4 REVIEWS OF USING THE SLA IN POVERTY REDUCTION STRATEGY PAPERS

4.1 SUMMARY OF REFERENCES

4.2 MAIN FINDINGS

The process of developing Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) was begun in 1999 as a way of strengthening country level development strategies as indicated in the 2000/1 World Development Report (Farrington, 2001). It provides a new focus, putting poverty at the centre of policy frameworks (EURODAD, 2000), and the majority of the literature has been produced very recently. Only a few examples of PRSPs incorporating the SLA have been published. The current literature on PRSPs and involvement of the SLA is highly theoretical and dominated by intellectual debate. Examples are given where they are available, but there is a need for further empirical research to understand the ways in which the SLA, amongst other approaches, tools and methods can strengthen poverty reduction strategies. Increasing amounts of PRSP material is being made available on the web, particularly through the World Bank, IMF, and EURODAD (see Annex 3). The accessibility of this material raises interesting questions of equity of access to knowledge for those in countries involved in the process but without access to the Internet, for what ever reason.

No literature referring to PRSPs related to small-scale fisheries was found in either published material or on the Internet. The low visibility of the fisheries sector in PRSPs is of great concern given the number of poor and marginalized people dependent of fisheries, either directly or indirectly. In the 25 West African partner countries of the SFLP, for example, there are estimated to be 7 million people living directly or indirectly off small-scale fisheries. It is important that the specificities of fisheries-based livelihood strategies are taken into consideration by the PRSPs to ensure appropriate policy. This is a matter that is currently being addressed by the SFLP.

4.2.1 History of PRSPs

PRSPs are country strategies put together by country authorities with the participation of Civil Society (CS) which build on the vision of the Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF), a broad long-term country driven development frame used by the World Bank and IMF (World Bank, 2000). They are the basis of World Bank and IMF funding for over 30 countries, and, in the case of the 41 HIPCs, additionally serve as a guide for the appropriate use of resources freed up as a result of debt relief (WB, 2000; EURODAD, 2000; Farrington, 2001; Rowson, 2001).

The Aim of PRSPs is to provide clear plans to achieve stated goals, strengthen country ownership, broaden the representation of CS (especially the poor), improve the coordination of development partners and appropriately focus the resources of the international community. It promotes the integration of poverty and environmental policy into a macro-economic framework. It is essential that these efforts are led by the country concerned, and supported by donors and members of the international community (World Bank, 2000; DFID, 2001).

Before the introduction of PRSPs, poverty reduction generally focused on economic issues and the belief that poverty reduction was driven by economic growth (Cleaver, 1997; Rowson, 2001). Cleaver demonstrated that an annual drop in poverty by 2% would require 6-7% of economic growth. It is now widely accepted, as illustrated in the previous chapters that poverty reduction and policy debate must not only be focused on the poor but also requires collaboration with the poor. This requires organisational and attitudinal changes across private, public and civil society sectors as well by development partners (World Bank group, 2000). It also requires a move away from donor driven projects to a situation that is supporting the development of government capacity and promoting participation to ensure relevance of development. Cleaver (1997) attributes the start of this change to the SAPs of the early 1990s, although participation was poor and development undertaken along strongly sectoral lines.

4.2.2 Summary of PRSP reviews to date

PRSPs do not have a blue print but try to incorporate (DFID, 2001, World Bank, 2000; McGee et al., 2002):

(i) A diagnosis of poverty and the obstacles to poverty alleviation. Participation is strongly promoted and helps address the multiple dimensions of poverty.

(ii) The identification of long- and medium-term policy targets. The process presents opportunities to discuss cross-sectoral and decision-level boundaries, increases the number of active stakeholders and broadens policy perspectives.

(iii) The provision of a monitoring framework to follow progress and share information.

(iv) Identification of ways to improve donor assistance and the relevance of donor projects.

(v) An increased level of participation and inputs from a broad base of stakeholders, the promotion of networks between actors of similar scale, and dialogue between donors and governments.

There have been variable signs of success and failure of PRSPs, and the precursor I-PRSP (EURODAD, 2000). What then are some of the concerns that have been raised regarding the PRSP process?

PRSPs tend to look at poverty through an economic lens making weak linkages between policy and poverty, disregarding information that does exist and neglecting to look at the broader aspects of poverty or the social impacts that loan programmes might be having (EURODAD, 2000; World Bank, 2000; Rowson, 2001; FAO, 2002). Issues beyond the scope of traditional economic development must be integrated into the process, including for example, livelihoods and rights. The BMJ criticises the PRS process with regards to the implications of health for the poor. Recognition of the importance health and a right to health care are considered to be prerequisites for successful poverty alleviation strategies by Rowson (2001), and are not yet adequately covered by the PRSPs.

