PRP IMPLEMENTATION AND PERFORMANCE, IMPACT ON
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRAINTS, CHALLENGES
AND WAY FORWARD
PAPER PRESENTED FOR CIVIL SOCIETY FOR POVERTY
REDUCTION (CSPR)
By
Martin Matabishi
NGOCC
Zambia Annual Poverty Review Conference, Mulungushi International Conference Center, 10 – 12 August, 2004.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Civil Society for Poverty Reduction (CSPR) is a network of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) working around the various faces of poverty whose joint challenge is that of fighting the unacceptable poverty conditions in which the majority of Zambians live today. CSPR has played an active role in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) formulation process and is currently monitoring the implementation of this poverty reduction plan.
This presentation, therefore, aims to make a contribution towards the enrichment of all stakeholders gathered here towards identifying ways in which implementation can be improved so that ultimately, the intended beneficiaries of the programme, the poor, can testify to any reduction in poverty.
It is the CSPR’s conviction that if the PRSP is to bring about any significant contribution to the fight against poverty, then it must be taken as a true tool for poverty reduction before being used as conditionality.
Civil society in Zambia has come into this process in such an active manner because of its clear recognition of the priority of poverty reduction, and not simply because participation is a mandate of the IMF and World Bank. The strength of civil society’s participation in the PRSP process arises from its close contact with ordinary Zambian citizens (families, workers, youth, peasants, women, students) around the country as well as its keen analytical capacity ably demonstrated, for example, in the PRSP formulation process.
2.0 PRSP MONITORING
The need for civil society to effectively participate in PRSP monitoring arises from past experiences. Civil society has realized that in the past, the country has developed very good plans but when it came to implementation there have been few results to show of. CSPR also feels its role of monitoring is an ingredient to the overall success of the country's PRP. Such efforts, therefore, compliment the work of the government. It is not enough for example just to know how much was allocated and disbursed to a programme. It is cardinal to follow through and determine whether, the funds reached the intended beneficiaries and also know the difference such efforts have made. It is from this premise that we are able as a country to reflect, evaluate and forge ahead in a much more meaningful way.
2.1 CSPR Approach To Monitoring
In our monitoring efforts during the last three years, it has often been difficult to isolate the impacts which have been brought about by specific Poverty Reduction Programmes (PRPs) from other development activities. The following are some of the reasons why CSPR considered an independent but complimentary Monitoring an Evaluation (M&E) system:
Ø To enhance the effectiveness of civil society’s participation in the government’s M&E system
Ø To undertake collection & analysis of data & research that would compliment the government’s efforts
Ø To monitor government’s commitment to poverty reduction and PRSP implementation
Ø To focus on areas that government may not adequately address e.g. participatory assessments, etc
Ø To assess the impact of PRSP on intended beneficiaries
Ø To Bring on board the poor in programs aimed at benefiting them
In order to meet the above objectives, CSPR has had a twin focus of PRSP monitoring:
· Macro or national level
· Micro or household level
2.1.1 Macro or National Level
This type of monitoring has been focused at government behavior in relation to the PRSP, specifically, and poverty eradication in general. The objective has been to:
Ø Assess the effectiveness of public policy measures vis-à-vis poverty eradication
Ø Compare proposed Govt. allocation vis-à-vis disbursements
Ø Determine prioritization of poverty eradication by Govt.
The macro level monitoring has been carried out through budget (post) analysis statements and expenditure tracking. CSPR has also been an active member of the suspended External HIPC Monitoring & Tracking Team.
Expenditure Tracking
CSPR is monitoring Government’s commitment to PRSP implementation through allocation and disbursements to poverty reduction programmes (PRP) in the national budget, which is the main instrument for operationalizing the indicative PRSP into actual spending plans. In this regard, CSPR has been able to compliment the suspended HIPC Expenditure Monitoring Team’s work in expenditure tracking to ensure that debt relief and other resources meant for poverty reduction are put to their intended end-use not only by Government but by all stakeholders (including civil society) involved in administering PRP resources. In addition, the network has been able to closely monitor the priority being accorded to PRP programmes by looking at increases or reductions in annual budgetary allocations.
