The Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) approach was introduced by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1999 to promote poverty reduction strategies that are country-driven, results-oriented, comprehensive, partnership-based and long-term in perspective. The PRSP process has direct links to new development assistance and debt relief. PRSPs are linked to two other international policy initiatives: The Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative (HIPC) and the Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF). PRSPs provide a useful framework and practical tool in the over-arching goal of achieving sustainable poverty reduction. It is geared towards including civil society in the design and decision-making processes. The paper is a report for the UK Department for International Development (DFID) that examines the challenges of, and gives recommendations for, including civil society in PRSPs. PRSPs are a radical challenge for the entire development community. They represent a major shift in how development planning is conducted.
Transitions from interim to full PRSPs are happening within one year. It is unrealistic to plan and conduct innovative participation in a short time-frame, even if a strong government-civil society working relationship is already in place. There are tensions between the need to move forward quickly with strategy preparation and the need to ensure country ownership based on participatory processes.
The main findings are that:
- It is questionable how far macro-economic frameworks integrate poverty concerns
- There are tensions between the principle of local ownership and participation, and the fact that the IMF and World Bank retain the prerogative on debt relief and concessional flows
- PRSPs challenge the traditional roles and responsibilities of development agencies, governments and civil society
- Various civil society groups have different interests and there is an issue of how well civil society groups represent the views of the poor
- The absence of assessment criteria for participation hides the lack of government engagement with civil society. Governments often see the participatory process more as a technical requirement to access loans
- Governments are cautious about the implications of working with civil society, recognising that it carries political risks.
Government commitment to engage with civil society actors on policy issues is essential in order to develop strategies designed to enhance civil society participation. The nature of interaction between the state and civil society depends on the prevailing system of governance.
- The level of political commitment to participation is a critical factor in creating an effective partnership with civil society structures
- PRSPs’ emphasis should be placed on supporting the goals and principles of the CDF and IDTs (International Development Targets), rather than the shorter-term objectives of the HIPC initiative
- Civil society capacity for participation is limited and organisations do not have sufficient analytical, advocacy and research capabilities. Some form of performance criteria on participation should be included within each PRSP
- DFID should develop a policy framework for civil society participation in the PRSP process. This should address the governance and institutional environment, capacity building for government and civil society and entry points
- DFID itself should track the experience of civil society participation in the PRSPs, especially in the developmental phase of the process.
