| Grant Profile: |
| Project Title: |
Second Poverty Assessment Study Survey (PASS II) |
| PCF/LICUS/SPF: |
LICUS |
Status: |
Closed |
| File Number: |
25
| Region: |
AFR |
| Sector: |
Multisector |
Country: |
Zimbabwe |
| FY approved: |
2006 |
Grant Theme : |
Social protection and risk management |
| Keyword(s): |
Poverty strategy, analysis and monitoring |
Approved Amount: |
$300,000.00 |
 |
Grant Recipient:
UNDP |
Grant Purpose:
The Second Poverty Assessment Study Survey (PASS II) in Zimbabwe has been a major effort to facilitate knowledge building by the Bank and assist in a wider effort to support data collection and analysis for policy discussions and reforms. The project has been the largest household survey in the country so far. It has collected detailed data on demographics, education, health, nutrition, food security, HIV and AIDS, gender, employment, incomes and expenditures, housing, water and sanitation, the environment, access to land and several other indicators, including coping strategies and poverty perceptions, causes and possible solutions to poverty according to the poor themselves.
PASS II is expected to be disseminated among key stakeholders, including Government, civil society, academia, private sector, donors and others who have an interest in accurate poverty data and analysis, through national and provincial launches of the results. This process is intended to generate debate and dialogue on economic and social conditions as well as on key reforms. The project is also intended to provide an important platform for pro-poor policy making in the country.
The objective of the grant is to support the dissemination of PASS II results and to identify activities which will support PASS II.
|
Grant Activities:
PASS II comprises a mixture of quantitative & qualitative research components, including a household survey, a homeless survey, a community survey, and an institutional survey covering health facilities, and primary and secondary schools. The PASS II household survey is the largest conducted in Zimbabwe so far with 31,725 households interviewed in all districts of the country. The survey provides indicators on the current socio-economic situation of households and communities by collecting information on income and expenditure levels, education, health, HIV and AIDS, employment, food security, housing, access to land, water, sanitation, and several other socio-economic characteristics.
The objective of the project is to complete the analysis, publish the data, disseminate the findings (via production of the reports and carrying out workshops) and make the information available to research organizations, the donor community, academic institutions, government departments, civil society and others. Making data available will facilitate research and discussions on poverty and on policies and programs for poverty reduction.
Project components include:
(1) Printing and Dissemination of the Preliminary Poverty Report: including report printing and national dissemination workshops;
(2) Supporting the Analysis, Production and Dissemination of the Main Poverty Report.
|
Results:
- The government showed huge interest in this activity, which increased its impact as outputs were made good use of.
The activity could have had more impact if more resources had been allocated, both financial and human, to make the output more widely available.
- Some printed reports are still sitting at the MPSLSW and should be dissemintaed.
- UNIFEM and UNICEF have contracted consultants to produce thematic reports on the basis of the PASS II main report..
- The objective was achieved satisfactorily.
|
Lessons Learned:
Specific Project lessons:
Due to difficulties in hiring consultants to carry out the activities the project start was delayed.
The reports were completed and a workshop to discuss the findings was arranged.
None of the reports, however, were ever published or printed for circulation due to approval delays from the CSO Management Committee.
- There was no overall team to manage the activities nor to monitor progress and take corrective actions in time.
Lessons from the LICUS package as a whole:
There was a lack of coordination between the different activities: The LICUS TF for Zimbabwe 2005 did not have one coordination mechanism, but had different implementing modalities, which were not adequately coordinated either from the World Bank or under UNDP. There was no mechanism for sharing experiences or drawing lessons from each other. The three components under UNDP were also managed by two different managers who did not share experiences.
Management arrangements in many cases were not clear and in some cases were not based on adequate analysis of the institutions involved. For example, for the support to HIV/AIDS, ZIMLS was not adequately assessed at design stage and institutional linkages between CDC, CEPHI, NAC and Ministry of Health were not adequately taken into account.
Leadership and coordination at Bank Country Office: While sub contracting the LICUS TF to UNDP was appropriate at the time, there was a need to clearly specify the role of the Country Office in management and monitoring activities. For activities managed by the Bank and the Country Office such as the SSDA, progress was clearly monitored. It is important to clarify the role of the Country Office in implementation/ supervision.
There was limited day-to-day management attention paid to the LICUS TF in the World Bank, especially after the task manager retired. As most activities started implementation during the second half of 2006, there was no one in the country office to follow up on the ground. No field visit was made to assess progress.
Ownership of the activities by beneficiaries influences the rate of implementation. World Bank interventions are normally guided by Country Assistance Strategies which take note of the country priorities for clear ownership. The ISN 2005 was more focused on what the Bank had to do to remain engaged in Zimbabwe. Successful components had a higher level of ownership by the government. In activities where the LICUS TF was assisting activities identified by the beneficiaries fared better e.g. PASS II and the SSDA where the Government of Zimbabwe was clearly interested fared much better. Government made resources, especially personnel, available for implementation. Without direct transfer of funds, government agencies did not find it easy to remain engaged.
Effective demand from clients: Effectiveness of interventions is better with client demand. If clients do not see clear benefits, their involvement is slow and limited. It is therefore necessary to ensure that the activity is demand driven otherwise there is lack of participation on the clients side.
Role of Trust Funds in increasing Bank relevance and mandate: One of the key lessons learnt from LICUS TF 2005, is that even the small amount of funds, if appropriately programmed and targeted, can make a difference in capacity enhancement and knowledge building.
Institutional assessments at design stage: There is need to have deeper and clearer institutional capacity assessments. Weaknesses must be factored into the implementation process e.g. CSO staff shortages and ZIMLS institutional void. The role of parent ministries in the different sectors needs to be clearly defined.
Development Partners involvement: The strategic objective of the ISN was partnership and dialogue. Under LICUS TF 2005, there were linkages and discussions between UNDP, WHO, WB. However stronger partnerships should have been cultivated with development partners especially in SSDA. DfID was able to come in to sponsor other work in line with the SSDA and the OVC report was consolidated with the health and education report to produce a more comprehensive report.
Key challenges:
The major challenge was the delayed start-up of the activities. This was an indication of a design that did not take account of i) what was required for a quick start-up, and ii) how to package the activities to suit the implementation mode of the implementing agency UNDP.
UNDP procurement procedures proved to be a major challenge. Hiring international consultants for all the activities took very long thereby delaying their implementation.
Recommendations:
LICUS Trust Fund activities must be aligned with country priorities for the program to be demand driven and sustainable
Terms of Reference (TOR) for consultants should be part of the Trust Fund Proposal, or developed as soon as possible, to lessen delays in the implementing the activities.
Project management arrangements should be clarified, with clear upfront definition of roles, responsibilities, and procedures for implementers and beneficiaries.
Task teams should manage and monitor progress and review quarterly reports.
There is need for thorough institutional assessments especially in a country going through severe human resources constraints such as Zimbabwe.
LICUS Trust Fund activities should be attractive to governments. The recipient questions genuineness of intentions with such limited funding available.
Lessons from LICUS package:
|
|
