Docstoc

POVERTY MONITORING SYSTEM IN MALAWI

Document Sample
POVERTY MONITORING SYSTEM IN MALAWI Powered By Docstoc
					    POVERTY MONITORING SYSTEM IN
              MALAWI




CONSULTANTS

Prof. Ben Kiregyera (Team Leader)
Dr. Chris Scott
Dr. O.O. Ajayi
Dr. Buleti Nsemukila




                                    Dated: 23 May 2002
                                    0022002
TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                                                                        Page

Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ i
Acronyms........................................................................................................................................ ii
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... vii

Section 1.            Introduction

           1.1        Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy ........................................................................ 1
           1.2        The Mission.............................................................................................................. 2

Section 2.          Activities Undertaken and Findings,

           2.1       Meetings with Officials............................................................................................. 4
           2.2       Document Review..................................................................................................... 9
           2.3       Review of the Current Poverty Monitoring System ................................................. 9
           2.4       Review of the Strategic Plan for the NSO .............................................................. 18
           2.5       Key Issues ............................................................................................................... 22
           2.6       Proposals for a Stakeholders‟ Workshop ............................................................... 22

Section 3.          Main Conclusions and Recommendations

           3.1       Main Conclusions ................................................................................................... 26
           3.2       Recommendations ................................................................................................... 27

Annexes

           Annex I:          List of Officials Met....................................................................................... 29
           Annex II:         List of Documents Accessed ......................................................................... 32
           Annex III:        Draft Workshop Programme......................................................................... 33
           Annex IV:         General guidelines for Paper Preparation and Presentation ......................... 37
           Annex V:          Preparatory Activities for the Workshop ...................................................... 38
           Annex VI:         Anticipated Activities After the Workshop .................................................. 39




                                                                       i
ACRONYMS


CERT      Centre for Educational Research and Training

CSR       Centre for Social Research, University of Malawi

CWIQ      Core Welfare Indicators Survey

DHS       Demographic and Health Survey

EMIS      Education Management Information System

EU        European Union

FIMTAB    Financial Management Transparency and Accountability

HMIS      Health Management Information System

HSA       Health Surveillance Assistant

IFMIS     Integrated Financial Management Information System

IFPRI     International Food Policy Research Institute

IMR       Infant Mortality Rate

IHS       Integrated Household Survey

IMF       International Monetary Fund

LGDMP     Local Government and Development Management Programme

MANEB     Malawi National Examination Board

MEJN      Malawi Economic Justice network

MIS       Management Information System

MCDE      Malawi College of Distance Education

M and E   Monitoring and Evaluation

MPRS      Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy




                                           ii
MPRSP    Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

MRALG    Ministry of Regional Administration and Local Government – President‟s office
         (Tanzania)

MSCE     Malawi School Certificate of Education

MTEF     Medium Term Expenditure Framework

NEC      National Economic Council

NGO      Non-Governmental Organization

NSO      National Statistical Office

NSS      National Statistical System

PMMP     Poverty Monitoring Master Plan

QUIM     Qualitative Impact Monitoring

SIMSIP   Simulation of Social Indicators and Poverty

SMART    Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound

SWOT     Strength, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats

TOR      Terms of reference

UNDP     United Nations Development Programme

UNICEF   United Nations Children Fund

USAID    United States Agency for International Development

ZPRP     Zanzibar Poverty Reduction Plan




                                          iii
SUMMARY


Malawi has adopted and launched a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy, known as the
MPRS, which will provide the medium-term development framework (2002-2005) for the
country. The development of the strategy involved extensive consultations with a broad range of
stakeholders including Government, civil society, public and private sector, academia and
development partners. This was crucial for transparency and ownership of the strategy.

The Strategy took into account the situational analysis and poverty profile, past developmental
efforts and performance, and lessons learnt. The MPRS is built around 4 pillars, namely
sustainable pro-poor growth, human capital development, improving the quality of life of the
most vulnerable and good governance as well as cross-cutting issues of HIV/AIDS, gender and
empowerment, environment and science and technology. It provides a macro-economic and
expenditure framework within which the strategy will operate. The framework balances the
expenditure requirements based on costing of poverty reducing activities with the resource
envelope.

Arrangements for the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the strategy are given
including the budget, indicators and targets and the review process. These arrangements provide
for the involvement of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and communities in the
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the strategy.