"Ownership" of the strategy is also often disappointingly weak. Greater participation needs to be developed at all levels, and not restricted to community consultations (including the donors) to achieve national ownership and strengthen accountability. Information on PRSPs is frequently not readily available to those that might be interested and keen to learn from the experiences of others (McGee, 2002). In addition it would seem that CS and NGOs have yet to be able to demonstrate any influence or involvement in macro economic policy. Difficulty in achieving genuine participation has been attributed to capacity constraints in terms of human financial resources more often than lack of will (World Bank/IMF, 2000; McGee et al., 2002). Capacity further hampers strategy development due to crude data collection systems for monitoring poverty reduction, fragmented government policies and demoralised public servants. These are just some illustrations of the difficulties in preparation of strategies (Rowson, 2001). Where policy is being revised, the concentration appears to be more on the policy formulation process than on its content. The resultant strategies are therefore proving to be of varied usefulness (EURODAD, 2000).

There are also huge variations in how institutions work in different contexts - and how this affects policy delivery in both formal and informal institutions. Conventional policy has often failed to engage informal institutions and may even be detrimental to them. This could be particularly detrimental to the poor who have weak social capital and rely on informal or local institutions to act on their behalf (Shankland, 2000).

Many of the issues raised above were considered during the recent IMF conference "Financing for Development (FfD) and the IMF an International Conference on Financing and Developmen" held in Mexico, 18-22 March 2002 (www.imf.org/external/np/pdr/FfD/2002/) The aim of this conference was to emphasise the importance of putting into action the recommendations, consensuses and strategies that have been developed. Fighting poverty was one of the four main themes of the conference focusing on the progress of PRSPs. As well as the presentation of a review of PRSPs 2 years after their inception, the question of degree of social impact of policies was also addressed through the presentation of a Social Impact Assessment, which is to be taken up by all Bank and IMF joint ventures to consider the impacts of economic policies.

In the last two years, several reviews have been made of PRSP processes, looking at progress and lessons learned. These reviews have not only been undertaken by the World Bank and IMF (WB/IMF 2000; WB/IMF 2002) but also by FAO (2002), EURODAD (2000 and current debate), Oxfam and several others. These reviews suggest improvements and highlight challenges and areas for further consideration. This is a clear demonstration of the interest that the international community has in PRSPs, and the openness of the debate is a positive step towards achieving poverty alleviation. The general consensus throughout the reviews is that the PRSP process is a tool with possibilities to (i) help governments of low income countries tackle poverty alleviation and (ii) help to improve the coordination of development. Particularly positive are the noted increases in dialogue between governments and civil society, a process that needs to continue. The Strategic Partnership with Africa (SPA) warns that the current pace of the process is too fast to allow genuine participation (WB/IMF, 2000), and that where participation turns out as consultation, ownership is unlikely to take hold. Allowing sufficient time for participation is therefore essential (Eurodad, 2000; Rowson, 2001).

4.2.3 How can SLA specifically give added value to PRSPs?

Livelihoods concepts are now beginning to be included in the PRS process. Thin et al. (2001) looked at how social policy and livelihoods issues have been addressed in PRSPs and suggest priorities for increasing their role. At the time of writing his paper, Thin et al found that multiple livelihood strategies and social impacts were not recognised in poverty reduction approaches, and that sustainability issues were also weak.

Few reviews and studies have been carried out with regards to the potential role of the SLA to the PRS process. The concepts of the SLA have been elucidated in the previous chapters and will not be repeated here. From the documents reviewed there appears to be close similarities between the guiding principles of the PRS process and those of the SLA, including holistic thinking, sustainability, ownership, partnership, participation and a process approach. The SLA is based on understanding the livelihoods of the poor and encourages policies affecting these livelihoods to be looked at from different sectors.

The lessons presented by DFID (2001) and those of other authors (Farrington, 2001; Hendrie, 2001 pers.com; Norton and Foster, 2001; Masefield, 2000 pers.com) suggest that the SLA can be of use for PRSPs, and in particular that:

• Its most appropriate use is at the conceptual level and based on the SL principles

• The best entry point for the SLA is in poverty assessment and monitoring. It maintains a people focus and can guide the analyse of target groups, their poverty situation, why they are poor, livelihoods opportunities and constraints, the equity of asset distribution (beyond income), etc

• The SLA has the ability to find holes, or omissions in the PRS, such as excluded groups

• It can help with the prioritisation of issues to formulate a strategy and promote the necessary multi-sectoral dialogue for appropriate policy for cross-cutting issues such as HIV/AIDS - which is eroding human and social capital with huge impacts on the poor. Governments needs to understand how susceptibility of communities will change

• It can assist with matching up the top down and bottom up processes (macro - micro linkages)

• It provides a framework for assessing the impacts of a poverty reduction strategy.