CSPR has taken a keen interest in the manner with which PRP funds have been allocated and disbursed since 2002 when implementation of the PRSP started. So far the network has expressed discontent with the level of commitment shown by Government when it comes to disbursement of funds for these programmes.
Table 1
Budgetary Performance in relation to PRP 2002-4
Year / 2002 / 2003 / 2004Allocation
(In Billions of ZMK) / 450 / 420.7 / 521.7
Budget Share (%) / 7.9 / 6.1 / 6.3
Disbursement (In Billions of ZKMKwacha) / 110.1 / 212.5 / -
Source: National Budget Speeches for 2002, 2003, 2004
The table above demonstrates a poor performance of PRP expenditures over the last two years
Ø Budgetary allocations to PRPs have been meager in relation to the requirements contained in the PRSP document. It is evident from the table above that the budget share of PRPs has actually fallen from 7.9 per cent in 2002 to 6.3 per cent in 2004.
Ø PRPs are further constrained by the actual disbursements, which are far, less than the allocated figures
Ø By implication, Govt. has not yet re-oriented its expenditure pattern to achieve the required mix to fight poverty
Ø Ironically, the poor performance of PRPs is against the background of more funding to institutions remotely connected to poverty reduction. In our recent study (Tracking Poverty Expenditures Under PRSP: An analysis of 2002 and 2003 Budgets), it was discovered that while PRPs have continued being under funded, other non-PRP areas received over a 100 per cent of their allocations. For instance, in 2002 the top over funded sectors included Cabinet Office (512 per cent), State House (264.2 per cent), to mention but a few.
Ø Fiscal discipline and radical cutting of unnecessary expenditures is important if we are to meet PRSP objectives. It is in this vein that CSPR commends government for cutting certain expenditures (sitting allowance, expenditure on certain commemorations, unnecessary travels) as announced this year
Ø In addition, the External HIPC Monitoring & Tracking Team, to which CSPR is a part, has revealed some positive performance results but also glaring abuse of resources meant for economic development & poverty eradication
Ø The Activity Based Budgeting in this year’s yellow book should be commended
2.1.2 Micro Level Approach to PRSP Monitoring
This approach is aimed at assessing the benefits accruing to the ultimate targets of the PRSP (the poor) and other poverty eradication interventions. Hence the approach focuses on the household as the unit of development & analyses trends in livelihoods over time due to PRSP implementation. The micro level approach to PRSP has been undertaken through participatory poverty monitoring. CSPR has undertaken participatory poverty assessments in 2002 (baseline) and 2003 (rapid assessment), and May/June 2004.
Results of the 2003 rapid assessments showed positive changes in some areas but also highlighted the slow pace of fighting poverty.
2.1.2(a) CSPR PRSP Monitoring Results For 2004 (Changes and Developments since 2003
CSPR undertook the third monitoring exercise in May and June 2004 in five selected districts in five different provinces of Western (Senanga), Luapula (Samfya), North-Western (Mwiniluga), Eastern (Petauke), and Southern (Kalomo). It is important to underscore that four of these provinces are among the poorest provinces in Zambia and any poverty reducing intervention should be felt from these provinces.
The following observations were made in the above districts.
(i) Livelihoods
The major source of livelihoods in 13 of the 14 communities visited was farming except Samfya where fishing was reported as the most important economic activity and source of livelihood. The following changes were noticed since 2003:
Ø Introduction of new crops which have the potential to increase both food security and cash incomes. Cassava which is drought resistant was reported in Kalomo and Petauke Districts. Rice was reported to have been introduced in some parts of Kalomo. Paprika and tobacco, which are big money makers, were reported introduced in parts of Petauke that did not previously grow these crops.
Ø Introduction of seed multiplying project in Siite, Senanga District.
Ø Increased crop yields: increased crop production was reported in five of the nine rural study sites. This was attributed to a number of factors including the following:
· Introduction of such support programmes as the Food Security Pack that is being managed by the Programme Against Malnutrition (PAM) and the Fertiliser Support Programme (FSP)
· Introduction of early maturing cassava varieties (Mwinilunga and Samfya)
· Commercialisation of cassava growing (Samfya)
A number of issues were cited as possible constraining factors to the developments and expansion of the farming sector which is the main source of livelivelihoods for the majority of the rural population. These are indicated in table 2 below.
