| Grant Profile: |
| Project Title: |
Capacity Support in Poverty Analysis |
| PCF/LICUS/SPF: |
LICUS |
Status: |
Closed |
| File Number: |
26
| Region: |
AFR |
| Sector: |
Economic Policy |
Country: |
Zimbabwe |
| FY approved: |
2006 |
Grant Theme : |
Economic management |
| Keyword(s): |
Poverty strategy, analysis and monitoring |
Approved Amount: |
$150,000.00 |
 |
Grant Recipient:
UNDP |
Grant Purpose:
The project focuses on data collection and poverty analysis, thus supporting the basic capacity in the Central Statistical Office in Zimbabwe to undertake such functions. The objectives of the grant are to:
(i) Enhance knowledge building;
(ii) Maintain basic data on income, consumption and poverty levels for use by the Government, the Bank and other international partners as well as national stakeholders;
(iii) Maintain a basic level of capacity in the Central Statistical Office (CSO).
|
Grant Activities:
The project will assist the Central Statistical Office, based on the 2001 data of the Income, Consumption and Expenditure Survey (ICES), to:
(1) Prepare a poverty report;
(2) Publish an Income Consumption and Expenditure Survey Report;
(3) Prepare and publish a poverty statistical abstract for public consumption;
(4) Disseminate findings through workshop and other forums.
The ICES results will also be used to update the contribution of the informal sector to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the National Accounts.
|
Results:
- The required reports were prepared
- A workshop to dicuss the findings was held in December 2006
- No printing of reports nor wide dissemination of findings were done. This limited the usefulness of the activity.
- Recommendations offered by the consultant working on the ICES 2001 Report are being implemented in the 2007/08 ICES.
- CSO staff was trained by consultants but the staff later indicated that the training was too short due to the unavailability of the consultant for an extended period of time. The staff found that they needed to be eexposed to the traning for a much longer time, which had originally been the plan according to the project proposal.
- The objective of the project was partially achieved and therefore considered moderately successful.
|
Lessons Learned:
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.
|
|
