Contributions from
the Column
InWEnt Forum

Peace lessons for Colombi

Early warning systems:
useless without social action

Meeting local needs


04/2006		  

[ Reliable data ]

Indispensable control


Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) have become a key instrument in development cooperation. Efficient monitoring helps to implement national programmes.

[ By Barbara Kloss-Quiroga and Sabine Rubel ]

“I appeal to all development actors to include the poor into the design of pro-poor interventions in order to get the feel of the state of poverty. Listen to the poor!” Those words come from Martha Luleka, assistant to the president of the Pan African Parliament. And indeed, one typical shortcoming of the first generation of PRSPs – documents which had to be prepared as a condition for multilateral debt relief – was insufficient involvement of civil society actors. Today, many developing countries are working with second- or even third-generation PRSPs. Uganda, for instance, has more than ten years experience of developing and implementing such concepts. “We showed the World Bank how to do it,” says Richard Sewakiryanga of the Uganda Participatory Poverty Assessment Process (UPPAP) at the Finance Ministry in Kampala. “But what we failed to do in the first strategies was adequately include the poor, the people affected, in planning and execution.”

Only if a government allows real debate, provides comprehensive information and involves actors like parliament and organised civil society in the process can the necessary steps be prepared on a participatory basis. Without that participation, it is not possible to monitor implementation. Clearly defined responsibilities are therefore essential. Without control, national processes cannot be managed and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) will not be attained.

Donors and recipients face four questions:
- What needs to be achieved?
- What conditions and tools are required?
- What is doable?
- What are the key challenges?

Poverty reduction strategies amount to complex interventions in areas such as agriculture, infrastructure, health and education. Effects will interact – and need to do so positively for success to be achieved. Monitoring can alert government, parliament and the public to the success or failure of PRS activities. Where information flows are poor, results are often unsatisfactory. Monitoring can also kick-start a learning process, spreading good practices across national borders. Donors, too, can draw useful conclusions from such data.

But monitoring is not an end in itself. “It is useful only if the information generated is tailored to the needs of the relevant decision-makers.” That was the message delivered by Bernd Schubert, former director of the Seminar for Rural Development at Berlin’s Humboldt University, speaking at the end of a recent InWEnt conference on “Experiences in the planning, implementation and control of poverty reduction strategies”. What is important, he added, is to identify impacts in a larger context.


Clear criteria

Real monitoring calls for sharply focused action plans and clear indicators. Otherwise, actual progress cannot be assessed against strategic objectives. In many cases, objectives are defined and action plans conducted by different actors. Other prerequisites for successful monitoring are availability, reliability and validity. Inconsistent data, after all, tend to make all gathered information worthless.

Monitoring systems, moreover, are often fragmented by the national division of labour. In Uganda, responsibility for monitoring the poverty reduction strategy resides with the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM). National development planning as a whole, however, is a task for the National Planning Authority (NPA) established by parliamentary resolution in 2002. And responsibility for the budget rests with the Ministry of Finance. The result is a considerable need for consultation and coordination. Other countries are trying to involve other levels of public administration. In Malawi, for example, most monitoring and evaluation used to be carried out by the Ministry for Planning and Development. Ignorance kept lower-level government bodies out in the cold. Now, the government wants to empower them to gather data and analyse findings.

The NGO alliance “Malawi Economic Justice Network” (MEJN) has similarly responded to the challenges in the country – by setting up an independent monitoring system which also draws on decentralised capacities. MEJN conducts budget tracking studies to monitor government spending, for example, and performs service delivery satisfaction surveys to show how happy the public is with the services the state provides. The results are presented to the government and have an impact on the political process. MEJN takes care to ensure that its methods meet high professional standards. According to a spokesman, doing so is essential for else the government is likely to dispute findings.

Malawi’s new monitoring and evaluation master plan is designed to coordinate data-collecting units more effectively. The government would like to involve civil society organisations in its national system of data collection. Nevertheless, the extent to which the MEJN system will be incorporated remains a matter of dispute. Some MEJN members voice scepticism. They stress that they do not want to be stripped of their role as independent watchdogs, and, for that reason, are reluctant to get tied into official procedures.

Experts are calling for Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers to be made legally enforceable, democratically legitimate instruments. That demand makes it even more important to involve elected representatives than civil society. In Malawi, civil society organisations are cooperating closely with members of parliament. This approach has strengthened democratic institutions. Some MPs would like to see parliament more deeply involved in the monitoring process in future. Elected politicians should be able to verify the findings and comment on the national budget. For that to happen, however, the people’s representatives would first need to be trained accordingly.

It is a moot issue to what extent traditional leaders should be involved in monitoring. Unlike civil society organisations, they do not have proven professional qualifications. Nor do they have democratic legitimacy of the kind MPs enjoy. Nonetheless, chiefs are influential people in many African countries. Many of them want a say – preferably dealing with administrative decision-makers in semi-private, secretive settings. Agnes Musunga of Zambia’s Ministry for Finance and National Planning concedes: “Aside from civil society organisations and parliament, traditional leaders should also be consulted.”

Donors, too, should play a constructive role. They can make a crucial difference by accepting national monitoring systems and not insisting on compliance with their own regulations and methods of safeguarding accountability. Seeking to agree on common strategies sets complex coordination processes in motion. Uganda is a positive example. Here, in a Joint Assistance Strategy for Uganda (UJAS), eight donors are working with the government on the implementation of the country’s Poverty Eradication Action Plan.

Decision-makers in target countries, on the other hand, need to be able to identify quickly whether measures and programmes will really help to reduce poverty. For example, it does not make much sense to set up model farms that combine animal husbandry, cereal-growing and vegetable-gardening if neighbouring families simply cannot afford to follow suit. A host of aspects needs to be considered. Is a project environmentally sustainable? Does it have a viable future? Does it reach both genders? These questions may sound trivial. But sadly, they are not all that obvious to all government officials in Africa. To ensure such matters are addressed, it is worth investing in further training.

MEJN agrees that transfer of knowledge is helping to establish an effective budget-tracking system in Malawi. NGOs and district authorities are now in a much better position to pressure the government to honour its pledges. InWEnt offers seminars that convey the necessary knowledge. At the same time, though, the German capacity-building agency also provides training to help raise governmental accountability standards. This international exchange of experiences is promoted by InWEnt because it helps local solutions to be found for local problems. In the final analysis, every government needs to design its own monitoring system for its own institutions. There is no universally applicable blueprint.


Dr. Barbara Kloss-Quiroga
is a senior project manager dealing with issues of poverty reduction and social security at InWEnt.
barbara.kloss-quiroga@inwent.org


Sabine Rubel
is a senior project manager dealing with governance matters at InWEnt.
sabine.rubel@inwent.org