SUMMARY

>Since the launching of the HIPC Initiative by the Bretton Woods Institutions, several States have embarked on the formulation of PRSPs. On the strength of successive reviews, it has been clearly established that the monitoring and evaluation system of these strategies are a core issue that deserve special consideration. There was an urgent need to establish coherent and efficient information systems with a view to facilitating result-based management.

Need for a new approach

The "information system" approach builds on various country experiences on data production. It should be thoroughly analysed to comply with the strategic thrusts of each country or group of countries.

The "structured information system" approach constitutes a new methodological challenge for the production of statistics. The concepts and objectives, which are applicable to PRS as well, would specifically seek:

• to develop an integrated framework for coordinating requests (and data) and proposing applications that meet the needs of current and potential users/decision-makers;
• to design current and future information structures while building on country achievements and opportunities;
• to preserve the simplicity and efficiency of the system by profiling potential interferences to subsystems that may be identified;
• to back such changes with a communication policy reflection between the appropriate stakeholders for the purpose of achieving sound information flow;
• to consider particular factors which, in the case of poor African countries, typically relate to lack of human and financial resources.

Gradual and iterative approach based on continuous learning

Depending on the planned structure, requisite changes will be more or less difficult to achieve, expensive and seldom optimal at the initial stage (the process is basically iterative). The political (commitment of decision-makers) and technical (qualified human resources) dimensions will make all the difference. The daunting nature of the challenges vindicates the need for a methodology that recapitulates requisite resources and determines the scope of interventions as well as covers the full range of information needs.

AFRISTAT identified four dimensions and three sub-systems for implementing an operational Poverty Reduction Information System (PRIS).

The dimensions include::

• Human resource dimension: the aim is to mobilise technicians and promote an operational capacity-building programme in the context of scarce qualified human resources. First, it is necessary to envisage a multiple role (from basic data collection to the final validation of analysed findings) for statistical or administrative services involved in PRS/MDG monitoring and evaluation. Second, there is a need to specialize the various structures.
• Institutional dimension: it entails coordinating a network of institutional players to ensure “optimal” information flows. Issues related to short and medium-term financing of the system should be handled at this level to ensure sustainability of tools developed. These activities should be initiated by a coordination unit like the National Statistical Council with the support and approval of national authorities.
• Spatial dimension: it outlines the "specifications" of the information system (database on poverty) which should specify the data to be collected and organization of information for each of the priority sectors, sensitive geographic zones, type of population, etc. as well as appropriate disaggregation levels.
• Temporal dimension: policies implemented under PRS target the most vulnerable segments of the population. It is therefore necessary to ensure that they have actually benefited from the implemented policies. It seeks to put in place an impact assessment system of actions. The underlying rationale of this fourth dimension relates to accountability and gauging the pace of reform in respect of set objectives. This implies periodic production of progress reports to be circulated to all stakeholders, including any feedbacks from them.

The three information subsystems have the following objectives:

• Poverty and household living conditions tracking sub-system: it involves systematic production of household living condition indicators and/or basic information on each priority area identified in PRS/MDG. It mainly reports findings and impact indicators based on approaches to monetary poverty, basic needs poverty, capacity or opportunity poverty and poverty by social exclusion.
• PRSP/PRSF programme and project implementation tracking subsystem: It mainly deals with input and output indicators of concrete and financial outcomes to be compiled at central and local levels based on Medium-term Expenditure Frameworks (MTEF) and programmes budgeting system to be prepared by the Ministry of Economy and Finance.
• Policy or programme impact assessment sub-system: these are mostly specific studies. These studies have a more limited scope and seek to determine if actions directed at target groups actually produced the expected results. This last sub-system ensures coherence between the first two and fits properly into the PRSP/PRSF reform process.

The link between the three sub-systems stems from the logical matrix programme or project outcomes.

Methodological guidelines for attaining set objectives

To attain economic policy tracking objectives and enhance accountability, PRSPs address issues pertaining to requisite information systems and monitoring and evaluation or PRIS. PRIS further outline a list of indicators and a number of statistical operations to be used in designing the selected indicators. The specific objectives of the PRIS include inter alia (i) enhancing knowledge on the concept of poverty, (ii) achieving harmonization, consistency and coordination of systems of data collection, processing, analysis and dissemination at all levels, (iii) adopting core indicators to accurately measure progress made in the area of poverty reduction and human development, (iv) gauging outcomes, effects and impact of interventions periodically, (v) easing access by all stakeholders to reliable information, (vi) strengthening the monitoring and evaluation capacities of national bodies.

An appraisal of the strategic areas outlined in PRSP/PRSF reveals that there is hardly any consensus on this issue and it is worth clarifying the key dimensions in respect of:

• the scope of interventions (macroeconomics, health, education, governance, rural development, housing, employment, etc.);
• the scope of objectively verifiable indicators (input, products, outcomes, impact);
• the reference values (starting point) of selected indicators and their sources;
• the level of specifically measurable objectives (SMO) and available budget data details (appropriate classification of purposes) ;
• the scope of expected results, stating the type of analyses and defining the institution;
• the timelines for achieving expected results and resources to be mobilized to meet such timelines.

Consideration of four dimensions: this is based on the preliminary audit of the existing information system in each country according to various dimensions.

Furthermore, an evaluation of NIS and/or NSS in countries with a functional PRSP/MDG monitoring and evaluation information system will engender new guidelines. The definition of indicators, core component of the information system, must be implemented in a realistic manner. To this end, the practical country-specific approach should take precedence over theory.

Synergy and links between the three information sub-systems: The aim is to develop a single information system fed by all stakeholders, which implies identifying levels of information duplication by sorting out redundant or otherwise complementary activities.

Indicators should be defined using a methodological approach that ensures their relevance to PRSP targets and objectives and that includes available human, material and financial resources. About forty indicators based on objective criteria (rated as relevant, observable and operational) are sufficient.&

The following steps are necessary to build an adequate set of indicators:

• naming and defining the indicator clearly. SMOs are a key element in this process;
• identifying the reference framework: outside PRSP and SMO, other frameworks of agreement with bilateral and multilateral partners may be listed;
• indicating the type of indicators (input, process, product, outcome, impact) and their designing method;
• listing sources that clearly indicate the timelines.

It is advisable to present monitoring indicators in tables. This can be done according to fields of intervention (health, education, employment, macroeconomics, rural development, etc.), or strategic component. It provides the requisite consistency for establishing an information system.

The role of the National Institute of Statistics (NIS) is vital in defining the core components of the information system (sample frames and data validation process, for instance). The issue of the mandate and role of NIS to afford support to PRS strategies should be clearly raised, including defining new roles with PRSP/PRSF units, poverty observatories, research centres, etc.

Operationalizing PRIS falls in line with the process to design and implement a National Statistics Development Strategy (NSDS). In the coming years, AFRISTAT is expected to gear its interventions towards these aspects to first, consolidate the gains of PROSMIC, and second, to support countries in taking full ownership of various PRIS components. This will certainly revitalize national statistical systems and strengthen technical and management capacities.