African Forum and Network on Debt and Development

Macroeconomic Policy Options in Sub – Saharan Africa: Linking Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) and the Millennium Development Goals

The Case of Zambia

Draft

April 2006

ACRRYNOMS

CPIACountry policy and Institutional Assessment

CSOCivil Society Organization

FNDPFifth national development Plan

G7Group of Seven most Industrialized Countries

HIPCHeavily Indebted Poor Country

IFIInternational Financial Institution

IMFInternational Monetary Fund

LDCLeast Developed Country

MDGs: Millennium Development Goals

MTEFMedium Term Expenditure Framework

PRSPPoverty Reduction Strategy

PRGF Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility

PRPPoverty Reduction Programme

TNDP Transitional Development Plan

UNCEDUnited Nations Conference on Environment and Development

Poverty Reduction and Millennium Development Goals in Zambia.

1.0 Introduction:

The intention of this study is to ascertain the extent to which Zambia will be able to attain some or all the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in relation to the current Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs). In January 2002 the President of the Republic of Zambia requested the Ministry of Finance and National Planning to produce a Transitional National Development Plan (TNDP) by June 2002 and from 2006 onwards to produce five year National Development Plans (NDP). The TNDP 2002-2005 was a conversion of the fully approved PRSP 2002 – 2004. For that reason, there was no need to have a PRSP in 2005 as this was catered for by the TNDP. The Fifth National Development Plan (2006 -2010) (FNDP) was to follow on the heels of the TNDP[1].As is the case in Mozambique,the current PRSPs have been transformed back to their original status of national planning tools rather than be maintained as the PRSPswhich had to be approved by the International Financial Institutions (IFIs). For the purpose of this paper therefore,PRSP refers to the Zambian national planning instruments, the Transitional Development Plan, the Fifth National Development Plan, the three years Medium term Expenditure Frameworks (MTEF) and the annual national Budgets.

Overall, this paper explores the following issues:

  1. The extent to which MDGs and PRSPs have become rallying points for national development; how MDGs have been integrated in national policy, planning and budget processes; and the extent to which the PRSP is supporting or undermining the MDG agenda?
  1. The role of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in the MDGs agenda and especially their influence in the flow of resources for the MDGs given their macro economic policy influence on the country;
  1. The extent to which there is a coherent MDG message and programme of support from multi lateral agencies and other donors; the level of emphasis on particular goals and if, yes, if was consistent with national priorities. In this regard therefore whether or not the MDG/ Millennium Declaration agenda presents any opportunities or challenges to moving forward on national priorities.
  1. The extent to which the country is demonstrating good practice in engendering national ownership of the MDGs; the process through which this has been done and how this has found expression in supporting institutional arrangements.
  1. The extent to which MDGs have afforded better partnership between national stakeholders than the PRSPs. Of importance here is to assess the extent to which governments have been able to engage CSOs and the private sector in shaping the development agenda after the PRSPs experience. To what extent have the MDGs been a tool for raising awareness, developing consensus and alliance building around national development/poverty eradication?
  1. Analysis of the extent to which the scope for CSOs to play a broader role in delivering the MDGs and PRSPs has been enlarged. Focus here lies to the examining the extent CSOs have been engaged in policies, actions, and even in institutional arrangements for this to happen. What has the relationship between the PRSP and the MDGs meant for the work and role of CSOs?
  1. Some recommendations on how the international community, national governments and other stakeholders should handle the PRSPs and MDGs as tools for development in Africa.

2.0 Background Links and synergies between PRSPs and MDGs:

In making the analysis of the relationship between the PRSPs and the MDGs and the extent to these two are linked and integrated (or not integrated) it might be useful to examine two issues: their origins, what really lies behind them and what instruments are required for their fulfillment; and the extent to which these instruments are synergized. Broadly speaking, the origins of both the PRSPs and MDGs lie in the global need for a sustainable eradication of poverty. The growing depth of poverty over the past thirty years has definitely attracted attention of policy makers, development practitioners and activists[2]. The Earth Summit of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992[3] set the more profound stage for global pressure for finding solutions to the poverty problem in the third world as part of sustainable development. The Copenhagen Summit on Social development in March, 1995[4] made further calls for eradication of poverty as an essential part of social development. The summit discussed several contributing factors to poverty and one of the more important ones, at least for least developed countries, was that of external debt. It was recognized that external debt was consuming resources at the expense of social development in the debtor countries and that therefore, finding ways to end the debt crisis could, among other things, contribute to human development.

Following the social summit, the G7 leaders meeting in Halifax, Nova Scotia, June 15 to 17, 1995[5]noted that the persistence of extreme poverty and marginalization of the poorest countries was simply not compatible with universal aspirations for prosperity and security. Recognizing that Sub-Saharan Africa faced especially severe challenges, the Summitcommitted itself to playing some role in eradicating poverty. Welcoming the Paris Club response to improving the treatment of the debt of the poorest countries (introduction of Naples terms for bilateral debt); the G7 leaders “instructed” the Bretton Woods institutions to develop a comprehensive approach to assist countries with multilateral debt problems, through the flexible implementation of existing instruments and new mechanisms. In September 1996, the Bretton Woods institutions came up with the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative which would respond to the debt crisis of the now designated as “Highly Indebted Poor Countries” (HIPCs). There was a list of 41 countries, of which 33 were in Africa. However, after two years of the initiative in 1998, only Uganda and Bolivia had qualified for any relief under the scheme. Increased pressure from the Jubilee movement and the Debtor countries made the G7 Summit of Cologne, June 1999, to announce a programme that led to the Enhanced HIPC initiative (eHIPC) with less onerous conditions and more accommodating accession time frames. Due to the flexibility introduced, by the end of the year 2000, a further 20 countries, including Zambia, had qualified with “decision point” status.

As a condition for eligibility the IMF and World Bank required that debtor governments, with the participation of their civil society,craft their national development policies and plans into Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) to ensure that “saved” money from the relief would be spent on poverty reduction. The PRSP described the country’s macro-economic, structural and social policies and programmes to promote growth and reduce poverty. It also included associated external financial needs (implemented by the IMF through the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF)

In the case of Zambia, the Interim PRSP was submitted to the Bretton Woods institutions in July 2000 and the full PRSP was submitted in March 2002, approved and launched in June 2002 to cover the period 2002 to 2004. On the part of the Zambian government, the goal of reaching the Completion point by December 2004 to achieve debt relief was the most important activity. The completion Point was however reached only in April 2005, extending the anxiety of debt relief and therefore becoming the dominant development discourse in Zambia between 2002 and 2005. The significance of the HIPC process is underscored by Zambia’s own reality: At the time of independence in 1964 Zambia was a middle income country with a per capita income of US$ 1,500. Since then it has experienced one of the most dramatic declines into the category of the Least developed Countries (LDC) with a per capita income of US$ 380 (2003) as compared to Canada’s US$ 23,930 (2003)[6]. The country ranks 177 out of the 190 countries covered by the UN Human Development Indicators. 73% of the population lives below the poverty datum line and it is estimated that 20% of the adult population is living with HIV/Aids virus. Zambia declined into a heavily indebted country with a debt stock of US$ 7.2 billion and an estimated scheduled debt service repayment of US$ 600 million; well beyond its export means [7]and therefore requiring significant debt relief which earlier debt relief mechanisms had been unable to address.

Being a severely indebted low income country with a per capita income of US$ 350 and a per capita debt of US$ 220 in 1999 Zambia had no choice but go through the HIPC process in order to secure the necessary debt relief. At decision point in late 2000 Zambia looked forward to a debt stock reduction of US$ 3.8 billion from a debt stock of US$ 7.2 billion and a reduction in debt service from roughly US$ 600 million to US$ 165 million at completion point. With much struggle, which included policy slippages, Zambia finally reached the HIPC Completion Point in April 2005securing bilateral debt relief promised at the time of the decision point. The Gleneagles G8 Summit of June 2005 brought further hope as the IMF announced in December 2005[8] that Zambia would be granted debt relief through the Multilateral Debt relief initiative reducing the overall Zambian Debt Stock to US$ 500 million and therefore and overall annual savings of US$ 500 million. The importance of the PRSP in relation to debt relief was realized by the Zambian government. It maintained the required fiscal discipline especially during 2004.

In terms of content, the Zambian PRSP, covering the period 2000 to 2004 drew up programme of action to redress the evident poverty which had deepened to cover 73% of the population by 1998 as noted above. The main purpose of the PRSP was to promote sustainable economic growth and to improve social services and infrastructure. The PRSP identified HIV/AIDS, Gender and the environment as crosscutting issues and good governance and improved public sector management as providing an enabling environment for implementation of the PRSP. There were clear intervention strategies in various sectors for achievement of PRSP objective of poverty reduction[9] The key areas of intervention, their activities and targets were as follows:

a. Economic Growth: Due to earlier dependence on copper and its negative impact on its decline, there was need to expand economic activities beyond copper mining. In this regard key areas for economic growth would be Agriculture, Tourism, Industry and Mining. In these growth sectors various activities would be undertaken by government and provide opportunities for private sector investments for creating jobs and therefore increased incomes. Some of the key anticipated outputs were:

Agriculture: improved household food security, increased incomes and reduction in poverty; irrigation, improved crop storage, water conservation for farmers improved efficiency and profitability; improved market facilitation to increase farming incomes; financial resources availability to enhance investments in the agricultural sector. The expected output is increased agricultural production and therefore incomes.

In Tourism: improved infrastructure to enhance investments in zoned activities to enable investments that would create incomes and cash-in in the tourism market using Zambia’s high tourism potential.

Industry: support to micro, small and medium scale enterprise development with government as main buyer to stimulate growth of employment and income in this area; support to rural industrialization ; provision of Credit facilities; enhancing development of technology to provide the basis for industrial growth.

Mining: encouragement of large scale copper mining; small scale mining in various minerals, creating Gemstone Exchange

b. Social Investment:

Health: Secure basic health package for the poor; Public Health priorities on Malaria, HIV/AIDS, Reproductive Health, Child Health, Epidemics; and Nutrition.

Education: Basic Education support programme; Equity programme; Literacy; Skills training, school improvement; improved staffing and management of universities and colleges.

c. Infrastructure: Road improvements including those to new development areas such as farming blocks and mining; improved road transport; road safety; civil aviation, waterways, telephone communications especially in rural areas; meeting energy requirements, efficiency of wood fuels, rural electrification;

Water and Sanitation:rural and urban water supply and sanitation; water resources planning , management and monitoring: water supply and use; dam construction in drought prone areas.

d. Cross cutting issues:

HIV/AIDS: reduction of new infections, reduction of social eco9nomic impact of HIV/AIDS, improvement of quality of life of Orphans and Vulnerable children, Improved services for Sexually Transmitted Diseases; prevention of mother to child transmission, prevention of TB

Gender: Women empowerment including access to property, Women information and Education; Women and financial services access, Women and decision making, drug supply

Environment: Focus on developing a national policy on environment, dealing with water pollution and inadequate sanitation, soil degradation, Air pollution, wildlife and forestry.

e. Enabling environment:

Good governance: human rights, justice, resource allocation, elections, transparent decision making, economic policy, corruption

Macro-economic policy: the macroeconomic fundamentals

Categorisation of PRSP activities:

In the expenditure pattern in both the 2004 and 2005 Annual Government Budget, expenditure for poverty reduction programmes (PRPs) are defined clearly into three categories comprising: PRP1: directly related to poverty reduction; PRP2: indirectly related to poverty reduction and PRP3: remotely related to poverty reduction as defined in the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF). Monitoring indicators were also included.

Although in the end the PRSP Monitoring Committee was disbanded due to lack of civil society capacity in the districts, efforts seem to have been made to appoint a committee for specifically monitoring Poverty expenditures and actual poverty reduction.

It is worth pointing out here that government paid a lot of attention to the PRSP process due to the reward at the end of it; the required debt relief which had also provided a political gain for the ruling party. The poverty focus was targeted in the PRSP.

The Millennium Development Goals:

Like the other countries of the world, Zambiasigned the Millennium Declaration in New York in September 2000. It was a commitment to facing and dealing with the challenges posed by widespread poverty especially in the southern hemisphere of the globe, affecting mainly Africa, Asia and Latin America. Among others, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) 1992 and the Copenhagen Summit of 1995, Copenhagen +5, Nairobi and Beijing Conferences on Women, Conferences on Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and others can be seen as the building blocks for the Millennium Declaration. Eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to be achieved by 2015 were subsequently formulated to operationalise the aspirations laid in the Declaration.

The United Nations Millennium Project (the Project) lead by Prof. Jeffrey Sachs elaborated the programming and sets of actions that would be necessary to achieve the MDGs. (see The Project makes and draws everyone’s attention to 10 key recommendations and including the level of financing required for meeting the MDGs under the general theme of Investing in Development. Some of the major aspects of the recommendations are as follows:

Recommendation 1:

Developing country governments should adopt development strategies bold enough to meet the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) targets for 2015. We term them MDG-based poverty reduction strategies. To meet the 2015 deadline, we recommend that all countries have these strategies in place by 2006. Where Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) already exist, those should be aligned with the MDGs.

Recommendation 2:

The MDG-based poverty reduction strategies should anchor the scaling up of public investments, capacity building, domestic resource mobilization, and official development assistance. They should also provide a framework for strengthening governance, promoting human rights, engaging civil society, and promoting the private sector. The MDG-based poverty reduction strategies should:

  • Be based on an assessment of investments and policies needed to reach the Goals by 2015.
  • Spell out the detailed national investments, policies, and budgets for the coming three to five years.
  • Focus on rural productivity, urban productivity, health, education, gender equality, water and sanitation, environmental sustainability, and science, technology, and innovation.
  • Focus on women's and girls' health (including reproductive health) and education outcomes, access to economic and political opportunities, right to control assets, and freedom from violence.
  • Promote mechanisms for transparent and decentralized governance.
  • Include operational strategies for scale-up, such as training and retaining skilled workers.
  • Involve civil society organizations in decisionmaking and service delivery, and provide resources for monitoring and evaluation.
  • Outline a private sector promotion strategy and an income generation strategy for poor people.
  • Be tailored, as appropriate, to the special needs of landlocked, small island developing, least developed, and fragile states.
  • Mobilize increased domestic resources by up to four percentage points of GNP by 2015.
  • Calculate the need for official development assistance.
  • Describe an 'exit strategy' to end aid dependency, appropriate to the country's situation.

Recommendation 3: