Publications

“POVERTY REDUCTION: WHERE ARE WE HEADING?”

Over the past several months, the Zambian government has been engaged in the process of preparing a “Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper” (CSPR).   Under pressure from the World Bank and the IMF, the government must include in the preparation of the PRSP representatives from civil society.  Thus on the eight working groups set up to design the PRSP, fourteen representatives women’s groups, trade unions, church groups, youth organisations, etc., are active participants.

In order to focus civil society’s input, a secretariat has been established, the “Civil Society for Poverty Reduction” (CSPR).  The purpose of the secretariat is to assure that the well-researched and strongly felt views of ordinary Zambian citizens really do find input into this important document.  Four premises are guiding the work of the CSPR:

1.      The PRSP is addressing the most profound moral challenge facing Zambia today, the fact that more than 80% of the people live in unacceptable human conditions, below the basic poverty line.

2.      The PRSP is not a process only for funds solicitation to immediately meet that challenge, but a process for long-term development planning to effectively eradicate that challenge.

3.      The PRSP is not a short-term process with a one-off outcome, but will continue for several years, with constant evaluation and revision based upon realistic assessment of results.

4.      The PRSP is not a “home grown” process unless civil society really feels it has effectively participated in the design and decision-making of PRSP at initial and final levels.

But is poverty reduction really possible in Zambia?  Can resources freed up because Zambia might receive some debt relief really reach the needs of the poor?  Is there a brighter future ahead for all Zambians?

To answer this question, we must recognise that four things are critically necessary to effectively reduce poverty in Zambia:

1.      Political will:  From the very highest authority, the reduction of poverty must be declared as a (the) top priority.  All policies and programmes of government must be evaluated in terms of their impact on the problem of poverty.  All appointments, trips, honours, elections, third term debates, etc., should be evaluated on the basis of this one single overriding question: what consequences will this have on the dealing with the life/death issues of 82% of the population who live below the poverty line? 

The UNDP Human Development 2000 report places an emphasis on human rights and development.  In a preliminary CSPR meeting, Professor V. Seshamani (UNZA) reminded us that In this context of rights discussion, poverty reduction must be seen as a “compulsive” process, not as something merely “optional.”  Consequently, the highest authority must make this point clear so that the political will is generated (a) throughout the government in implementation and (b) throughout the wider society in advocacy.

2.      Integral framework:  The many-faceted dimensions of poverty must be adequately addressed, not simply the income poverty levels.  The UNDP speaks of income poverty, access poverty, voice poverty, capability poverty, human poverty  Discussion around poverty reduction must go on in consideration of these dimensions and many more.   Moreover, a long-term vision must be guiding the short-term steps that are taken.  What would Zambia look like in the next decade if we really do move toward poverty reduction? 

This is not simply an economic question.   At its most profound level it is an ethical question, for the answer reveals the moral tone of a nation that should see human development in terms wider than more Manda Hill shopping malls for the elite and deeper than mere abstract economic growth figures that might please the IMF.  The integral framework necessary for effective and equitable poverty reduction must influence all our discussions so that narrow macro-economic factors do not dominate the analysis or control the response.

3.      Technical skills:  Good hard work must be done to identify why high levels of poverty and inequality exist in Zambia, why these levels are increasing, and what steps need to be taken to turn this situation around.  The research work being done by members of the CSPR are clear indications that Zambia possesses these technical skills in abundance. Comprehensive data that is refined by cogent analysis can lead to conclusive recommendations. 

But are these skills being recognised and utilised?  Do they have influence in the formation of relevant policies?  Where is there need for “capacity building” to assure that the technical skills interface with relevant decision-making?  Civil society must also look at these questions so that our words, however wise, can be translated into effective actions.

4.      Effective implementation, monitoring and evaluation:  Too often the great studies generated in recent years in Zambia simply go on to shelves to gather dust and have little or no influence on policies that affect the lives of the people.  So the PRSP process must have built-into it a commitment to implementation by donors, government and civil society. For example, The PRSP must set the clear agenda for the 2002 national budget – otherwise, we will know that it has been a very futile exercise indeed.  Moreover, the PRSP must provide the guidelines for the strategic five-year plans for Zambia of the World Bank and the United Nations agencies and the comprehensive cooperation efforts of our many bilateral partners. 

Furthermore, the PRSP, once in the process of implementation, must be subjected to on-going evaluation and monitoring.   Goals strongly committed to must be strongly weighed.  Targets clearly set must be clearly measured.  In all of this process, civil society must play a key role as partner with government and any outsiders such as creditor agents. 

And so where are we heading in this process of poverty reduction?  At the present moment in this process, numbers 2 and 3 are more or less in place, since the integral framework is constantly referred to and the technical skills are present in the work ofcivil society and the  this as well as in the efforts of the PRSP work groups.  Number 4 is potentially present, with civil society’s increasing its capacity to engage in this on-going process at truly effective levels and not simply as a rubber stamp or an outside observer. The CSPR is already looking at ways to engage in the monitoring and evaluating exercises.

But so much still hangs in the balance, because of the lack of clear political will, the weaknesses in number 1.  Unless the President makes very obvious -- in actions and not simply in words -- the commitment of the government to this task, very little will come of all of our efforts.  This is a “governance” issue that will not be solved simply by issuing “governance documents,” but rather by truly governing in such a way that the moral demand for poverty reduction is clearly evident as the priority of all that is done. 

This two-day National Forum is a major step, an encouraging and invigourating step, on the part of civil society to continue our efforts to develop that political will.   We sincerely hope – indeed we emphatically demand -- that the official response of the government in its final PRSP reveals that political will.  Remember the more than 80% of the Zambian population for whom poverty reduction is not a topic of a conference but a fact of life and death survival.  These people, our sisters and brothers, deserve strong political will from those of us assembled here in this room and those sitting in State House and other government offices.  Remember those people and their conditions – they are the reason for our deliberations, our designs, our decisions.

Peter Henriot, S.J.