Effective poverty monitoring requires baseline values for indicators for which targets have been
set. One fifth of the targeted indicators in the MPRS have no baseline values, which makes it
difficult to assess the feasibility of the associated targets. Where baseline values are given,
indicator-specific baseline dates are not shown. The quality of the data used for setting some
targets appears poor, while there is a danger that policy-makers may draw incorrect conclusions
from movements in certain indicators. While a lack of data may explain the omission of some
indicators, it cannot explain the omission of others.

Some targets could be improved by re-specifying the indicators in such a way as to focus more
sharply on, and therefore provide an incentive to increase, the amount of sectoral resources spent
at the point of delivery. Other targets add little value either because they come close to
duplicating each other, or because they are not central to MPRS priorities. For some indicators,
there is inconsistency in the definition of baseline and target values. Details of the costing
exercise undertaken to ensure consistency of the MPRS targets with the MTEF resource
envelope are not included either in the text or in the annexes of the MPRS.

The MPRS contains fewer indicators than some other PRSPs, but some spatially disaggregated
measures should be included to track geographic variations in poverty incidence within the
country. Some indicators for the cross-cutting issues should also be added. Targets need not
necessarily be set for either spatially disaggregated or cross-cutting indicators. An annual
calendar should be drawn up which indicates when data for which targets will become available
and how this information will be used in policy making. Lack of trained personnel and



                                                iv
institutional capacity is likely to prove a serious constraint on the collection and use of data at the
district level.

Four types of monitoring process can be distinguished in the MPRS according to the type of
information used: (i) public sector financial management; (ii) management information systems
of line Ministries; (iii) surveys and Censuses, and (iv) qualitative data. The mission had neither
the competence nor the time to examine public sector financial management systems in any
depth. Ministry MISs display many problems. The quality of data is often poor and results from a
lack of resources, limited human capacity, high staff turn-over, weak incentives and the absence
of a discriminating demand for information by policy-makers. Where computerised MIS have
been introduced, the problem is not only the risk of a mismatch between the demands of the
hard/software and the managerial/ technical skills available, but the fundamental lack of
experience in systematically using data to inform decision-making. Parallel data recording
systems within the same Ministry exist but rarely interact. Even when reasonable quality data are
available and are relevant to policy, little or no analysis of this information is carried out.

The NSO and other institutions have recently conducted a series of surveys and a census which
are highly relevant to the data needs of the MPRS. The main priority in this area is to develop a
credible and sustainable development plan, National Statistical Master Plan, for the National
Statistical System covering the next 5-10 years. This plan would fix a timetable for future
statistical activities in such a way as to meet the needs of data users without placing the NSO and
other data producers under excessive pressure in any one year. The NSO will need to be
strengthened in order for it to effectively coordinate and provide technical leadership to the NSS.
The proposed Strategic Plan which aims to strengthen the NSO needs to be recast to reflect the
new roles the NSO will be expected to play in the monitoring and evaluation of the MPRS. The
NSO Strategic Plan will be an essential component of the National Statistical Master Plan.

Considerable experience has been accumulated in Malawi with respect to the use of participatory
techniques to generate qualitative data for a variety of purposes. Such data are an important
complement to the quantitative information collected through surveys and routine administrative
records. Qualitative data are likely to be of particular significance for planning at local level. The
priority in this area is to clarify how these qualitative data will be combined and integrated with
quantitative data for policy making. One issue which policy makers should address is how to
respond when participatory poverty assessments and survey-based consumption-poverty
measures give contradictory signals as to the direction and/or magnitude of changes in poverty..

The institutional framework for poverty monitoring has not been clearly established. There are
serious risks of duplication of function between the Ministry for Poverty Alleviation, the
Ministry of Finance and NEC. It is also unlikely that the NSO can assume responsibility for
supervising data collection at the district level without a substantial injection of funds. It would
be desirable to design the monitoring system in such a way as to preserve and enhance the
inclusive and participatory features of the process used in drafting the MPRS.

The idea of holding a stakeholders‟ workshop to provide a forum for further discussion of the
information requirements of the MPRS was supported all round. The workshop will review the
current situation in Malawi and examine good practice regionally and internationally. Possible


                                                  v
application and adaptation of international examples for use in Malawi, drawing on the experiences
of practitioners in neighbouring countries will be discussed. The workshop will also enhance the
consultative process which has been the hallmark of the MPRS.

Advance planning is essential for the success of the workshop. Accordingly, a workshop organising
committee chaired by NEC has been proposed, workshop preparatory activities and key issues to be
discussed have been identified and the workshop programme has been drawn.




                                               vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


The Consultants would like to acknowledge the Government of Malawi for seeing the
need to review the proposed Poverty Monitoring System and the Strategic Plan for the
National Statistical Office, and PARIS21 for funding the mission. The briefing received
from Ms. Mary Strode of PARIS21 Secretariat is very much appreciated.

