National strategies
for rural poverty reduction
A comparison of experiences
National strategies for rural poverty reduction
Objective of the Presentation
• The achievement of the MDGs highlights the importance of
Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRS)
• The purpose of this presentation is to identify common
features and differences in terms of: objectives, ownership,
participation and implementation
• The range of strategies has evolved in recent years, but three
broad categories can be distinguished:
}
- PRSPs linked to HIPC
PRSP monitored by the
Bretton Woods Institutions
- PRSPs linked to concessional loans
- PRS developed outside the PRSP framework
• Country classification is becoming increasingly difficult as
processes are evolving and gradually converging
National strategies for rural poverty reduction
Poverty Reduction Strategies in developing countries
• From a sample of 139 countries, 97 countries (i.e. 70%) have
or are in the process of formulating a poverty reduction
strategy.
• Of these 97 countries:
- Almost half are implementing a PRSP and almost a third a PRS,
while the rest are in the process of formulating a strategy.
- In Sub-Saharan Africa and in Eastern and Central Europe PRSP
prevails
- For Near East and North Africa region, half of the countries have
developed or are developing strategies outside the PRSP
framework
- In Asia, many and the most populous countries have developed
best practice national PRS processes outside the PRSP
framework
- In Latin America, most countries have a strategy for poverty
reduction, with a majority of PRS outside the PRSP framework.
National strategies for rural poverty reduction
A variety of approaches
- but some common features:
• PRSPs
- process is coordinated by a single unit
- role of donors is influential and increasingly coordinated
- consultation is mandatory
• PRS outside of the PRSP framework
- better integrated within existing government structures
- donor-government relationship is not uniform
- less established participation standards
National strategies for rural poverty reduction
Ownership
Experience shows that country ownership is of key importance.
However:
• Ownership is often limited to the government executive branch
• The process is often dominated by key central ministries, failing
to take into consideration its full political dimension
• Ownership is frequently stronger in PRS experiences outside
the PRSP framework
• Influence of donors is decreasing although still present for
some PRSP cases
Fragile ownership has a negative effect on continuity and
sustainability for the implementation of all kind of PRS
processes
National strategies for rural poverty reduction
Participation
Poverty reduction strategies involve a large number of
stakeholders. This makes the achievement of broad
participation processes difficult
• With a few exceptions, limited participation is a common
feature of poverty reduction strategy processes
• Participation is directly related to the strength of civil
society, prevailing attitudes and political traditions
• The extent and quality of participation is strongly influenced
by government appreciation of the role of civil society in this
process
• Participation has taken place mainly at the formulation
phase and not during implementation
National strategies for rural poverty reduction
Participation and regional differences
• PRSP “ad hoc” consultative processes may have
contributed to the exclusion of democratically elected
institutions such as parliaments
• In some regions, for example in Eastern and Southern
Africa, participation of civil society has mainly involved
NGOs with weak or non-existent linkages with rural areas
• Overall, progress is being made regarding the involvement
of CSOs – particularly in Latin America
• Democratisation, decentralisation, and civil society
contribution to policy dialogue – particularly in Asia and
the Pacific region – are at the core of the PRS strategy
processes
National strategies for rural poverty reduction
Scope and instruments
• Most strategies have not considered the full range of policy
actions required for growth and poverty reduction
• The focus is largely on public expenditure for social sectors
rather than on pro-poor policy reforms
• PRSPs started as all-encompassing and general strategies,
but are becoming better focused with increasing linkages
to existing policy tools.
• The use of PSIA methodologies is raising the quality of
the debate on the sources of growth and its distributional
impact
National strategies for rural poverty reduction
PRS in rural areas
• The first generation of PRSPs and many strategies outside
this framework have been weak in identifying the rural
dimension of poverty reduction
• Strategies featuring the rural sector tend to:
- be oriented towards agriculture sector in general rather than
on the livelihoods of poor rural people
- lack an intersectoral approach to rural development
- emphasize market liberalization and export promotions,
without showing how the rural poor could benefit from
these opportunities
- lack a set of clear instruments and policies that effectively
target the rural poor
• These limitations are gradually being tackled with the
development of specific tools for PRS implementation
National strategies for rural poverty reduction
Poverty Reduction Strategies as part
of the New Development Architecture
• Emerging tools for PRS implementation:
• At the international level:
- Agenda on Harmonization & Alignment (Declarations of Rome
2003 and Paris 2005)
• At the national level:
- PRS processes are essential strategic instruments to reach
the MDGs
- Medium Term Expenditure Frameworks, which link the PRSP
to the budget with a multi-year planning tool;
- Territorial based action plans are increasingly used,
particularly in Latin America
- Sector Wide Approaches, which are action-programmes
for sectoral PRSP implementation
National strategies for rural poverty reduction
Emerging features of PRS implementation
Outside the PRSP framework:
• strategies are better integrated in national policies and
budgetary processes
• implementation is through existing mechanisms and
frameworks
• great variety of situations and outcomes. Noticeable progress
in targeting and pro-poor policies in some cases
PRSPs:
• on average, implementation is still relatively recent (2 years).
Nonetheless, with marked country differences
• institutionalisation within existing policies and budgetary
mechanisms is still embryonic in many countries, while
already in progress in a number of African countries
National strategies for rural poverty reduction
IFAD and poverty reduction strategies
The Fund has a key role to play in the development of rural
poverty reduction strategies given its specific mandate and
the identified weaknesses of PRS in tackling rural poverty.
It can contribute to:
• Ownership: IFAD supports partner governments in
developing rural strategies and investment programmes that
are country-driven
• Participation: IFAD promotes broad based participatory
processes, inter alia enabling rural CSOs to participate in
PRS development and implementation processes
• Implementation: IFAD supports programmes and projects to
operationalise PRS strategies
National strategies for rural poverty reduction
Questions for discussion: some suggestions
• What should be the main components of PRSs? Who
should lead the process and how?
• What are the critical lessons learnt and to what extent PRS
countries could benefit from the experiences developed by
PRSP countries, and vice versa?
• What should be the role of IFAD supported projects and
policy dialogue in the design and implementation of PRSs?
• What is the future of PRSs and what shape will they take
in the long term?
National strategies for rural poverty reduction