Background The Belgian Development Cooperation Agency DGCD and the World Bank agreed that the first independent evaluation of the program should focus on activities supported by the fund in Mali and Niger, and at the sub-regional level. It was carried out by two independent consultants (Christian Bonifas and Jerome Chevallier). The objective of the evaluation was to assess the relevance, results, and, where feasible outcomes and impacts of the activities carried out under the trust fund, and to offer guidance for its management and priorities. The mission visited Mali and Niger during the period October 8 to 20, 2006. The consultants also visited DGCD staff in Brussels, and World Bank staff in Washington, DC. The full text of the independent evaluation (pdf) is available. Main Findings from the Independent Evaluation A substantial effort was made by the World Bank over the last two years to implement the decisions taken at the April 2004 annual consultation. First, field-based poverty economists were recruited for all the partner countries and at the sub-regional level though a competitive selection process. Second, the mix of activities implemented under the BPRP was modified to better follow the new priorities of the trust fund. Third, BPRP disbursements doubled from an average of about US$1.3 million in the three years leading to the 2004 consultation to an average of about $2.5 million in the two years following the annual consultation. Fourth, a higher share of activities was implemented directly at the request of PRSP units and ministries in the countries. Fifth, most of the activities funded by the BPRP benefited from co-funding and other Bank support. In the case of both Mali and Niger, for every US$60 of seed funding from the BPRP, about US$40 was obtained in co-funding, not taking into account the contribution in time from government staff. Sixth, solid and highly relevant analytical work has been carried out in the two countries under BPRP funding, with the exception of a few tasks. Surveys and analytical work have contributed to a better understanding of poverty, and poverty impact of economic reform in both countries. Insufficient attention has been devoted, however, to the dissemination of the results beyond a limited circle of specialists in the countries. Workshops have been organized to share the results of the studies, but this is not enough for ensuring that the analyses and conclusions of these studies are understood by all the people who are concerned. Some studies have not yet been finalized for public dissemination or translated from English to French. Some studies have been initially drafted more for technical audiences in the Bank and in the country than for policy makers. It is important now to allocate resources for the dissemination of the conclusions and recommendations of the studies to a wide audience at the national and local level. The decision made in April 2004 to post poverty economists in each of the countries concerned and at the sub-regional level was an excellent one. […] The decision to locate the economists in the country offices of the World Bank is appreciated by all partners. It is important, however, that the economists be perceived by everyone as full members of the Bank country team. Given the importance of personal contacts in the field, more weight in the future selection of the poverty economists should be given to their capacity to organize and mobilize, beyond their technical skills. Ideally, the poverty economists should be in the field for three to four years. […] Limited cooperation among poverty economists has taken place on an ad hoc basis. More attention should be given to establishing and nurturing a network of poverty economists financed by the program. Closer inter-relationships among them would generate synergies, and help each of them to benefit from the experience of the others. The formulation and selection of tasks to be supported by the program has been in some cases by World Bank economists (13 percent of total funding in Mali and Niger according to the annual report for the BPRP), in other cases by the government (47 percent of total funding), and in some cases jointly (14 percent of funding; the rest, 26 percent, was allocated to the poverty economists and dissemination events). While a larger number of tasks are undertaken directly at the request of the governments concerned, more could be done to involve PRSP units in the selection of activities under the program. The decision making process is simple and efficient. PRSP units and Bank country managers should be associated to the selection and decision-making process. Overall, implementation arrangements are straightforward, with the exception of a few cases, mostly concerning tasks to be implemented by government departments. More attention should be devoted to communicating the key decisions made under the BPRP, however. In the past, the funding process did not include letters to governments when allocation decisions were made. Sending such letters would be a simple way to improve communication. Some contracts took too much time to prepare and process. Finally, the preparation by the poverty economists of brief annual country reports detailing activities carried out and how the funds have been used would also be useful to inform stakeholders (to date, only a consolidated annual report has been prepared on BPRP implementation). Considerable progress is required in both countries to implement the 2005 Paris Declaration aimed at improving the effectiveness of aid. Analytical work on poverty is fragmented, and while donors are keen on moving to programmatic aid, many activities continue to be poorly coordinated, undermining capacity building efforts. Ownership of the PRSP process is still weak in the two countries concerned. The BPRP could make a useful contribution to a better coordination of the support provided by external partners for the deepening of the PRSP process in Mali and Niger. Consideration should be given to associating other donors to the funding of the program. In both countries, the allocation of domestic resources is not yet driven by the PRS. While in Mali, a three-year expenditure framework is attached to the draft PRSP, which is about to be finalized, there is no global Medium-Term Expenditure Framework in Niger, and the budgetary process does not take into account the sectoral MTEFs prepared with BPRP support. More generally, capacity building for budget preparation requires a long-term commitment. In line with the April 2004 priorities, BPRP has supported the preparation of sectoral MTEFs in both countries. Good progress was made, particularly in the rural sector, but the process is fragile. Very few staff members in the planning units of the relevant ministries have the basic skills required to operate and maintain the instrument. Moreover, in the absence of a global MTEF, as is the case in Niger, it is extremely difficult to motivate the staff to support continuation of the process. This suggests that the BPRP should increase further its level of support to the preparation of budget-programs at the Ministry level and to the overall MTEF with the Ministries of Finance. In Mali, the process of data collection and analysis is especially weak. This is a major constraint to moving from a project to a program approach. Long-term efforts are needed and should be supported in a coordinated way by the donor community. In Niger the Statistical Office is now an autonomous agency. It is preparing an institutional development program. This program should be fully supported by the donor community. The two studies on poverty and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), supported by the BPRP in Mali and Niger, include a long-term scenario based on hypotheses concerning climate change and population growth. The issues raised are serious and should take center stage in the dialogue between the two governments and the donor community. Main Recommendations of the independent evaluation To DGCD: Continue the funding of the program beyond April 2007, and seek the contribution of other partners to the trust fund, which could be done, in particular, through the consolidation with other trust funds with similar objectives. To the World Bank: Consolidate the result achieved so far, emphasizing dissemination of results and capacity building; Continue to select and appoint poverty economists to be based in local World Bank offices for a two-year period and strengthen relations among the economists based in the field; Keep the decision-making process simple; open up the possibility of a contractual relation with a Government department through the newly approved recipient-executed facility under the BPRP; Prepare brief annual country reports on activities supported by BPRP and on the use of funds, apart from the broader annual report on the activities implemented under the trust fund as a whole; and; Ensure that the Statistical Offices and PRSP units have the resources required for collecting and analyzing key data for monitoring implementation of PRSPs and sectoral programs.
 |
RSS