PRSPs: A 10 year Retrospective on Results

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Hannah J Cooper on August 17, 2010 at 5:39pm

Background Materials

PRSP Factsheet (IMF): April 8, 2010 http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/prsp.htm

PRSP website (World Bank) http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTPRS/0...

PRSP Sourcebook http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTPRS/0...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sheka Bangura on August 21, 2010 at 12:43pm

Thanks Hannah for triggering discussions around effectiveness of PRSPs. Some of us in Poverty Units have been stoned with pessimistic statements from the public as to the relevance of poverty reduction strategies. Some people say the more they hear about poverty reduction strategies the more poverty becomes evident in society. Therefore, I very much look forward to the provoking questions from you to kick start the discussion.

Regards,

Sheka

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Winnie M. Luhana on August 23, 2010 at 7:58am

This is a very good discussion which i will follow closely and when appropriate contribute to from my country's (Zambia) perspective. The results will no doubt help our governments to make informed decisions when planning future development programmes

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hannah J Cooper on August 23, 2010 at 9:47am

Dear Colleagues,

First thank you to Sheka and Winnie for their comments. I am realling looking forward to more comments and suggestions from all of you moving forward!

To start off, we are going to focus on PRSP Preparation & Implementation. To get this part started, I'd like to ask you the following questions:

PRPS span over 5 years; so many countries have now developed at least two PRSPs. To what extent has the content and the process of the PRSPs changed between your country’s 1st and 2nd PRSP?

Do you think that your PRSP has become more “results-oriented”? If so, what evidence do you have of this?

To what extent do you think that PRSPs are produced according to these five principles:

•PRSPs are country-driven, involving broad-based participation by civil society and the private sector as they are produced.

• They are directed toward achieving results and focused on outcomes that would benefit the poor.

• They recognize that tackling poverty requires a comprehensive approach because poverty is more than just a lack of income but that poor people also suffer from a lack of opportunity, security, and voice in decisions that affect their lives.

• They are partnership-oriented in that they encourage the coordinated involvement of bi-lateral, multilateral and non-government organizations in the country's poverty reduction program.

• They are based on a long-term perspective for poverty reduction. PRSPs foster greater openness in policymaking. Governments have sought increasingly to include traditionally marginalized groups, the private sector and civil society in developing them and because of this, poverty-reduction strategies developed through this process tend to have broader community and stakeholder support and are "owned" by the government. Is this true with your PRSP?


Or to what extend is your PRSP/National Development Strategy developed around the 5 MfDR pillars (Leaderships, Evaluation & Monitoring, Accountability & Partnerships, Planning & Budgeting, and Statistics)?

How does the PRSP set priorities and/or what effort is put into results oriented PRSPs?

When designing a PRSP, how do you link it to other national development strategies such as Vision 2020/25 documents, the CAP-Scan and the MDGs? If they are linked, how is it done (do they have similar goals and objectives?) .

In addition, how do global partnerships influence the PRSP such as IHP+, FTI etc?

I really look forward to your responses to these questions!

Many thanks and kind regards,

Hannah

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sheka Bangura on August 27, 2010 at 6:29pm

Thanks Hannah, once again for introducing this very topical discussion.

Sierra Leone is implementing her third PRSP that we call the Agenda for Change (AfC)—PRSP II (2008-2012). The first one was an Interim PRSP (the I-PRSP, 2001-2004) implemented over the immediate post-conflict period to address the challenges at the time including recovering the economy, restoring state authority and basic services, and resettling people after the war. The second PRSP (the PRSP I) spanned from 2005 to 2007. We call it PRSP I because it’s the first comprehensive and more forward looking development strategy since the end of the war and started implementing such development programmes. PRSP I was to consolidate gains made in the I-PRSP while preparing the way forward from post-conflict to development. The latest PRSP (II)—the AfC—is completely growth and development focus.
Given this background, you may imagine that there was marked change in the content between I-PRSP and PRSP I. The I-PRSP was customized to address an enormous outlier in the development process of Sierra Leone; it was meant to respond to the aftermath of the war—to correct an abnormal socio-economic and political situation.

The PRSP I was the beginning of a shift towards growth oriented policies as much as it was a consolidation of gains made in the I-PRSP. All forward looking, there is no marked different between the PRSP I and PRSP II—the latter could largely be seen as a review and rearrangement of the former to ensure that it is more results-focused.

As the last paragraph ends it, our PRSP is becoming more and more result-oriented with an ever more robust monitoring and evaluation system over the entire range of the results chain. First of all, the current PRSP was able to identify the results deficiencies of the PRSP I and devise strategy to address them—it is far more prioritized and sequenced than the PRSP I; secondly, the PRSP II follows a more predictable and reliable resource mobilization strategy to financing planned development expenditures than the PRSP I—greater attention is being given to attracting private sector investment and increasing locally mobilized resources than disproportionately depending on donor support; thirdly, public financial management has been heightened ever more—there is currently an unprecedented skewness from recurrent to development expenditure financing inter alia ; lastly, we are witnessing an ever more robust monitoring and evaluation system for development projects under the coordination of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development—this should be a tribute to the current Financial Secretary (FS); through this FS, nationwide quarterly monitoring of development projects has been ongoing since the last quarter of 2009. This has caused jitteriness and great worries to bad contractors that have been uncovered and are being pursued by the authorities including the President. I can provide you with the reports of the 3 nationwide quarterly M&E reports prepared under my coordination as lead national M&E technician for the implementation of the Sierra Leone PRSPs. If you get M&E right at the base level input-output part of the results chain you can be assured of better desired results at the top of the chain. This has been missing in the previous PRSP implementation. We also produce Annual Progress Reports and the series of such reports we have generated would indicate the country improvement in PRSP results in succession.

Noting that all PRSPs have got to satisfy internationally agreed principles, as you have correctly stated, Hannah, that is why in Sierra Leone the preparation process has been too protracted—it would take on average not less than a year and half. The government has always had to carry out consultations vertically and horizontally, involving the rich and the poor, the top and the bottom, state and non-state actors including donors and private sector, the able and disable including the marginalised, and the city and village. The results of this have been PRSPs built on broad consensus. Of course there have always been shortcomings at any phase of the PRSP journey and each phase would try to incorporate previous mistakes moving forward.

Indeed, the Sierra Leone PRSP does recognize that poverty reduction goes beyond addressing income issues. It reflects on the broader definition of ‘sustainable development’ including not only income issues but also issues of human security, peace, participation and democracy and all that it takes to address the concerns and welfare of everyone in the society and the discovery of each and other’s full potential towards self and national advancement. That is why all necessary efforts are made to involve all and sundry representatively in the PRS process in Sierra Leone—in the preparation, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation.

There is a long term perspective that guides Sierra Leone’s PRSP—that is the Vision 2025.

The SL-PRSPs have been developed and implemented around all 5 pillars of MfDR. What certainly is the issue is the strength of upholding these five pillars in the PRS process especially in the implementation phase; there are evident weaknesses in the structures and system to ensure this. That is why it is just necessary for the application of the CaP-Scan tool to clearly identify the main problem areas in the service delivery system and devise stronger strategies to address them.

Finally, I want to say that SL-PRSPs could be seen as an amalgamation of sector policies, plans, programmes, and projects. They reflect all internationally subscribed treaties and declarations such as the Maputo declaration on the 10% minimum budget allocation to agriculture, similar declarations, the EFA/FTI, etc. The SL PRSP is more or less an operationalization of the MDGs—they are inextricably and extremely linked.

Interesting discussion.

I look forward to the next round.

