WHAT IS CSPR?

1. INFLUENCING POVERTY REDUCTION STRATEGIES AND NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS – A ZAMBIAN CIVIL SOCIETY EXPERIENCEBy Miss. Ivy Mutwale, CSPR

2. WHAT IS CSPR? • Network of CSOs working together for poverty eradication • Network came together in 2000 when Zambia was required to prepare PRSP • Membership organization comprising over a hundred CSOs in six provinces: Lusaka, Luapula, Western, N/Western, Southern and Eastern

3. CSPR Cont. • Main programmes: Research and Policy Analysis, Information Management & Networking (IMN), Civic Engagement and Advocacy (CEA) and Governance and Institutional Development (GID) • Members have independent activities aside of Network activities – strength in joint voice on poverty issues • One core activity of the CSPR is to monitor the implementation of the Pro-Poor National Development and advocacy around this

4. Our Mission:To actively and effectively contribute to poverty eradication and pro-poor development in Zambia through advocacy for responsive policy formulation and implementation, promotion of civic engagement in development processes, production of poverty related evidence and data; and provision of a platform for information and knowledge sharing at local, district, national and international levels. • Our Vision for CSPR:A leading Civil Society Network contributing to pro-poor development at all levels in Zambia • Our Vision for Zambia: A Zambia in which all Zambians enjoy all basic needs

5. CSPR AT WORK

6. PRSP FORMULATION Government consultations through sector working groups Civil society consultations through thematic groups CSPR report - “A PRSP for Zambia – A civil society perspective” Final PRSP (launched in 2002) reflects a fairly good amount of civil society concerns for fighting poverty – a good starting point PRSP IMPLEMENTATION Notable Achievements include: relevant guiding document for poverty reduction attempt to match resources for development participatory process Notable problems include: Debt repayments – HIPC insufficient Donors – non fulfillment of pledges Competing demands on domestic revenue. Etc Inadequate political will 2004 was to be final year of 1st PRSP – extended to 2005. PRSP incorporated in the TNDP i.e. PRSP/TNDP 2005 PRSP review and new PRSP – linked to NDP A Government’s Invitation to the Table & A Civil Society Engagement Strategy

7. Monitoring & Evaluating the PRSP Q = Is the PRSP achieving what it set out to achieve? ** Very Important part of the process • Why – • Past experiences in programme implementation – not good • Lack of effective monitoring can result in – low levels of implementation, wrong beneficiaries, undesired impacts, misallocation and misdirection of resources etc • How - • Expenditure tracking – Monitoring the PRSP monies • Poverty Monitoring – Monitoring the results of PRSP Implementation (output and impact). • Participatory approaches – bringing on board the poor!! (civil society has a key role to play in Monitoring and advocacy around results of monitoring)

8. Critiques of PRSPs • Rushed – during formulation and slow in implementation. • Capacities of implementers and SAGs need to be improved • Unpredictable resource environment • Same Macro framework underpinned by neo-liberalism (market prices, privatisation etc); • Still top-down rather than bottom up; • Participation of non state actors is often limited • Participation of the poor (intended beneficiaries) tends to be through representatives.

9. Light at the end of the tunnel? • Generally PRSPs were received with some hope that they could actually reduce poverty. • Do Governments have the political will to use the PRSPs to actually benefit the poor or are PRSPs being used only for HIPC and donor support? • There is hope if donors fulfill their pledges, and on time • End of the tunnel will be dark if the IFI financing tools remain unchecked – PRGF of IMF and PRSC of World Bank (a reformulation of discredited SAP policies?) • CSPR’s advocacy is targeted at these issues

10. Towards a New Plan and a Civil Society ProcessCivil society engagement in the NDP process • April, 2005, gov’t roadmap for formulating FNDP presented to Civil Society. • July 2005, a national inception workshop • Thematic and provincial groups • August, 2005, Consensus Building Workshop • “A Fifth National Development Plan for Zambia; 2006-2010 – A Civil Society Perspective” launched and presented to Government through the Ministry of Finance and the SAGs. • July, 2006, Government draft FNDP document • Civil Society Indaba held on 12th July, 2006 • CS response to draft presented at the Government National Stakeholders Workshop held on 24th July

11. KEY OBSERVATIONS, ACHIEVEMENTS & AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT Observations • need to show linkages with some key previous and on-going plans • Link the FNDP targets to those of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) • Specify further some broadly reflected strategies • draft plan did not incorporate the provincial recommendations • Monitoring and Evaluation institutional framework in the document does not explicitly show clear linkages from the sub-district structures • government must exhibit the highest show of political will

12. Areas of Improvement (i) should clearly state the priority PRPs(ii) M and E institutional framework should explicitly show clear linkages from the sub-district (iv) align all existing policies to the NDP Achievements • process was consultative • concrete document to guide national development • monitoring framework outlined in the document • Inclusion of some relevant chapters e.g disabilities

13. ALIGNING NATIONAL PLANS TO MDGs • set of goals that can be achieved if a government invests in ensuring the fulfillment of the basic needs of its people • if realised, could put Zambia on the right path to the MDGs. • There is focus, agreement and endorsement • PRSP, TNDP and FNDP in Zambia’s case (short/medium term plans) are the operational framework for achieving the MDGs. • MDGs = long term goals (2000-2015) • PRSPs = strategies for countries to use as means to attaining the MDGs.

14. Link between MDGs and FNDP? • even though government alludes to the fact that they hope to move closer to achieving the MDGs by implementing the NDP, they do not show how they intend to do so • budget of the NDP falls far short of FNDP • FNDP budget to the social sector is estimated at 800million dollars per year, while the MDGs costing study estimates that Zambia will need to spend 1.5 billion dollars per year on social sectors alone • deficit of about 700million dollars! * Need to ensure the estimate is based on MDG attainment

15. For Zambia to attain the MDGs… • MDGising the National Policies • Increased Investments in infrastructure • Prudent Financial Management • Scaling of external assistance and fulfillment of the important international development compact • Donor Alignment and Conditionalities *need to triple up efforts if we are to attain the Goals by 2015

16. Conclusion “So we urgently need you to do what you do best… Political will shifts only if there is national and local mobilization by the public, and only when leaders are held accountable.… What would really make a difference is if, at the local level, the Goals achieve a critical mass of support and even become “vote-getters”. You can and must help make that happen. If we do not, millions of people will die, prematurely and unnecessarily. That…should be a call to action.”UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan People driven Planning and Budgeting – Key to Pro-poor National Development!!