PRSP Learning Event Inweek RussiaUkraine April 10 th

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

Origins of the PRSP Idea n n n 2 Poor record on poverty reduction in 1990 s (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)

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

What’s new? n n 4 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

Relevance in MICs? n n 5 500 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

Relevance cont. n n n 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. n 6

Ownership n What does ownership entail? - locus of idea resides domestically - technocratic conviction & political support - broad societal support - ‘institutionalistion’ – embedded in new inst. arrgs n 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 Mo. F; technocrats given higher profile 7

Ownership cont. - Some new institutional arrangements (crosssectoral 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 8

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 9

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 10

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 11

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 12

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) 13

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) 14 § Build demand through budget/PER reform processes, links with research & advocacy community, (town-hall’ meetings; e-govt. )

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. 15

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? 16