Preparing the second PRSP
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
THE second poverty reduction strategy paper (PRSP) to be adopted by the Bangladesh government is in the last stages for finalisation. The PRSP provides an essential framework for alleviation of poverty and attainment of the millennium development goals (MDGs) set by the United Nations. Like other countries, Bangladesh embraced the PRSP framework to combine or integrate it with its planning process. The main considerations here should be what has been Bangladesh's own experiences in relation to the PRSP formulation and implementation of projects and programmes in line with it in the first phase, as it goes for the next phase. Obviously, these experiences need to be evaluated seriously to make the second phase of the PRSP -- significantly better -- in terms of both conceptualisation and implementation.
The PRSP in Bangladesh was first introduced in an interim form in 2003. Later in 2006, a formal full-fledged PRSP-I was drawn up and endorsed by the then government. This document invited rather hostile criticisms from various stakeholders and the civil society for being largely donor-driven. In this backdrop, the second PRSP or PRSP-2 will be closely watched for how far it meets the legitimate local expectations and needs. The incumbent government in Bangladesh, as it has been reported, will be giving stress on structuring the second PRSP document in line with its election manifesto. Thus, this PRSP is unlikely to be a mere continuation of the previous one with emphasis in general on poverty reduction and reaching goals on public health, sanitation and related social goals. All concerned would expect that the second PRSP would vitally stress on what are considered as immediate pressing needs of Bangladesh such as energy and food security. Specially, the development of gas and power sectors should be sought on a priority basis during the period of the second PRSP.
Hopefully, the donors would appreciate the suggested new thrust areas in the PRSP, considering their imperative nature and being at the root of the current predicaments in the Bangladesh economy. But there will have to be mutually respectable dialogue to this end. The amendments to, or changes in, the PRSP must not and cannot be a one-sided process of various interest groups in Bangladesh. Such interest groups do often shrilly condemn the donors for their alleged breathing down the necks of the governments of Bangladesh (GOBs) which, according to them, do meekly submit more often than not, to donors' dictates. But, in all frankness, all concerned do need to appreciate that the PRSP will be substantially planned and funded with donors' money. Therefore, it cannot be that the suppliers of funds will take a completely mute back seat by not offering any meritorious ideas as they would conceive them, while providing supports for the PRSP. This is highly unrealistic and would also run the risks of alienating the donors.
On their part, the authorities concerned should, of course, clearly put forward their views to the donors for rethinking of, and amendments to, the PRSP and the latter should welcome the same. But it will foolhardy to expect that the donors, on their part, would absolutely agree to the suggestions from Bangladesh, on all counts. It has to be a two-way traffic: the government and the civil society in Bangladesh should be pro-active in designing and framing the second PRSP in a way that meets the expectations of the people and suits national interests best; the development partners, on their part, should make their expertise, in the light of successful experiences, in other countries, available for proper implementation of the PRSP. There is no denying here that this country, notwithstanding radical propaganda to the contrary, has gone on acquiring substantial sinews or capacities in its different economic sectors from funds provided by the donors largely on concessional terms of lending. In this backdrop, a process of balanced dialogue with the donors well suited to both sides, is recommended as the best course of action, as far as the second PRSP is concerned.
The PRSP in Bangladesh was first introduced in an interim form in 2003. Later in 2006, a formal full-fledged PRSP-I was drawn up and endorsed by the then government. This document invited rather hostile criticisms from various stakeholders and the civil society for being largely donor-driven. In this backdrop, the second PRSP or PRSP-2 will be closely watched for how far it meets the legitimate local expectations and needs. The incumbent government in Bangladesh, as it has been reported, will be giving stress on structuring the second PRSP document in line with its election manifesto. Thus, this PRSP is unlikely to be a mere continuation of the previous one with emphasis in general on poverty reduction and reaching goals on public health, sanitation and related social goals. All concerned would expect that the second PRSP would vitally stress on what are considered as immediate pressing needs of Bangladesh such as energy and food security. Specially, the development of gas and power sectors should be sought on a priority basis during the period of the second PRSP.
Hopefully, the donors would appreciate the suggested new thrust areas in the PRSP, considering their imperative nature and being at the root of the current predicaments in the Bangladesh economy. But there will have to be mutually respectable dialogue to this end. The amendments to, or changes in, the PRSP must not and cannot be a one-sided process of various interest groups in Bangladesh. Such interest groups do often shrilly condemn the donors for their alleged breathing down the necks of the governments of Bangladesh (GOBs) which, according to them, do meekly submit more often than not, to donors' dictates. But, in all frankness, all concerned do need to appreciate that the PRSP will be substantially planned and funded with donors' money. Therefore, it cannot be that the suppliers of funds will take a completely mute back seat by not offering any meritorious ideas as they would conceive them, while providing supports for the PRSP. This is highly unrealistic and would also run the risks of alienating the donors.
On their part, the authorities concerned should, of course, clearly put forward their views to the donors for rethinking of, and amendments to, the PRSP and the latter should welcome the same. But it will foolhardy to expect that the donors, on their part, would absolutely agree to the suggestions from Bangladesh, on all counts. It has to be a two-way traffic: the government and the civil society in Bangladesh should be pro-active in designing and framing the second PRSP in a way that meets the expectations of the people and suits national interests best; the development partners, on their part, should make their expertise, in the light of successful experiences, in other countries, available for proper implementation of the PRSP. There is no denying here that this country, notwithstanding radical propaganda to the contrary, has gone on acquiring substantial sinews or capacities in its different economic sectors from funds provided by the donors largely on concessional terms of lending. In this backdrop, a process of balanced dialogue with the donors well suited to both sides, is recommended as the best course of action, as far as the second PRSP is concerned.