• At formulation, SME Development Policy

considered important and comprehensive, conceived in a participatory manner

• Key pillar remain valid to date; some action areas in the implementation strategy can be updated

• Many new initiatives implemented with encouraging results

24

Conclusions• Notwithstanding achievements; gaps in implementation:

– Underestimation of complexity of implementation of planned interventions (many sectors/themes, many stakeholders)

– Lack of clarity in implementation strategy regarding the lead agency for each subject area

– Insufficient rigor in steering implementation

– Recognition of importance of focal point for coordination (SME Desk evolving to SME Directorate in MIT); yet not endowed with sufficient support to carry out its role—weak mandate vis-à-vis other Ministries, organizations

– Development of new policies and strategies with partially overlapping purposes (2004 Economic Empowerment Policy, more recently, a Private Sector Development Policy)

25

Recommendations on Way Forward• Government

– Deepen awareness of the contribution and challenges of SMEs at large and reiterate at the highest level commitment to support SME development and address common SME challenges, such as access to affordable credit, work premises

– Prepare an updated version of SME Development Policy as a reference document through consultations between key public and private stakeholders

– When required for implementation of SME policy priorities, prepare and enact relevant legislation

– Target and prioritize within the implementation strategy; agree on the respective roles at different levels (Ministries; public support institutions; business membership organizations)

26

Recommendations on Way Forward• Government, cont.

– Monitor implementation of the Policy through annual action plans, and strengthen monitoring capacity

– Seek and support effective linkages and synergies (and avoid fragmentation and duplications in policies and support organization mandates)

– Pursue the streamlining of regulations, with involvement of the private sector for a better business environment

– Examine at what level and how the coordination of SME Policy implementation can be best organized

– Ensure that, in other policies and support measures with wider objectives, SME development concerns are explicitly addressed; (for example: search for linkages between EPZ/SEZ and non-EPZ/SEZ enterprises)

– Stimulate the exchange of experiences on what worked/works (in view of up-scaling) and what not and inculcate the application of good practice principles in SME support (BDS and financial services).

27

• Private Sector– Take active part in the updating of the SME Development Policy

(provided this updating scenario is accepted by policymakers)

– Encourage the harmonization of the SME Development Policy updating and the formulation of a private sector development policy (under preparation) to avoid confusion and overlaps;

– Contribute to enhancing the general understanding of the SME “sector” and bring SME issues explicitly on the agenda with a common private sector voice vis-à-vis the public sector; provided there is interest, attempt the formation of a SME Forum as envisaged in the SME Policy

– Contribute to harmonization and coordination of SME support initiatives among business membership organizations

– Support and take part in efforts aimed at identifying what works and what not (see above) and build future interventions on lessons learned

28

Recommendations on Way Forward

• Development Partners– Within the spirit of enhancing aid effectiveness, pursue the deepening of the

agenda of the Development Partners’ Working Group (DPG) on PSD and Trade through joint efforts and real coordination between related support in the field of SME development (Example: joint efforts on numerous Value Chain support initiatives)

– Identify new avenues for strengthening donor coordination of SME related support without adding to the number of coordination meetings  

– Involve private and non-traditional donors and their implementing partners in donor coordination in the field of SME support 

– Reinforce the communication of the Development Partners Working Group on PSD and Trade with the main Tanzanian stakeholders (public and private) involved in SME development  

– Foster sharing of results of surveys on the business environment and perceptions of SMEs to avoid the proliferation of parallel exercises

– Initiate or take part in discussions with public and private stakeholders on lessons learned in SME support

29

Recommendations on Way Forward

Questions for discussion• Do you support updating of the SME

Policy?• Your suggestions on:

– How to improve coordination and monitoring of implementation of SME Policy?

– Targeting and prioritization?– Avoiding fragmentation and duplications

between new/different policies and support institutions?

30

Thank you for your attention!

Contact: n.tas@unido.org

31