Regards,

Sheka

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Abiyot Dagne on August 25, 2010 at 1:22am

This is the most interesting topic that I want to take part in. This program is what my country(Ethiopia ) has been implementing since2002/03.Ethiopia has been under taken the first phase of poverty reduction strategy program which has begun under sustainable development and poverty reduction program(SDPRP)which covered 2002/03-2004/05.The second phase of the program covered 2005/06-2009/10,which is now being implemented . The Ethiopian government is now preparing the country's development plane which will covers2010/11-2014/15. There has been lots of workshops undertaking at various regional as well as national level especially focusing on food security programs to end poverty in the country by the end of the planning period.The government focuses especially on pro - poor sectors targets on:
a) house hold asset building
b)resettlement programs
c)productive safety net programs
d)non-agricultural activities and so on
I wish I will get important issues concerning the topic as an input for the country's development program.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Abiyot Dagne on August 25, 2010 at 1:55am

The 2nd PRSP of Ethiopia forward important strategic directions perused under the first PRSP(SDPRP-related to infrastructure, human development, rural development,food security and capacity building.The 2nd PRSP embodies some bold new directions such as greater commercialization of agriculture,private sector enhancement,focusing on industry urban development and scaling up of efforts to achieve the MDGs to reduce poverty by half
The Ethiopian government PRSP are country driven broad based and requires all inclusive participation The government launches this principle as 1st and most important pillar strategy to end poverty as it states 'building all inclusive implementation capacity'.
Accordingly,the governments effort is becoming a middle income country by the end of 2025;that is why Ethiopia now invests mainly on pro- poor sectors gender main streaming flourishing democracy and good governance vests decision making power to the majority.the government enhances foreign direct investment and privatization programs though creating conducive environment in collaboration with various bilateral as well as multilateral organization through out the world.it encourages investment by giving incentives,eliminating minimum capital requirment

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hannah J Cooper on August 30, 2010 at 2:17pm

Dear Colleagues,

First, many thanks to Sheka and to Abiyot, for providing and in depth overview of their country’s PRSP/National Development Strategy.

Sheka it is very interesting that you note that “If you get M&E right at the base level input-output part of the results chain you can be assured of better desired results at the top of the chain”. Please share with us the 3 nation wide M&E reports that you have prepared. I think that members would find it very useful to see this document, and it will help us move towards the next part of our discussion which focuses on M&E for PRSPs.

It is also very interesting that both Sierra Leone and Ethiopia seem to have a broad and comprehensive notion of poverty alleviation that doesn’t just rest on economic development.

We are now going to go into the second set of questions for this ediscussion on Data Collection: Monitoring & Evaluation. To get the ball rolling, please find some discussion questions below:

- What mechanisms are you using to report on progress made towards your PRSP objectives or results/outcomes anticipated? Who is your reporting geared primarily towards: donors, or your own government? Who is accountable for reporting? The PRSP unit, ministries, other?

- Do you have an operational Poverty Monitoring System (PMS) (linked to your PRS)? If so, how is your Poverty Monitoring System linked into M&E systems of local government (and other data collection systems)?

- How does your Poverty Monitoring System manage to pull together data from your Routine Data systems?

- How is your PMS feeding data on progress achieved and areas that need improvement back into the regional, district, and village levels?

- Can you use data collected from your PMS to fulfill donor reporting requirements?

- Since implementing PRPSs do you have a sense of increased donor harmonization? And if so, how is this demonstrated?

To help prepare for this part of the ediscussion, we’ve ask countries from across Africa to provide information on the following questions:

1) Does your country have a PRSP/National Development Plan?
2) If so, does your country’s PRSP/ National Development Plan have an M&E Plan or Results Framework?
3) Does your country have a database at the national M&E database for reporting on PRSP indicators?
3) Does your country have an M&E capacity development plan related to you PRSP?

Members have agreed to share their responses to these questions in the ediscussion and I will also be posting some of them online.

Please feel free to respond to all or some of the questions posted above.

I am really looking forward to your responses on this.

Kind regards,

Hannah

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mugunga Matabaro on September 1, 2010 at 2:38am

1) Yes, Rwanda has a PRSP/National Development Plan,
2) and 3) Yes, the M & E plan is operational as the Department of Statistics and the Strategic Planning and Monitoring Unit within MINECOFIN are jointly responsible for the general coordination of surveys, data collection and analysis. The Government has also established a Rwandan National Institute of Statistics, which is expected to assume responsibility for collecting macro-economic data and carrying out large scale surveys, as well as help to strengthen the link between data collection, analysis and policymaking.
Further more, considerable progress has been made on outlining a comprehensive framework for monitoring and evaluating performance at the country level through sectoral M&E systems for line ministries, working towards the objective of strengthening routine reporting. Progress Reports present data on key objectives and corresponding performance indicators, providing a clear basis for assessing performance in all priority sectors. Levels vary in terms of monitoring and targets, with the education sector providing best practice in both, but a coherent system is arising. Still, nearly all sectors will need some technical assistance, with the agriculture and rural development, infrastructure, water and sanitation, and governance sectors particularly in need of support to develop useful indicators for monitoring performance. A Decentralization and Community Development Project is also helping the Government to lay the groundwork for a nationwide M&E system, aimed at tracking the impact of community development on poverty reduction through PRSP indicators.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Abiyot Dagne on September 1, 2010 at 7:49am

1. Yes, Ethiopia has its own national plan, which mainly focuses on poverty eradication as replied before .Although the PRSP process started in2000 as a process largely between government and the donors, it has now evolved beyond that, and the PASDEP (A plane for accelerated and sustained development to end poverty) is national plane for guiding all development activities.

2. The M&E system of Ethiopia is not a new invention; rather it is built on the existing welfare monitoring system programs (WMSP), which was in place even before the advent of PRSP programs. The poverty reduction strategy program of M&E system represents a strengthening and broadening of the existing WMSP. In terms of institutional set up of WMSP ,the ministry of finance and Economic Development is the coordinator of the welfare monitoring steering committee as well as welfare monitoring technical committee members .To this end ,the ministry coordinates the preparation of the national plane and the welfare monitoring system programs. The back ground report prepared by welfare monitoring technical committee members of the poverty oriented federal executive bodies serve as a basis for the reports prepared by MOFED. MOFED prepares implementation assessment report as well as to the WMSP and for the distribution to the relevant government authorities as well as to non- governmental bodies.

The federal implementing bodies prepare and submit annual progress assessment report (APR) to the MoFED.

The Central Statistics Authority (CSA) is established with the main objective of gathering and distributing the socio-economic data and information as an input for the pre parathion of development strategies, to help evaluate public programs ,and to feed in to policy designs. The 5 year national medium term statistical program jointly pre pared by CSA and the MoFED to satisfy the data needs of the M&E system, as CSA the main data producer.
Within the frame work of national medium statistical programe, various sample and census studies have been conducting. In order to capacitate the agency various measures have been under taken
a) To develop the road map document for statstistical work in Ethiopia
b) To improve the provision of timely and quality information
c) To establish the central bank data
d) To strengthening sectoral monitoring systems
e) To strengthening monitoring and evaluation of the PASDEP and MDGs implementation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tamirat Yacob on September 1, 2010 at 10:04am

Dear Hannah,

Greetings!

Thank you for initiating and leading this interesting topic discusion. The questions that you have put forward are thought provoking and i tried to address the questions as much as possible as far as the Ethiopian experience is concerned.

1) Does your country have a PRSP/National Development Plan?

The current Ethiopian Government ruled by the EPRDF has had a PRSP/ MDG based National Development Plans since 2001.Before that the GoE had different strategy/program documents to manage and guide the recovery and transformation of the economy. In 2001 the GoE had the Interim PRSP which was approved by the IMF and the World Bank and hence paved the ground for the emergence of the first PRSP. The first PRSP under the current Government was from 2002/03-2004/05 (Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Program- SDPRP); the Second PRSP from 2005/06-2009/10 which is called Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty (PASDEP-I) and the current and the third one which is called PASDEP-II Growth and Transformation Plan 2010/11-2014/15. The main feature that may distinguish the Ethiopian PRSPs from other African countries is the country has had PRSPs which are an MDG based and the UNDP recommended this approach for many African countries to follow and adapt it too. In short, Ethiopia doesn’t have a PRSP and MDG plan separately rather it has been preparing, since 2001, one PRSP document which is MDG based.

However, before the PRSPs came to existent we had our versions of the National Development Plans since the Emperor’s regime during the late 1950’s which plans are of a five year development. And the Derge /Military Junta/ with the Marxist-Leninist ideology had its own successive five year development plans since the late 1970’s to the early 1990’s. It shows that the country has a long history of preparing different national development plans with different focuses or interests of intervention areas. For Example, the Development Plans during the Emperor regime focuses more on Industrialization and the progress that had been seen in that sector was tremendous. The Military Junta had its own led by the Marxist-Leninist socialist ideology where as the current one has a major focus on alleviating poverty, ensuring equal opportunity for citizens-men and women, enhancing the social service, employment creation and building the infrastructure, etc.

2) If so, does your country’s PRSP/ National Development Plan have an M&E Plan or Results Framework?

The Government of Ethiopia has put in place a well structured, institutionalized, comprehensive and complementary Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system which is called the Welfare Monitoring System Program (WMSP) since 1996. The system provides the necessary socio-economic data and information for the M&E system of, for example, the PASDEP with MDGs implementation in perspective. Outcome and impact indicators for the PASDEP or the earlier PRSP and hence the MDGs are compiled through the activities done according to the Action Plan for the Monitoring M&E System, which is collaboratively designed by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development and the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia and financed by the Development Assistance Group (DAG). The M&E system is also complimented by the policy matrix designed, maintained and managed by the MoFED. The policy matrix is a results-based M&E framework with indicators in every sector and intervention area.
3) Does your country have a database at the national M&E database for reporting on PRSP indicators?

The Government of Ethiopia has been focusing on building the national statistical capacity and hence the M&E system for long period of times. The establishment of the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia is one of the earliest in Africa. Since then statistical capacity building and socio-economic data collection and data base building have got the attention of the different governments which ruled the country. In the current government structure the CSA, MoFED and line ministries and agencies are the key players in this aspect in building and maintaining the official socio-economic databases for official reporting of the PRSP indicators. The CSA has EthioInfo data base which could be accessed online on www.csa.gov.et and that informs the outcome indicators. And MoFED using its policy matrix which is a set of development indicators reports the overall indicators for the PRSPs/MDG based national Development Plans. Line ministries and agencies are responsible for collecting administrative data. In general, sources for the National Socio-economic data base comes from different surveys to administrative data sets and data bases of line ministries and implementing agencies.

4) Does your country have an M&E capacity development plan related to your PRSP?

The Government of Ethiopia since it has acknowledged the importance of better M&E system for better managing for results has put M&E capacity development plan in the forefront to track the medium term development agenda and progress towards the MDG targets. In this regard, the most notable development in the recent year has been, for example, the formulation and adoption of the M&E Action Plan entitled "Strengthening SDPRP and Ethiopian MDGs Monitoring and Evaluation Action Plan” encompassing the period 2004/05-2009/10 and subsequently, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been signed between MoFED and the DAG in 2004 to support the implementation of the M&E Action Plan at a total cost of US$8.5 million, covering the activities during 2005/06-2009/10 of both the MoFED and the CSA .

Based on the agreed and signed M&E action plan the following activities have been performed since then. Capacity building trainings on results based M&E framework design, recruiting additional staffs are some of the activities carried out by the MoFED.