Table 2: Main Factors that constrain the Agricultural Sector by Study Site
CONSTRAINING FACTORS / REPORTING DISTRICTS / NO. OF SITES1. / Poor marketing arrangements / All districts / 9
2. / Poor roads / All districts / 8
3. / HIV/AIDS / All districts / 7
4. / Extension staff shortages / Mwinilunga, Kalomo and Petauke / 6
5. / Lack of credit facilities / Mwinilunga, Kalomo and Petauke / 6
6. / Cattle diseases / Petauke, Mwinilunga and Kalomo / 4
7. / Loss of soil fertility / Petauke and Mwinilunga / 3
Source: CSPR, 2004 PRSP Monitoring Summary Report
A number of pertinent issues came out especially on poor marketing and HIV/AIDS. Community members pointed out to the absence of an organisation capable of buying all the crops, especially maize.
The following points need to be underlined when discussing PRP/HIPC funding in the agricultural sector:
Ø Poor flow of information: Very few people seem to know what is going on. One would suggest that stakeholders, including and especially the poor, would be kept informed of these funds, that is, amounts, their intended and actual use.
Ø Funds for agriculture channeled through other agencies: one would expect that funds meant for the agricultural sector would naturally be national level and through the Ministry of Agricultural Coordinator at the district level. Local Government which does not have much expertise in the agricultural sector received this funding in one case.
Ø Inadequacy of funds: In order to ensure successful completion of whatever development activity is being funded by PRP or HIPC adequate funding should be provided.
(ii) Education
The education sector is one of those areas where it is clearly difficult to identify and isolate impacts of PRP interventions from those of the several other important actors and programmes like BESSIP, the Re-entry Policy which enables girls who had left school because of pregnancy to return, agencies like Zambia Social Investment Fund (ZAMSIF) which rehabilitates and extends school infrastructures and Free Basic Education.
According to the findings, the biggest change that has been reported in all the districts is increased pupil enrolments for Grades 1 to 9. Petauke Primary School, for instance, enrolments rose by 39.1% from 1,200 in 2003 t0 1,670 in 2004. This is attributed to the introduction of Free Basic Education. Increased pupil enrolments have, however, been reported to have their own effects, which tend to affect the quality of education adversely.These are that they have not been matched with corresponding increase in the teaching staff and such school facilities as classrooms, desks and ablution blocks.
In addition, while the number of pupils in Grades 1 to 9 have increased, and in some cases more than doubled, the number of school places in Grades 10 to 12 has remained the same. A negative event reported during the 2004 PRSP Monitoring Exercise is the poor performance of pupils at Grade 9 examinations. This came out especially in peri-urban schools and blamed on the prolonged teachers’ strikes.
PRP and HIPC funds were reported to have been received in the study districts. However, there was a complaint that it was generally not sufficient to fund the activities it was intended. Kalomo district, for example, received K16 million to purchase school desks for all the schools in the district. Besides the receipt of PRP funding and increased pupil enrolments, no other major changes were reported to have taken place during the twelve months between 2003 and 2004 PRSP monitoring exercise
Major concerns in education sector which came out during the previous (2002 and 2003) PRSP studies remain the same. These are:
Ø Shortage of teachers: two major factors were identified as being responsible for this situation, namely, the high teacher mortality rates due to HIV/AIDS, the desperate desire on the part of the government to reach the HIPC completion point which does not allow recruitment and replacement of retired and/ or dead teachers
Ø Gender imbalance among teachers: there are too few female teachers in rural schools. For instance, only 31.5 % of the teachers in Petauke district are women.
Ø Poor and often dilapidated school infrastructure: the later includes classrooms and teachers’ houses. Teachers' morale is adversely affected by this.
Ø High teachers’ mobility and mortality rates
Ø Inadequate and erratic funding from government
Ø Inadequate transport to facilitate the delivery of educational materials
On the other hand, the monitoring exercise revealed that among the PRSP indicators, increased access to education and reduced drop out have improved.
(iii) Health
In the health sector, the some changes and developments were reported: