## _cr05201

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [_cr05201](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/scr/2005/_cr05201.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/scr/2005/_cr05201.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/scr/2005/_cr05201.pdf.json)

---

### Progress, timelines, and institutional arrangements
- Government submitted its last PRSP preparation status report to the Executive Boards of the IMF and the World Bank in June 2003.
- Projected completion date of December 2003 was missed due to continuing administrative and technical difficulties and delays in accessing technical and financial assistance from key partners.
- To fast track the process, Government appointed a Technical Working Group within PASCO under direct supervision of the Vice President and provided substantial resources.
- A draft PRSP was prepared and issued in August 2004 to all stakeholders for comments and suggestions.
- The draft excludes the cost of activities for public policies and programmes.
- Comments expected between September and October 2004.
- A final PRSP will be issued by December 2004.
- Status report outlines stages and processes leading to the draft PRSP and discusses implementation arrangements for an effective monitoring and evaluation system.

### Participation and consultative processes — objectives and main components
- Specific objectives of PRSP consultative process:
  - a) inform the population of the process, their role in its formulation and consequently enhance their participation
  - b) generate information on the dimensions, coping mechanisms, and trends in poverty
  - c) assess the impact of government policies on the poor
- Two participatory processes:
  - Government processes coordinated by the Poverty Alleviation Strategy Coordinating Office (PASCO)
  - ‘Civic Engagement Process’ coordinated by NGOs and civil society

### Government-led participatory activities — methods and outputs
- Main government processes:
  - Participatory Poverty Assessments (PPAs)
  - Strategic Planning and Action Process / Focus Group Discussions (SPP/FGDs)
  - Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (RVA)
  - Consultative workshops on specific themes and national and district consultations and validation workshops
- PPAs:
  - Conducted in 42 communities in all districts in March 2003; additional assessments in 14 communities in March 2004.
  - Exercises covered four communities per district, including the Western Urban and Rural areas.
  - Average participation of 130 participants per location.
  - Key findings: poverty seen as lack of basic needs and services; most common manifestations: lack of food, money, shelter, clothing and basic services such as health, school and safe drinking water. Hunger was of primary concern to children.
- SPP/FGDs:
  - Conducted with cabinet ministers, parliamentarians, government officials and specialized groups during September-October 2003; second round during March-April 2004 in all district headquarter towns and the two districts in the Western Area.
  - Participation in each district included representatives from all of the 149 chiefdoms and the 5 wards in the Western area.
  - Total of about 1,260 representatives nation-wide participated in the FGDs.
  - Five top national priorities from FGDs: Education - 25 percent, Agriculture - 20 percent, Health - 17 percent, Good Governance - 14 percent and Infrastructure - 4 percent.
  - Other high scoring priorities: Security, Labour and Employment, Energy and Power.
- Validation and consultative meetings held at national, district, chiefdom and community levels on themes such as HIV/AIDS, gender and children.

### Civic Engagement Process (civil society-led)
- Coordinated by Action Aid Sierra Leone (AASL), supported by four CSOs as Regional Implementing Partners:
  - Network Movement for Justice and Development (NMJD) — Southern Region
  - Council of Churches Sierra Leone (CCSL) — Northern Region
  - Movement for the Restoration of Democracy – Sierra Leone (MRD– SL) — Eastern Region
  - Urban Development Area (UDA– AASL)/FAWE — Western Area
- Purpose:
  - a) promote learning, shares and debate on the PRSP
  - b) provoke response and feedback into the PRSP process
  - c) monitor the process of formulation, implementation and recommend corrective actions
- Participation counts:
  - 699 men, 599 women and 268 children were consulted.
  - About 757 men and 354 women participated in Participatory Learning Forum (PLF) workshops.

### Poverty analysis — data sources and key statistics
- Major quantitative data source: Sierra Leone Integrated Household Survey (SLIHS) carried out by Statistics Sierra Leone (SSL) over May 2003 to May 2004.
- SLIHS findings using National Poverty Line of Le2,111 per day:
  - National Poverty Head Count (Po) estimates that about 70 percent of the population of Sierra Leone are poor.
  - About 68 percent of the population cannot even afford enough food.
  - 26 percent are in extreme poverty.
  - The poor in Sierra Leone can meet only about 71 percent of their basic needs.
- Geographic and regional statistics:
  - Poverty heavily concentrated in rural and other urban areas outside Freetown.
  - Incidence of food poverty in provincial cities is 75 percent, higher than the national average of 68 percent.
  - In Freetown, 38 percent of the population cannot afford enough food compared to 75 percent in the provincial cities.
  - Full poverty line incidence:
    - Provincial cities: 70 percent
    - Rural areas: 79 percent
    - Freetown: Only 15 percent of the population falls below the full poverty line.
  - Rural areas contribute almost about 73 percent to total incidence of poverty.
  - With the exception of Western Area, more than 55 percent of the population in all districts live in poverty.
  - Kailahun has the highest incidence of poverty, with 92 percent of the population living below the full poverty line.

### Qualitative information — perceptions, causes and manifestations of poverty
- Participatory methods used: PPAs, SPP/FGDs, and civic engagement by NGOs and civil society organisations.
- How the poor view poverty:
  - Lacking basic needs and services: food, money, shelter, clothing, health facilities, schools and safe drinking water.
- Most frequently perceived qualitative causes of poverty (as reported by the poor):
  - Laziness (defined as a negative attitude to work)
  - Ill health
  - The civil conflict
  - Disunity
  - Victim of theft
  - Lack of education
- Manifestations of poverty:
  - Hunger and malnutrition
  - Being in a constant state of worry (vulnerability)
  - Increase in school dropouts
  - Loss of respect, dignity and integrity
  - Marginalisation and isolation
  - Migration and separation of families
  - Tension and increased violence in the home and in the community

### Sector reviews, national priorities and cross-cutting issues
- Five sector/thematic working groups:
  - i) Macro-economic Policy and Private Sector Development
  - ii) Social Sector Development
  - iii) Reconstruction, Rehabilitation and Reintegration
  - iv) Agriculture Natural Resources and the Environment
  - v) Governance and Security
- Cross Cutting Issues: Gender, Youths, HIV/AIDS, Children, the Disabled and the Environment
- Roles of working groups: review existing policies and programmes, identify gaps, define new policies, develop monitorable targets and indicators through workshops and consultations.
- Broad government policy objectives and national priorities emerging from consultations:
  - i) Support to agriculture and ensure food security
  - ii) Raise productivity and promote employment opportunities and income generating activities
  - iii) Improve access to basic social services especially health, water and sanitation and education
  - iv) Rehabilitate infrastructure and support private sector development and micro finance activities
  - v) Promote good governance and ensure a secured and peaceful environment

### Implementation arrangements, decentralisation and institutional roles
- Implementation stakeholders: Central Government, newly created District, City and Town Councils, NGOs, civil society, community based organisations and the private sector.
- Central Government role:
  - Lead role and overall responsibility for PRSP implementation; line ministries and national commissions retain statutory responsibilities for policy formulation, programme design and supervision.
  - With decentralisation and establishment of 19 representative local government structures, sector policy decisions and budgeting retained at centre; other functions to be devolved over time.
- NGOs, civil society and CBOs: envisaged critical role with inclusive coordination mechanism particularly at District level.
- Institutional diversity requires flexible coordination and implementation arrangements.

### PRDACO, PRAU and coordination of PRSP implementation
- Overall coordination vested in Poverty Reduction and Development Assistance Coordination Office (PRDACO).
- PRDACO features:
  - Full participation and collaboration of all MDAs, CSOs and international development partners.
  - Situated in the Office of the Vice President; will work closely with MoDEP and MoF.
  - Acts as focal point/Secretariat for PRSP coordination, monitoring and evaluation and coordination of development assistance.
- Poverty Reduction and Analysis Unit (PRAU) to be set up within PRDACO to coordinate planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation; PRAU responsibilities include:
  - Employ a senior monitoring and evaluation specialist and technical support staff including a data coordinator, database manager and GIS expert.
  - Develop a detailed annual work plan identifying responsibilities for attaining agreed monitoring activity benchmarks.
  - Prepare quarterly reports on activities and progress towards attainment of specified indicators or bench marks.
  - Compile the core PRS monitoring indicators and prepare detailed annual PRS monitoring reports.
  - Oversee and coordinate four specialised PRS monitoring working groups in:
    - i) Resource allocation and expenditure
    - ii) Censuses/surveys and routine data systems
    - iii) Community based monitoring
    - iv) Dissemination, research and policy analysis
- Present DACO to be amalgamated into PRDACO as a Unit providing the secretariat for DEPAC and monitoring flows through the government budget and projects and the NGOs.
- Specific Terms of Reference to be prepared to clarify roles, responsibilities and institutional relationships with existing MDAs.

### Linkages with MTEF, budgeting and resource alignment
- PRSP implementation aims to improve current expenditure planning, management and tracking to maximise impact.
- A MTEF has been established in collaboration with donors and civil society.
- From 2005, the MTEF will be aligned to the PRSP and a Medium-Term Resource envelop consisting of both government and external resources.
- The annual budget will be the primary instrument for effecting expenditures for PRSP priorities in the next three years.
- MoDEP and MOF will synchronise the PRSP, MTEF and PIP (the mid term capital budget or development budget) to ensure greater efficiency and effectiveness.

### Capacity building priorities and needs
- Capacity constraints:
  - Number and quality of institutions, service delivery systems and human resources have declined progressively over last two decades.
  - Capacity for programme design, implementation, economic and financial management in public and non-public sectors is weak.
- Interim measures: gap filling through contract workers engaged to fill strategic civil service positions.
- Need for shift from technical assistance to building indigenous human and institutional capacity with a longer-term perspective.
- Capacity building programme objectives will seek to:
  - a) Identify administrative, technical and logistical needs of Government Ministries, Departments and Agencies, Civil Society and NGOs involved in PRSP implementation;
  - b) Determine training needs, relevant training programmes and sources of sponsorship for staff training;
  - c) Provide necessary administrative, technical and logistical support for implementing institutions and agencies;
  - d) Establish an effective management information system for the PRSP.
- Implementing capacity building on required scale will need substantial support from Sierra Leone’s development partners over the short to medium-term.

### Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework and data systems
- Purpose: guide design, implementation and analysis of the full PRSP and track changes from interventions; essential for effectiveness, accountability, responsiveness and transparency.
- Institutional scope: involves many agencies within public sector and without (NGOs, CBOs, CSOs); requires greater coordination than under the IPRSP.
- PRAU staffing and functions (see PRDACO section above).
- PETS (Public Expenditure Tracking Survey):
  - PETS Task Team established by Economic Policy Research Unit of Ministry of Finance in 2001.
  - PETS focused on three resource flows over the 2002 financial year: school fee subsidies; teaching and learning materials; and essential drugs.
  - The survey has been produced and circulated.
  - The survey covered more than 600 schools and 130 health facilities.
  - PETS will continue annually during the PRS period and regarded as a central component of monitoring, especially for accountability, transparency and efficiency under Good Governance Pillar.
- National Recovery Database (NRD) and data packs:
  - Data compiled by ministry representatives on District Recovery Committees (DRCs) supported by OCHA entered into NRD by SLIS and used to prepare district and sector ‘Data Packs’ for core PRS indicators.
  - System to continue at least into initial years of PRS implementation with OCHA role transitioning to Transition Support Teams (TST).
  - Intention that development planning committees of new local councils take over monitoring role of DRCs and TSTs as decentralisation proceeds.
- Household surveys and baselines feeding into PRSP (selected):
  - Multiple Indicators Cluster Survey (MICS), UNICEF, April 2000.
  - School Census, KPMG, 2002.
  - Governance and Corruption Survey, Conflict Management and Development Associates (CMDA), 2002.
  - Vulnerability Survey, World Food Programme, March 2003.
  - Integrated Household Survey, Statistics Sierra Leone, April 2003 – March 2004.
- Additional planned surveys and census:
  - Census, Statistics Sierra Leone, December 2004
  - Vulnerability Survey, World Food Programme, October 2004.
  - Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire Survey (CWIQ), SSL, April 2005
  - MICS, UNICEF, 2005
- Vulnerability and CWIQ Surveys intended to be undertaken annually through the PRS period to provide monitoring data; CWIQ designed for routine annual monitoring of poverty reduction initiatives; Vulnerability Survey useful for food security and malnutrition information.
- Participatory monitoring tools:
  - PPAs institutionalised in government sectors (PASCO and NaCSA) and used for poverty monitoring and grassroots perceptions.
  - SPP methodology and FGDs to be used for monitoring government service delivery at grassroots level and adapted for participatory monitoring and evaluation of PRS projects and programmes.
- Indicator selection and phasing:
  - Mix of intermediate (input/output) and final (outcome/impact) indicators; MDAs expected to provide intermediate indicator information; household surveys used for final indicators.
  - Some sectoral indicators already selected via consultative processes; IPRSP indicators revisited for relevance.
  - Medium-term indicators of PRSP to be aligned with the longer-term MDGs (of 2015) by the end of 2004.
  - During the first year of PRS implementation PRAU will focus on a ‘core’ sub-set of indicators reliably estimated using tested sources and methods.

### Donor response to first draft PRSP (DEPAC meeting of 16th September 2004 — main points)
- General reactions:
  - Draft commended for addressing poverty reduction issues and for wide consultation and participation.
  - Document comprehensive with many proposed strategies and actions but lacking prioritisation; need for short- and long-term choices so short-term strategies can have immediate impact while protecting long-term sustainable development areas.
- Specific donor recommendations and concerns:
  - Food security, youth unemployment and good governance identified as key priority themes.
  - Food security, hunger and nutrition require stronger treatment; recommend a dedicated chapter on food security and strengthen nutrition under health.
  - Focus on rural poor productivity in agriculture through:
    - a) Improving accessibility to money
    - b) Accessibility to loans with strong repayment mechanisms
    - c) Establishing agricultural banks
  - Address urban poor issues, particularly youth.
  - Repackage document to clearly outline linkages between pillars, sectors, objectives, implementation strategies and benchmarks.
  - Strengthen productive sectors (mineral and marine) for domestic revenue generation to complement external assistance.
  - PRSP addresses gender, children and MDGs.
  - Clarify distinction between child-first and vulnerable issues; budgetary allocations and macroeconomic policies should be child friendly for next three years and reinstate family as first place of care for the child.
  - Security sector should include risk analysis component, emphasise cross-border security and trafficking in small arms.
  - Programmes and activities should be prioritised before costing; costing should be embedded within government’s MTEF; government to indicate how it intends to raise and utilise resources for prioritised programmes.
  - Reflect government efforts to address corruption in the PRSP to allay donor concerns about efficient resource management.
  - Identify capacity building and strengthening elements for key implementing institutions including:
    - a) Human resource development and technical assistance
    - b) Computer technology and databases
    - c) Supporting implementing partners such as local government and civil society
  - Implementation arrangements:
    - Anchor implementation in existing institutions where possible to avoid creating parallel institutions; clarify roles of MOF and MODEP due to strategic functions in financing, budgeting and coordinating development programmes; capacity building for weak institutions recommended.
  - Call for a timetable for the Consultative Group (CG) meeting with donors.
  - Constitute a smaller team to work on final draft collaborating with in-country donor representatives and civil society to identify key priority programmes and activities for costing.

### Next steps and timetable to finalise PRSP (as envisaged)
- NO. 1: Incorporation of comments from all stakeholders — 20th Sept – 4th Oct
- NO. 2: Prioritisation of Activities — 15th October
- NO. 3: Finalisation of Indicators — End October
- NO. 4: Costing of Priority Activities/Programmes — End November
- NO. 5: Draft II — 4th November (Two weeks before DEPAC)
- NO. 6: Final Draft — End November

*Source: _cr05201 - 14.  Qualitative  information  on  poverty  was  also  obtained  from  the  poor  themselves*

### 1.   The   Government   submitted   its   last   PRSP   preparation   status   report   to   the

### 1.   The   Government   submitted   its   last   PRSP   preparation   status   report   to   the

### Progress, timelines, and institutional arrangements
- The Government submitted its last PRSP preparation status report to the Executive Boards of the IMF and the World Bank in June 2003.
- Projected completion date of December 2003 was missed due to continuing administrative and technical difficulties as well as delays in accessing technical and financial assistance from key partners.
- To fast track the process, the Government appointed a Technical Working Group within PASCO under the direct supervision of the Vice President and provided substantial resources to complete the various processes.
- A draft PRSP was prepared and issued in August 2004 to all stakeholders for comments and suggestions.
- The draft excludes the cost of activities for public policies and programmes.
- Comments are expected from all partners and stakeholders between September and October 2004.
- A final PRSP will be issued by December 2004.
- The status report outlines the various stages and processes leading to the production of the draft PRSP and discusses implementation arrangements for an effective monitoring and evaluation system.

### Participation and consultative processes — objectives and main components
- Specific objectives of the PRSP consultative process:
  - a) inform the population of the process, their role in its formulation and consequently enhance their participation
  - b) generate information on the dimensions, coping mechanisms, and trends in poverty
  - c) assess the impact of government policies on the poor
- Two processes characterized the participatory and consultative aspects:
  - Government processes coordinated by the Poverty Alleviation Strategy Coordinating Office (PASCO)
  - A ‘Civic Engagement Process’ coordinated by NGOs and civil society

### Government-led participatory activities
- Main government processes included:
  - Participatory Poverty Assessments (PPAs)
  - Strategic Planning and Action Process / Focus Group Discussions (SPP/FGDs)
  - Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (RVA)
  - Consultative workshops on specific themes and national and district consultations and validation workshops
- PPAs:
  - Conducted in 42 communities in all the districts in March 2003.
  - Additional assessments were done in 14 communities in March 2004.
  - Exercises covered four communities per district, including the Western Urban and Rural areas.
  - Average participation of 130 participants per location.
  - Key PPA findings: people see poverty as the lack of basic needs and services. The most common manifestations of poverty were lack of food, money, shelter, clothing and basic services such as health, school and safe drinking water. Hunger was of primary concern to children.
- SPP/FGDs:
  - Conducted with cabinet ministers, parliamentarians, government officials and specialized groups during September-October 2003.
  - Second round conducted during March-April 2004 in all district headquarter towns, and the two districts in the Western Area.
  - Participation in each district comprised representatives from all of the 149 chiefdoms and the 5 wards in the Western area.
  - A total of about 1,260 representatives nation-wide participated in the FGDs.
  - Five top national priorities from FGDs: Education - 25 percent, Agriculture - 20 percent, Health - 17 percent, Good Governance - 14 percent and Infrastructure - 4 percent.
  - Other high scoring priorities were Security, Labour and Employment, Energy and Power.
- Validation and consultative meetings and workshops were conducted at national, district, chiefdom and community levels during sector reviews and on themes such as HIV/AIDS, gender and children.

### Civic Engagement Process (civil society-led)
- Coordinated by Action Aid Sierra Leone (AASL), supported by four CSOs as Regional Implementing Partners:
  - Network Movement for Justice and Development (NMJD) — Southern Region
  - Council of Churches Sierra Leone (CCSL) — Northern Region
  - Movement for the Restoration of Democracy – Sierra Leone (MRD– SL) — Eastern Region
  - Urban Development Area (UDA– AASL)/FAWE — Western Area
- Purpose:
  - a) promote learning, shares and debate on the PRSP
  - b) provoke response and feedback into the PRSP process
  - c) monitor the process of formulation, implementation and recommend corrective actions
- Targeted all levels of society irrespective of sex, generational and ethnic differences throughout the country.
- Participation counts:
  - 699 men, 599 women and 268 children were consulted.
  - About 757 men and 354 women participated in Participatory Learning Forum (PLF) workshops.

### Poverty analysis — data sources and key statistics
- Major quantitative data source: Sierra Leone Integrated Household Survey (SLIHS) carried out by Statistics Sierra Leone (SSL) over a twelve-month period-May 2003 to May 2004.
- SLIHS indicates poverty is pervasive and deep seated in Sierra Leone.
- Using the National Poverty Line of Le2,111 per day:
  - National Poverty Head Count (Po) estimates that about 70 percent of the population of Sierra Leone are poor.
  - About 68 percent of the population cannot even afford enough food.
  - 26 percent are in extreme poverty.
  - The poor in Sierra Leone can meet only about 71 percent of their basic needs.
- Geographic concentrations and regional statistics:
  - Poverty is heavily concentrated in the rural and other urban areas outside Freetown.
  - Incidence of food poverty in provincial cities is 75 percent, higher than the national average of 68 percent.
  - In Freetown, 38 percent of the population cannot afford enough food compared to 75 percent in the provincial cities.
  - Full poverty line incidence:
    - Provincial cities: 70 percent
    - Rural areas: 79 percent
    - Freetown: Only 15 percent of the population falls below the full poverty line.
  - Rural areas contribute almost about 73 percent to total incidence of poverty.
  - With the exception of Western Area, more than 55 percent of the population in all districts live in poverty.
  - Kailahun has the highest incidence of poverty, with 92 percent of the population living below the full poverty line.

*IMF staff report excerpt*

### 14.  Qualitative  information  on  poverty  was  also  obtained  from  the  poor  themselves

### 14.  Qualitative information on poverty was also obtained from the poor themselves

### A. Perceptions and manifestations of poverty
- Participatory methods used: Participatory Poverty Assessments (PPAs), Strategic Planning Process/Focus Group Discussions (SPP/FGDs), and civic engagement by NGOs and civil society organisations.
- How the poor view poverty:
  - Lacking basic needs and services: food, money, shelter, clothing, health facilities, schools and safe drinking water.
- Most frequently perceived qualitative causes of poverty (as reported by the poor):
  - Laziness (defined as a negative attitude to work)
  - Ill health
  - The civil conflict
  - Disunity
  - Victim of theft
  - Lack of education
- Manifestations of poverty:
  - Hunger and malnutrition
  - Being in a constant state of worry (vulnerability)
  - Increase in school dropouts
  - Loss of respect, dignity and integrity
  - Marginalisation and isolation
  - Migration and separation of families
  - Tension and increased violence in the home and in the community

### B. Sector reviews and national policy priorities
- Sector/thematic working groups established for PRSP formulation (five):
  - i) Macro-economic Policy and Private Sector Development
  - ii) Social Sector Development
  - iii) Reconstruction, Rehabilitation and Reintegration
  - iv) Agriculture Natural Resources and the Environment
  - v) Governance and Security
- Cross Cutting Issues covered by sector sub-groups:
  - Gender, Youths, HIV/AIDS, Children, the Disabled and the Environment
- Roles of working groups:
  - Reviewed existing policies and programmes, identified gaps, defined new policies, developed monitorable targets and indicators through workshops and consultations with poor rural communities, sector ministry staff and other relevant players.
- Broad government policy objectives and national priorities emerging from consultations:
  - i) Support to agriculture and ensure food security
  - ii) Raise productivity and promote employment opportunities and income generating activities
  - iii) Improve access to basic social services especially health, water and sanitation and education
  - iv) Rehabilitate infrastructure and support private sector development and micro finance activities
  - v) Promote good governance and ensure a secured and peaceful environment

### C. Implementation arrangements and decentralisation
- Implementation stakeholders:
  - Central Government, newly created District, City and Town Councils, NGOs, civil society, community based organisations and the private sector.
- Central Government role:
  - Lead role and overall responsibility for PRSP implementation; line ministries and national commissions retain statutory responsibilities for policy formulation, programme design and supervision.
  - With decentralisation and establishment of 19 representative local government structures, sector policy decisions and budgeting retained at centre; all other functions will be devolved over time.
- NGOs, civil society and CBOs:
  - Critical role; an inclusive coordination mechanism is envisaged, particularly at District level.
- Institutional diversity:
  - Large number of institutions involved at national, district, chiefdom and ward levels; coordination and implementation arrangements to be flexible to accommodate diverse entities.

### D. PRDACO and institutional coordination
- Overall coordination vested in Poverty Reduction and Development Assistance Coordination Office (PRDACO).
- PRDACO features:
  - Full participation and collaboration of all MDAs, CSOs and international development partners.
  - Situated in the Office of the Vice President and will work closely with MoDEP and MoF.
  - PRDACO will act as focal point/Secretariat for PRSP coordination, monitoring and evaluation and coordination of development assistance from multilateral agencies, bilateral partners and NGOs.
  - A Poverty Reduction and Analysis Unit (PRAU) will be set up within the office to coordinate planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the PRSP and work closely with preparatory structures established by government and NGOs.
  - Present DACO to be amalgamated into PRDACO as a Unit providing the secretariat for DEPAC and monitoring flows through the government budget and projects and the NGOs.
- Specific Terms of Reference to be prepared to clarify roles, responsibilities and institutional relationships with existing MDAs.

### E. Linkages with the MTEF and budgeting
- PRSP implementation aims to improve current expenditure planning, management and tracking to maximise impact.
- A MTEF has been established in collaboration with donors and civil society.
- From 2005, the MTEF will be aligned to the PRSP and a Medium-Term Resource envelop consisting of both government and external resources.
- The annual budget will be the primary instrument for effecting expenditures for PRSP priorities in the next three years.
- MoDEP and MOF will synchronise the PRSP, MTEF and PIP (the mid term capital budget or development budget) to ensure greater efficiency and effectiveness.

### F. Capacity building priorities and needs
- Capacity constraints:
  - Number and quality of institutions, service delivery systems and human resources have declined progressively over last two decades.
  - Capacity for programme design, implementation, economic and financial management in public and non-public sectors is weak.
- Government interim measures:
  - Gap filling through contract workers engaged to fill strategic civil service positions.
- Need for shift:
  - From technical assistance to building indigenous human and institutional capacity with a longer-term perspective.
- Capacity building programme objectives (will seek to):
  - a) Identify administrative, technical and logistical needs of Government Ministries, Departments and Agencies, Civil Society and NGOs involved in PRSP implementation;
  - b) Determine training needs, relevant training programmes and sources of sponsorship for staff training;
  - c) Provide necessary administrative, technical and logistical support for implementing institutions and agencies;
  - d) Establish an effective management information system for the PRSP.
- Support requirement:
  - Implementing capacity building on required scale will need substantial support from Sierra Leone’s development partners over the short to medium-term.

### G. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework
- Purpose:
  - M&E system will guide design, implementation and analysis of the full PRSP and track changes from interventions; essential for effectiveness, accountability, responsiveness and transparency.
- Institutional scope:
  - Involves many agencies within public sector (line ministries, commissions, local councils, etc) and without (NGOs, CBOs, CSOs).
  - Greater coordination of efforts than under the IPRSP.
- Poverty Reduction Analysis Unit (PRAU) (part of PRDACO) responsibilities and staffing:
  - Employ a senior monitoring and evaluation specialist and technical support staff including a data coordinator, database manager and GIS expert.
  - Specific functions:
    - Develop a detailed annual work plan identifying responsibilities for attaining agreed monitoring activity benchmarks;
    - Prepare quarterly reports on activities and progress towards attainment of specified indicators or bench marks;
    - Compile the core PRS monitoring indicators;
    - Prepare detailed annual PRS monitoring reports;
    - Oversee and coordinate four specialised PRS monitoring working groups comprising relevant staff from government and non-government agencies in:
      - i) Resource allocation and expenditure
      - ii) Censuses/surveys and routine data systems
      - iii) Community based monitoring
      - iv) Dissemination, research and policy analysis
- PETS (Public Expenditure Tracking Survey):
  - PETS Task Team established by Economic Policy Research Unit of Ministry of Finance in 2001.
  - PETS focused on three resource flows over the 2002 financial year: school fee subsidies; teaching and learning materials; and essential drugs.
  - The survey has been produced and circulated.
  - The survey covered more than 600 schools and 130 health facilities.
  - PETS will continue annually during the PRS period and regarded as a central component of monitoring, especially for accountability, transparency and efficiency under Good Governance Pillar.
- National Recovery Database (NRD) and data packs:
  - Data compiled by ministry representatives on District Recovery Committees (DRCs) supported by OCHA entered into NRD by SLIS and used to prepare district and sector ‘Data Packs’ for core PRS indicators.
  - System to continue at least into initial years of PRS implementation with OCHA role transitioning to Transition Support Teams (TST).
  - Intention that development planning committees of new local councils take over monitoring role of DRCs and TSTs as decentralisation proceeds.
- Household surveys and baselines:
  - Recent national household surveys fed into PRSP and will provide baseline data for many PRS monitoring indicators. These include:
    - Multiple Indicators Cluster Survey (MICS), UNICEF, April 2000.
    - School Census, KPMG, 2002.
    - Governance and Corruption Survey, Conflict Management and Development Associates (CMDA), 2002.
    - Vulnerability Survey, World Food Programme, March 2003.
    - Integrated Household Survey, Statistics Sierra Leone, April 2003 – March 2004.
  - Additional surveys and a household census at advanced planning stage to be implemented later this year or early next:
    - Census, Statistics Sierra Leone, December 2004
    - Vulnerability Survey, World Food Programme, October 2004.
    - Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire Survey (CWIQ), SSL, April 2005
    - MICS, UNICEF, 2005
  - Vulnerability and CWIQ Surveys intended to be undertaken annually through the PRS period to provide monitoring data; CWIQ designed for routine annual monitoring of poverty reduction initiatives; Vulnerability Survey particularly useful for food security and malnutrition information.
- Participatory monitoring tools:
  - PPAs institutionalised in government sectors (PASCO and NaCSA) and used for poverty monitoring and grassroots perceptions of service delivery.
  - SPP methodology and Focus Group Discussions proved excellent for engaging citizens in PRSP preparation; to be used for monitoring government service delivery at grassroots level and adapted for participatory monitoring and evaluation of PRS projects and programmes.
- Indicator selection and phasing:
  - Tracking progress will rely on a mix of intermediate (input/output) and final (outcome/impact) indicators; MDAs expected to provide intermediate indicator information; household surveys used for final indicators.
  - A number of sectoral indicators already selected via consultative processes; IPRSP indicators revisited for relevance.
  - Medium-term indicators of PRSP to be aligned with the longer-term MDGs (of 2015) by the end of 2004.
  - During the first year of PRS implementation while systems are developed and capacity built, PRAU will focus on a ‘core’ sub-set of indicators reliably estimated using tested sources and methods to provide relatively rapid feedback attributable to PRS projects and programmes.

### H. Donor response to first draft PRSP (summary of main points from DEPAC meeting of 16th September 2004)
- General reactions:
  - PRSP drafting team commended for producing an excellent draft addressing poverty reduction issues and for wide consultation and participation.
  - Document comprehensive with many proposed strategies and actions but lacking prioritisation; need for short- and long-term choices so short-term strategies can have immediate impact while protecting long-term sustainable development areas.
- Specific donor recommendations and concerns:
  - Food security, youth unemployment and good governance identified as key priority themes.
  - Food security, hunger and nutrition require stronger treatment; a dedicated chapter on food security should be developed and nutrition under health strengthened.
  - Focus on rural poor productivity in agriculture through:
    - a) Improving accessibility to money
    - b) Accessibility to loans with strong repayment mechanisms
    - c) Establishing agricultural banks
  - Address urban poor issues, particularly youth.
  - Repackage document to clearly outline linkages between pillars, sectors, objectives, implementation strategies and benchmarks.
  - Strengthen productive sectors (mineral and marine) for domestic revenue generation to complement external assistance.
  - PRSP addresses gender, children and MDGs.
  - Clarify distinction between child-first and vulnerable issues; budgetary allocations and macroeconomic policies should be child friendly for next three years and reinstate family as first place of care for the child.
  - Security sector should include risk analysis component, emphasise cross-border security and trafficking in small arms.
  - Programmes and activities should be prioritised before costing; costing should be embedded within government’s MTEF; government to indicate how it intends to raise and utilise resources for prioritised programmes.
  - Reflect government efforts to address corruption in the PRSP to allay donor concerns about efficient resource management.
  - Identify capacity building and strengthening elements for key implementing institutions including:
    - a) Human resource development and technical assistance
    - b) Computer technology and databases
    - c) Supporting implementing partners such as local government and civil society
  - Implementation arrangements:
    - Anchor implementation in existing institutions where possible to avoid creating parallel institutions; clarify roles of MOF and MODEP due to strategic functions in financing, budgeting and coordinating development programmes; capacity building for weak institutions recommended.
  - Call for a timetable for the Consultative Group (CG) meeting with donors.
  - Constitute a smaller team to work on final draft collaborating with in-country donor representatives and civil society to identify key priority programmes and activities for costing.

### I. Next steps and timetable to finalise PRSP (as envisaged)
- NO. 1: Incorporation of comments from all stakeholders — 20th Sept – 4th Oct
- NO. 2: Prioritisation of Activities — 15th October
- NO. 3: Finalisation of Indicators — End October
- NO. 4: Costing of Priority Activities/Programmes — End November
- NO. 5: Draft II — 4th November (Two weeks before DEPAC)
- NO. 6: Final Draft — End November

*Source: _cr05201 - 14.  Qualitative  information  on  poverty  was  also  obtained  from  the  poor  themselves*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/scr/2005/_cr05201.pdf_