Transcript Document

WNAD PRSP Learning Event
West and North Africa Department
January 2002
WNAD PRSP Learning Event
I. Background – PRSP principles and the role of
participation
II. Challenges and Opportunities in supporting
participatory processes
III. Ways forward for DFID engagement
Origins of the PRSP Idea
 Poor record on poverty reduction in 1990s
 Findings on aid effectiveness (limits of projects,
undermining of govt. systems & capacity…)
 Limits of conventional conditionality
 Justification for big increase in multilateral
funding for debt relief (HIPC II)
Core PRSP Principles
Sept. 1999 the PRSP replaced the PFP (Policy
Framework Paper) as the governing contract between the
IMF/World Bank & client countries. Central to it are five
principles:
 Country-led/owned based on participation
 Outcome oriented
 Comprehensive – analysis of poverty
 Medium to long term perspective
 Donor partnership under government leadership
PRSP Schedule & Key Elements
Preparation
Status
Report
I-PRSP
1st Annual
Progress
Report
PRSP (I)
9-24 months
HIPC(II)
Decision
Point
2nd Annual
Progress
Report etc..
PRSP (II)
3 years
HIPC(II)
Completion
Point
Preparation
Status
Report
I-PRSP
1st Annual 2nd Annual
Progress
Progress
Report
Report etc….
PRSP (I)
PRSP
elements:
9-24 months
 Poverty analysis
 Goals/targets
 Policy actions
HIPC(II)
 Med-term budget fw
Decision
 Financing plan
Point
 External assistance
 Participatory process
3 years
PRSP (II)
What’s New?
 Linking strategy to the fiscal & macro framework
 Reducing the disconnect between policy &
results (structuring actions viz. impact on poverty)
 Opening up strategy process to broad-based
participation
 Opportunities for new ways of delivering aid
(pooled funding of general budget, joint appraisal,
common performance assessment)
Expectations about Participation
 Participation can help deliver broad-based
ownership & strengthen accountability where
poverty is related to weak governance
 Policies more likely to succeed if their choice
is influenced by civil society consultation & voices
of the poor
 Participation can help alter the power balance
between governments and donors
But…
 Participation in the dev. of national policy
for poverty reduction is relatively new…uncharted
territory for some (finance ministries etc.)
 Different actors hold different understandings of
what participation can achieve in relation to
poverty reduction or policy making
 Confusion over participation as ‘mandatory’ &
calls for greater national ownership
Recent Experience
 Participatory processes have taken a broadly
similar format – working groups/national wkshps
 Participation has generally been limited to
consultation with only limited feedback
 Some opening of the ‘policy space’
 Strong CS advocacy on key themes – gender,
inequality, HIV/AIDs but nothing on macroeconomic policy
Areas of Value-Added
 CS lobbying has improved the process e.g. Kenya
consultations exceeded expectations despite weak
political commitment from the ‘top’; Malawi process
was extended
 Cameroon/Chad – Govt. officials consulting directly with
communities, possibly for the first time
 Rwanda – extensive consultations crucial part of
reconciliation efforts
But weaknesses too …
 Tanzania – process rushed, CSOs attempted parallel
process but weak impact on final PRSP
 Ghana – PRSP process treated ‘lightly’ & CSOs poorly
galvanised (compared to SAPRI)
 ‘Kampala Declaration’ – consortium of NGOs critical of
PRSP framework & restricted form of participation
 Mali – “la société civil, c’est Moi! “ President of the
National Assembly
Conclusions
 Where Govt. already keen to foster CS
participation in policy processes, PRSP processes
have strengthened it & left actors on all sides
better equipped (Uganda)
 Elsewhere the risk is that poorly conducted
consultative processes, with ambivalent outcomes,
will undermine chances that a more participatory
culture will develop (Mozambique?)
Obstacles
 Participation is just a process, de-linked from
analysis & decision-making
 Participation is an intrusion to/& undermines
existing democratic processes
 Capacity weaknesses and conflicts within CS
 Donors as ‘brokers of participation’
DFID Engagement
 DFID support more consistent than many other
donors, largely supportive/mediating rather than
interventionist
 Supports efforts to coordinate & harmonise
approaches to participation
 Working to strengthen both sides (CS and Govt.)
to engage with each other (avoid donor as
‘broker’)
Examples
 Kenya – SAIC CS Adviser seconded to PRSP Secretariat
 Tanzania – funding for CSOs to strengthen poverty policy
work
 Tanzania/Uganda – popularising PRSP/dissemination
 Mozambique – work with like-minded donor group on how
to strengthen CS participation in PRSP implementation &
monitoring
 Zambia – providing information, analysis & funds for
Regional networking
 Ethiopia – supporting public debate through funding of
NGOs and assisting coordination of CS response to PRSP