Poverty levels are lower than what was imagined, reflects recent statistics from the Central Statistics Office. But is Zambia really making headway in the fight against poverty?

2004 marks the third and final year in the current cycle of Zambia's Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) and civil society and many Zambians are beginning to ask a number of questions such as has the PRSP brought about any radical difference in Zambia's poverty situation?  Is there money specifically targeted for the poor?  Are there any positive outcomes from the PRSP so far?  While these questions are being raised by many, the “supposed to be” beneficiaries of the PRSP programmes are asking what actually the PRSP is?

ENGAGEMENT IN MONITORING

For the last two years, the Civil Society for Poverty Reduction (CSPR) has been increasing the capacity of civil society to engage in PRSP monitoring in order to have answers to the above questions.  To date, civil society representatives at national level and in various provinces have been trained in participatory poverty assessment techniques and expenditure tracking methodologies.  While we can admit that the PRSP monitoring activities are still relatively new, a lot of information has been generated that is being used to hold government accountable to the promises it has made in the PRSP.

It can also be argued that monitoring has an indirect effect of possibly mitigating some thoughts of misapplication of resources meant for the poor.  In other words, while it can be argued that information from monitoring reveals something disturbing on the use of poverty reduction funds, the lack of any monitoring could have meant more room for misappropriation of resources.

IS THERE MONEY FOR THE PRSP?

An analysis of expenditure tracking information reveals that while there is an attempt to clearly classify and set aside money in the budget for Poverty Reduction Programmes (PRPs), the amounts have been inadequate to achieve meaningful poverty reduction.  For 2002, 2003, and 2004, the amounts have been, respectively, 7.9%, 6.1% and 6.3% of the national budget.

These allocations have been small in relation to the requirements contained in the PRSP document.  Civil society has argued that for true poverty reduction to occur there must be a re-orientation of the budget towards the PRSP.

            Unfortunately, that is not all. Availability of resources for poverty reduction programmes are further constrained by the actual disbursements which are much less than the allocations.  Ironically, the poor performance of the PRPS is against more funding to institutions remotely connected to poverty reduction.  A recent study by the CSPR on PRSP expenditures reveals that while PRPs have continued to be under funded, other non-PRP areas receive over 100 percent of their allocations.  For example, in 2002, Cabinet office received 512%, State House 264.2%, while PRPs received only a quarter of what was allocated.

Civil society maintains that the issue of spending on poverty reduction is not only an issue of resources, but also that of priorities.  For that reason, the CSPR decided to make a submission to the on going Constitutional Review Commission aimed at protecting poverty reduction resources from misapplication.  The submission reads in part that:

once funds have been allocated for Poverty Reduction Programmes, they should be ring-fenced (protected) and not be derogated from (subtracted or diverted), just as in the case with funds that are earmarked for external debt servicing, domestic interest payments, and the maintenance of constitutional offices and functions. In other words, all the 100% ought to be released.

WHEN ALL IS SAID, IS POVERTY GOING DOWN?

It is still difficult to measure the outcomes of the PRSP especially as it relates to the poverty situation.  But going by the amounts allocated to the PRPs, it can be seen that not much will be achieved in poverty reduction.  It is thus incumbent upon various stakeholders to evaluate the first round of the PRSP before rushing into the preparation of the new one.  It is also clear that for the PRSP to reach its intended beneficiaries, there is need to move away from a top down to a bottom up approach -- an approach that can be enhanced through the implementation of the recently adopted decentralization policy.

The actual reduction in poverty levels requires a great amount of resources, political will to release the resources and demand for accountability and transparency from the two thirds of the population living in unacceptable conditions.  What is your role in the PRSP?

Besinati Mpepo
Civil Society for Poverty Reduction
Lusaka