• It promotes more decentralised and locally responsive policy implementation

However, despite the above, the extent to which SL can deliver these contributions to the PRS process has not yet been demonstrated. Mongolia's PPA and the Ugandan PEAP (see boxes 2 and 3) are cited as potential pilot countries with strong national ownership and an advance process to demonstrate the value added by the SLA.

In addition, the SLA is not able to look at power and politics. The analysis of social relations and power as determinants of inequality and deprivation for example would require one of the multitude of other perspectives, methods and tools (qualitative and quantitative) that are required to look at the complexity of poverty reduction, and create appropriate and effective policies. Examples include economic analyses, rights based analyses, and quantitative information (DFID, 2001; Farrington, 2001; Hendrie, 2001 pers. com.). The complementarily of rights-based approaches (RBA) to the SLA is given particular attention by Farrington (2001). RBA considers what are or what should be people's entitlements, where as SLA looks at the impact of the presence or absence of these entitlements on livelihoods.

The major elements of the SLA that could be applied to PRSPs highlighted by Norton and Forster (2001) in their analysis are the diagnosis of poverty and production of a typology of social groupings with respect to (i) interests, (ii) access to information power, and (iii) the influence of different groups, as well as helping to consider the consequences of policy change.

It should be borne in mind however that the conditions required for an SLA to PRSPs are difficult even where the political will is evident, such as in Uganda.

Box 2

Box 3

4.3 POLICY IMPLICATIONS

1. Participation in the PRSP process has broadened and diversified policy, promoting the development and expectation of collaboration and increased transparency (McGee et al., 2002) Policies must support the development of participation at all levels (Masefield, pers. com 2000) and promote multidimensional involvement at the community level as well as in administrations. Adequate time must be allowed for this process.

2. Policy to achieve poverty reduction must accept the holistic nature of poverty and attempt to address it. Poverty must be tackled from a number of different angles and sectors (World Bank, 2000). Existing policies can be built on and developed in a pro-poor manner. The FAO (2001) recommends analysis of previously neglected poverty and livelihoods factors (e.g. the role of markets, trade-offs, costing of policy measures, improving poverty assessment and policy impact).

3. At present, the analysis of poverty tends to desegregate information, but the policies and strategies relating to poverty reduction do not. This loses the benefits gained by participation (Thin et al., 2001).

4. Poverty reduction strategies and policies require a fiscal environment that encourages trade and investment, enterprise and reduces risk aversion through the provision of short-term safely nets (e.g. credit). These elements are required in addition to social stability and economic growth to reduce poverty and increase sustainability.

5. Poorly formulated and implemented policies are likely to contribute to poverty rather than helping to reduce it. Decentralised administration does not necessarily avoid this scenario, especially where local communities have no say or influence and local government is recreating a rent seeking enterprise typical of the under-funded public sector, as was observed in Uganda (Ellis and Baahiigwa, 2001).

6. Social capital takes different forms such as mutual support within the community, or vertical support systems between different administrative levels (Shankland, 2000). Policy needs to consider how these different forms of social capital are affected by PRSPs.

4.4 RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS

1. The impacts (particularly social impacts) of policy on poverty alleviation need to be better understood.

2. Research is needed to improve participation beyond just consultation, to increase its value to the PRSP process and to develop relationships between the government and civil society (McGee, 2002).

3. Does the SL framework really have a poverty bias or is it, as described by Norton and Foster (2001) poverty neutral?

4. The development of linkages is needed between SL concepts and traditional economic appraisal methods to incorporate behavioural assumptions, risk and vulnerability.

5. How is economic growth really affecting poverty alleviation? Progress is being made by The Bank and IMF for use in their joint ventures e.g. a Social Impact Assessment was presented at their March 2002 conference.

6. Development of methods to ground truth approaches is needed to ensure they maintain a pragmatic perspective and don't become overwhelmed by rhetoric and remain as intellectual debates.

7. How effective is the Internet as a transparent means of information dissemination with regards to PRSPs? This question was raised by the World Bank/IMF 2000 review. How many of the implicated countries have reliable access and does it result in exclusion of groups within countries, and of countries themselves?

8. More country experiences are required

9. Research is needed to develop and adopt appropriate tools for analyses that compare and evaluate trade offs between different policies - which policy combinations for example might be most effective for poverty reduction.