PRSP Learning Event

1. PRSP Learning Event In-week Russia/Ukraine - April 10th 2002

2. Origins of the PRSP Idea • Poor record on poverty reduction in 1990s (Africa, Transition countries especially) • Findings on aid effectiveness (aid undermining govt. systems & capacity, limits of conventional policy conditionality, nb of ownership) • Justification for big increase in multilateral funding for debt relief (HIPC II)

3. Core PRSP Principles • Country-led, country-owned • Based on broad-based participation • Comprehensive – macro, structural, social • Medium to long term perspective • Results-oriented • Donor partnership under government leadership

4. What’s new? • Costed poverty reduction strategy linked to macro & fiscal framework • Reducing the disconnect between policy & results • Opening up the policy process to broad-based local participation • Working behind Govt. leadership/new aid delivery/partnership possibilities

5. Relevance in MICs? • 500 million living on < $2/day; 12% of poorest people reside in MICs • Costed policy framework linked to resource allocation universally relevant • Joining-up macro, structural & social policy a challenge everywhere (CDF) • Broad societal support for policy change often critical to effectiveness

6. Relevance cont. • Results-orientation widely applicable • Donor role secondary to domestic constituencies /electorates • BUT poverty, political economy, capacity weaknesses and the leverage of external partners are all different from LICs. • Wholesale application of PRS principles probably not appropriate – but variations on a theme.

7. Ownership • What does ownership entail? - locus of idea resides domestically - technocratic conviction & political support - broad societal support - ‘institutionalistion’ – embedded in new inst.arrgs • How is the PRS doing? - PRS principles gradually being internalised (as part of the ‘political project’; ‘popularisation’; as framework for budget guidelines) -Upgrading of poverty policy with involvement of MoF; technocrats given higher profile

8. Ownership cont. - Some new institutional arrangements (cross- sectoral technical committees, PRS working groups) - Domestic constituencies are more engaged in policy debate (national dialogues, policy fora) • Challenges - deepening understanding through info compaigns - engaging political constituencies more directly - Parliaments, political parties, TUs (again media) - locking-in commitment to principles through complementary reforms (CSR/pay reform) & changes in the aid relationship

9. Participation • Experience shows: • - Opportunity has been created for more ‘strategic’ engagement (NGOs engaging with policy questions) • - New ‘spaces’ for domestic policy dialogue are emerging (joint policy fora, participatory PER processes) • - New coalitions also emerging – CSOs, INGOs and • local NGOs, academic institutions • - Participation often limited to consultation, sometimes in conflict with formal political institutions

10. Participation cont. • Significant challenges remain • - There are costs & risks to participation; how to avoid • loss of trust is a key issue - Consistent, long term support to participatory policy processes is necessary to yield desired results - Over-privileging of NGOs can be at the cost of local political institutions, membership organisations etc. - Not just dialogue but also collective analysis, a link to action & monitoring for feedback & results

11. Partnership • Experience so far: • Recognition that a broader policy dialogue is needed • beyond projects • - Acknowledgement of Govt. leadership in mgmt of aid • New aid modalities • Donor moves towards harmonisation & results focus • But the potential is also there to: • Further streamline donor processes; benchmarking of • donor performance; establish common mechanisms • Move towards longer term commitments based on • mutual accountabilities

12. Partnership • Possible approaches include: - Extend national partnership agreements to include sub-national & local authority (even community) - Linking institutions with experience with participatory methods/social assessment/monitoring - Extending partnership by linking to private sector/ chambers of commerce, corporate social responsibility issues

13. Results Oriented • Assessing progress key to public credibility of poverty policy • Feasibility and evaluability of policy priorities & targets are in turn key to monitoring progress • PRS monitoring requires (at a minimum): • - clear articulation of intermediate output, outcome & • final outcome indicators • - national, local and household level poverty data - administrative/facility level data - qualitative policy analysis/quick monitoring tools (citizen report cards; consumer surveys)

14. Results Oriented • But monitoring is not just about data; crucial are the systems that feed evidence back into policy. • Institutional arrangements must enable domestic policy dialogue around poverty to continue and deepen (link data, analysis & dissemination) • Build demand through budget/PER reform processes, links with research & advocacy community, (town-hall’ meetings; e-govt.)

15. Results Oriented • Participatory tools can increase access to info & increase trust, particularly in ‘excluded’ communities • Supporting capacity for poverty & social impact analysis (research community, TUs etc) can help to inform the domestic debate about policy change & contribute to better evidence-based policy making.

16. What does this mean for you? How do these lessons & challenges fit with your current experience of working in Russia/ Ukraine? What’s different; what are some of possibilities for working more directly with PRS principles?