The NSDS is a key to build the national statistical capacity and also the establishment of the Central Data Bank; Improvement in the provision of timely and quality data using the WAN and LAN connection of statistics branch offices are some of the activities performed by the CSA.

As the M&E capacity of the Federal implementing bodies/line ministries and agencies/ is very much variable, the GoE has started taking capacity building measures so that the information base be further strengthened for the better M&E and hence inform decision making process. And hence during the PASDEP period, for example, emphasis has been given for the strengthening and building M&E capacity of sectors. Accordingly, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development with the assistance of the FAO is working on their data collection and archiving systems. The Ministry of Health and Education have their data bases and M&E capacity being built in collaboration with the development partners. Also the road sector has a very good M&E system too and in collaboration with the World Bank, the European Commission and European Union they are relentlessly working a lot in the capacity development for the M&E system of the sector’s target.

Best regards,


Tamirat Yacob,
Ministry of Finance and Economic Development of Ethiopia;
AfCoP-MfDR Internal Managment Monitoring and Evaluation Team Leader

Attachments:

• Ethiopia&PRSPs_Tamirat_Yacob_21082010[1].doc, 40 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sheka Bangura on September 3, 2010 at 11:07am

Hannah,

Thanks for inviting us to the second round of the PRSPs discussion. My response as follows:

Sierra Leone has a clear institutional arrangement for monitoring her PRSP, defining all relevant actors in the process and their responsibilities. We have a pyramidal institutional structure with M&E working groups at the district and central level. Information at the district level filters up to the centre and their is feedback mechanism from the centre to the district. Above the central/sector working groups is a high level policy forum periodically bringing government and donors together to review and discuss progress in the implementation of the PRSP and make recommendations for improvement in implementation. High level policy conclusions are transmitted down the structure to be followed up on at sectoral and district level for improved implementation.

The ministry of finance and economic development coordinates the implementation of the PRSP including its monitoring and evaluation requirements. There is monitoring and evaluation unit within the ministry that leads in that process. Reporting is done to both government and development partners that support the PRS process in Sierra Leone.

There is a national Results Framework that guides monitoring of the PRSP at central and district level. Periodic reporting including preparation of Annual Progress Reports is done on the Results Framework. All development actors (donors, civil society, etc) operating in Sierra Leone are required to link their results system to the PRS results framework. Results system at the district level is well linked to the PRSP system; district councils are trained in this direction. On the donor side, examples of a well aligned results system to the PRS framework are the UN Joint Vision results framework and the Joint Assistance Strategy framework of the World Bank and AfDB.

We do not have an operational database for monitoring the PRSP yet, per se, but we have got some functioning poverty-related sectoral databases such as the Health Information System (HIS), Integrated Financial Management Information System (IFMIS), and the Development Assistance Database (DAD). Others are in the pipeline of their development process such as the Education Management Information System (EMIS). We hope, over time, to consolidate sectoral databases into national PRSP database.

Periodic M&E reports are distributed and validated nationwide. There is however need to ensure sustainability in this direction. Many donor-reporting related indicators are drawn from and included in the PRS results framework. It should be noted that PRSP is entirely participatory drawing input from all and sundry including donors at the preparation, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation stages. The results framework receives inputs from all including donors. No need to invent new indicators for donor reporting. There are, however, institutional and process indicators that are used in donor reporting that are not directly found in the PRS results framework.

We do have a sense of donor harmonization around the SL-PRSP as already mentioned above in the case of now having Joint UN Vision and World Bank/AfDB JAS that are well aligned to the PRSP. There is also a joint assistance arrangement between EU and DFID-UK. This is expected to encourage joint donor mission and reporting. It is worth mentioning at this juncture that, we are for the first time preparing a joint country donor-government report on the Sierra Leone development situation---ie on the implementation of the PRSP, the Agenda for Change. This has the advantage of reducing multiple donor reports on country development status.

Regards,

Sheka

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page