1. Gender PRSP, and the MDGs: What are the linkages?
C. Mark Blackden Africa Region
Workshop on Gender Equality and the MDGs
November 19-20, 2003
Presentation by
C. Mark Blackden
Lead Specialist
Office of the Sector Director
Poverty Reduction and Economic Management
Africa Region
World Bank
Roxanne Scott
Public Sector Specialist,
World Bank Institute

2. Planning & Budgeting Budgeting Parliament Ministries Indep. Auditor
11> Approval of au-dited accounts
Ministries
9> Accounts submitted
Indep. Auditor
10> Accounts audited
MDGs PRSP [policy]
Finance
8> Release of funds & budget execution
Cabinet: MoF
1> Macro projections
2> Guidelines/ceilings
Ministries
3> Expenditure proposals
Parliament
7> Debate and approval
Starting with the budget. At the end of the day, follow the money. Budget process often defined as a cycle, with clearly defined stages, tasks, and actors. This from PRSP sourcebook. I have added the item in yellow, as this is a significant missing element, and a connector between policy, strategy, and budgeting. Key to coherence. This interface, and the upstream (backwards) and downstream (forwards) linkages it requires, is critical in looking at the linkages. How are the MDGs translated into strategies and funded programs? How does gender inform these strategies?
Questions for GRB (later) revolve around identifying opportunities for influence (entry points). The upstream PRSP/sector policy arena is a significant (and actually indispensable) entry point.
Consider: what do the “guidelines” prepared by Finance say about poverty/gender targeting and goals?
Finance
4> Appraisal, negotiation, reconciliation of proposals
5> Preparation of state budget
Cabinet
6> Approval and submission to parliament
Source: PRSP Sourcebook, Chapter 6. World Bank.

3. The Broader Framework VISION STATEMENT CDF MDGs
POVERTY REDUCTION STRATEGY PAPER
MEDIUM-TERM EXPENDITURE FRAMEWORK
ANNUAL BUDGETS AND PROGRAMS

4. The Broader Framework UNDERSTANDING OF GENDER INFORMS …
VISION STATEMENT
CDF
MDGs
POVERTY REDUCTION STRATEGY PAPER
MEDIUM-TERM EXPENDITURE FRAMEWORK
ANNUAL BUDGETS AND PROGRAMS
IMPACT ON THE GROUND

5. Gender and the PRSP Structure of PRSP Gender Contribution
Different Outcome
Poverty diagnostic underlying PRSP Capability, Opportunity, Security, Empowerment (COSE)
Poverty impact different for men and women
Different COSE
Priority policy responses and investment choices = meeting MDGs?
Gender: criterion for priority setting
Different policy priorities defined
Participatory setting and monitoring of performance indicators
Gender: criterion for inclusion
Different/re-priori- tized indicators
PRSP seen here as proxy for upstream policy and planning instruments. It is the primary focus of country-articulated plans to reduce poverty. Challenge is then to operationalize it (PRSCs and budget support) Speak to last column: When gender is in the PRSP ….
1. Better and more inclusive understanding of the nature, causes, and impacts of poverty for different groups to inform the national PRS.
2. Better selection and prioritization of PRSP actions to enhance poverty reducing impact: equity, efficiency and sustainability.
3. Better selection and reprioritization of performance indicators to strengthen poverty reducing impact.
4. f process: Effective participation (inclusion) of a broader range of stakeholders to deepen PRSP ownership and accountability.
 Different issues raised, - e.g., focus on gender-based asset inequality, vulnerability, powerlessness and insecurity, time and labor constraints, incentive and capacity differentials, violence, AIDS, isolation, hunger and food insecurity.
 Different needs identified, leading to different investment/action priorities. e.g., much higher priority given to development and application of labor-saving technology and water & sanitation, as concurrent investments in the household economy; also improving gender equality in access to and control of a wide range of assets, food production and transformation, and reducing violence and insecurity.
Different performance indicators retained and/or prioritized, - e.g., focus on access to clean water, reducing gender asset disparities, reorienting expenditures, targeting, focus on health, nutrition, financial services, violence, AIDS, IDGs,
All of these have implications for, and must be articulated in, budgets and resource allocations/implementation.
Participatory Process: Focus on Gender Inclusion

6. Gender and the PRSP Structure of PRSP Gender Contribution
Different Outcome
Poverty diagnostic underlying PRSP Capability, Opportunity, Security, Empowerment (COSE)
Poverty impact different for men and women
Different COSE
Broader & more inclusive under- standing of poverty
Linkages evident
Priority policy responses and investment choices = meeting MDGs?
Gender: criterion for priority setting
Different policy priorities defined
Action agenda responsive to different COSE
Water, energy, law
Participatory setting and monitoring of performance indicators
Gender: criterion for inclusion
Different/re-priori- tized indicators
More effective and more inclusive poverty reduction measures
PRSP seen here as proxy for upstream policy and planning instruments. It is the primary focus of country-articulated plans to reduce poverty. Challenge is then to operationalize it (PRSCs and budget support) Speak to last column: When gender is in the PRSP ….
1. Better and more inclusive understanding of the nature, causes, and impacts of poverty for different groups to inform the national PRS.
2. Better selection and prioritization of PRSP actions to enhance poverty reducing impact: equity, efficiency and sustainability.
3. Better selection and reprioritization of performance indicators to strengthen poverty reducing impact.
4. f process: Effective participation (inclusion) of a broader range of stakeholders to deepen PRSP ownership and accountability.
 Different issues raised, - e.g., focus on gender-based asset inequality, vulnerability, powerlessness and insecurity, time and labor constraints, incentive and capacity differentials, violence, AIDS, isolation, hunger and food insecurity.
 Different needs identified, leading to different investment/action priorities. e.g., much higher priority given to development and application of labor-saving technology and water & sanitation, as concurrent investments in the household economy; also improving gender equality in access to and control of a wide range of assets, food production and transformation, and reducing violence and insecurity.
Different performance indicators retained and/or prioritized, - e.g., focus on access to clean water, reducing gender asset disparities, reorienting expenditures, targeting, focus on health, nutrition, financial services, violence, AIDS, IDGs,
All of these have implications for, and must be articulated in, budgets and resource allocations/implementation.
Participatory Process: Focus on Gender Inclusion

7. Four Challenges The Dilemma of Pro-Activity The Problem of Isolation
Who “owns” the gender agenda in PRSP?
The Problem of Isolation
The “excellent” gender chapter syndrome
The Issue of Specificity
Gender as a “cross-cutting issue”
“Measures” to be taken not specified…
These are what I see as the principal challenges facing the task of “engendering” PRSPs. The most important is where does the impetus to “engender” the PRSP come from? What is, or should be, the role of outside agencies therein, and how does this affect country ownership/leadership on PRSP?
Isolation: very common phenomenon. Gender chapter/section is often very good and says [many of] the right things. Problem is that none of this is picked up anywhere else in the document. Econ empowerment not in ag section; law reform not explicitly engendered.
Many assertions (sometimes) about what to do, but no specifics, no details, no targets, no benchmarks, no performance monitoring.
Prioritize: the greatest problem: (I) PRSPs still long lists of desiderata, want to do everything: (tourism, airports, telecommunications); (ii) how can gender INFORM the poverty reduction agenda? Who chooses (policy evaporation issue)?
The Question of Prioritization
Do everything! – the long list
Who prioritizes & how?

8. Uganda: Sources of Energy1%
Relevance of “traditional energy” very significant, especially in African countries.
Source Table 3.8 of WDI 2001.
Traditional fuel use includes estimates of the consumption of fuelwood, charcoal, bagasse, and animal and vegetable wastes.
83%
Source: MEMD Website, accessed March

9. Uganda: Energy Investment
Power-related: 90%
Relevance of “traditional energy” very significant, especially in African countries.
Source Table 3.8 of WDI 2001.
Traditional fuel use includes estimates of the consumption of fuelwood, charcoal, bagasse, and animal and vegetable wastes.
Renewables and Energy Efficient Technology (EET) = 0.5%
Source: MEMD. The Energy Policy for Uganda, September 2002.

10. Uganda: Energy Mismatch?
Energy Source
Cons
Inv. %
Traditional 93
<1
Power 1 90
Relevance of “traditional energy” very significant, especially in African countries.
Source Table 3.8 of WDI 2001.
Traditional fuel use includes estimates of the consumption of fuelwood, charcoal, bagasse, and animal and vegetable wastes.
Consumption
Investment
Source: Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development.

11. Uganda: Transport Burdens
If women = 100, men = 22.1!
Sheer drudgery: equivalent of women carrying 20k each day from here to National Airport.
W = 100
M = 22.1
Source: Barwell 1996.

12. Water and fuel investments significantly reduce collection time
Investments in water and fuel infrastructure significantly reduce time on collection activities
Potential average annual time savings
Uganda
600
> 900 hrs/yr
Potable water within 400m =
> 660 hrs/yr
Woodlots within 30 mins walk
Annual time savings (hours per household)
400 +
> 240 hrs/yr
IV. Priorities 2: The time-saving argument for investing in basic water and energy infrastructure has been restated recently in the just published PRR “Engendering Development” (this is Figure 4.3 on p. 176).
What would happen if all households in SSA were no more than 400 m (about a six minute walk) from a potable waterI source -- the national target set by the Government of Tanzania? Or, if woodlots or other sources of household energy were no farther than a 30-minute walk?
Study of 5 rural areas in Burkina Faso, Uganda, and Zambia looked at the potential time savings.
Time savings: water: 125 to 664 hours per household per year, on average.
Time savings: fuelwood: 119 to 610 hours/household/year, on average.
In the “worst case” villages (those where households were farthest from water and fuel supply), potential time savings would be as high as (around 950) hrs/yr per household, equivalent to half a year’s work for a person working 8 hours a day, five days a week.
Further comment on Kasama: we saw that women spend nearly 2.5 hrs/day on these domestic tasks, of which nearly 2 hrs/day is to collect fuelwood. The savings of having fuelwood within 30 minutes walk translates into saving more than 600 hrs/year!
Important: recognize that this is a technocratic “efficiency” argument. We have heard from many women in Africa that the hours spent fetching water have other less tangible benefits: social time, temporary “removal” from household, husband, hassles. How much of a problem is this? Can other factors compensate for this “social” loss? What else is needed?
200
Lusaka Rural
Kaya
Mbale
Kasama*
Dedougou*
(Zambia)
(Burkina Faso)
(Uganda)
(Zambia)
(Burkina Faso)
* Kasama & Dedougou already within the target for water.
Source: Barwell 1996, in Engendering Development, PRR, 2001.