The Consultants were very well received even when their visits to some offices were at
short notice. For this, they would like to thank the NSO for making the necessary
appointments and various officials met for finding time to hold discussions with the
mission members. Special thanks go to Mr. Elliot Phiri, Principal Statistician at NSO who
accompanied the Consultants on all visits and to Mr. George Zimalirana, Head of the
MPRS Secretariat and Mr. Charles Machinjili, Commissioner of Census and Statistics for
ensuring that the mission was on course.




                                           vii
1.        INTRODUCTION


1.1       The Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy (MPRS)


The Malawi Vision 2020 has been formulated and adopted to provide a national
long-term development perspective for the nation. It forms “…..a foundation on
which the country can formulate, implement and evaluate short and medium-term
plans for both the public and private sector. It provides detailed background
information and justification for the population’s aspirations and strategies
recommended to achieve these aspirations”1.

On 24 April 2002, the President of Malawi officially launched the Malawi Poverty
Reduction Strategy (MPRS) as the overarching medium-term development strategy
(2002-2005) that will form a basis for all future actions by all stakeholders aimed at
poverty reduction in Malawi. Its overall goal is to achieve “sustainable poverty reduction
through socio-economic and political empowerment of the poor”. Poverty is a serious
development problem in Malawi; it is widespread, deep and severe. Analysis of data from
the 1998 Integrated Household Survey (IHS) showed that about 65% of the population
were poor and about 29% were living in absolute poverty2.

The launch of the MPRS was a culmination of a wide participatory, consultative and
iterative process which started some 15 months ago. The process involved consultations
with a broad range of stakeholders including Government, civil society, public and
private sector, academia and development partners. Detailed work on the strategy was
done by 21 Thematic Working Groups (TWGs) also drawn from a wide variety of
stakeholders. These groups drafted sectoral position papers which were prioritised and
costed. A synthesis of these papers constitute the MPRS. The TWGs reported to a
Technical Committee chaired by NEC and comprising technicians from various
institutions. The Technical Committee in turn reported to a Steering Committee of
Principal Secretaries, which was chaired by the Secretary to the Treasury. And the
Steering Committee reported to an Inter-Ministerial Committee chaired by the Minister
of Finance and Economic Planning.

The MPRS has four pillars which are the main components under which various policies
and activities are grouped into a coherent framework. These pillars are:

         Sustainable Pro-Poor Economic Growth
         Human Capital Development
         Improving the Quality of Life for the Most Vulnerable, and
         Good Governance.
1
    Vision 2020: The National Long-Term Development Perspective for Malawi, 1998.
2
    Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, Final Draft, April 2002.


                                              1
In addition to the four pillars, MPRS identifies four issues which cut across the pillars,
namely: HIV/AIDS, Gender, Environment, and Science and Technology.

The MPRSP presents a detailed Action Plan with prioritised and costed activities and
implementing agencies. It also provides for monitoring and evaluation of the strategy
goals and targets. This is expected to be done using indicators provided in the Action
Plan for each component of the MPRS. Indicators to be used to monitor and evaluate the
MPRS include process indicators (input and output), outcome indicators and impact
indicators. Monitoring and evaluation of the MPRS will be done at national, district and
local levels. Monitoring information will be widely disseminated to all stakeholders in a
transparent manner.

Provision has been made for the private sector and the civil society to play an active role
in the execution of the MPRS.

1.2       The Mission
In December 2001, PARIS213 fielded a mission to Malawi to explore the need for a
PARIS21 country workshop. Such a workshop is necessary to:
         draw together statisticians, policy makers and development partners in order to
          agree on information needs for informing development planning;
         develop partnerships at both the national level and the sub-regional level between
          policy makers, information users, information producers, supporting donor
          agencies and international organisations;
         improve the dialogue between information users, including policy makers and
          civil society, and the national producers of statistics. This dialogue is the
          beginning of the process necessary to agree the steps for developing a strategy
          (and for reviewing any existing strategy) to support the priority information needs
          of governments and other key stakeholders; and
         promote best practice and lesson learning within the sub-region by exploring the
          methodologies and processes used by countries to provide priority statistics and
          information to data users.

The Government of Malawi requested a follow-up mission which was undertaken during
the period 15 - 28 April 2002. Members of the mission included:

      1. Prof. Ben Kiregyera (Statistician and Mission Leader)
      2. Dr. Chris Scott (Poverty Monitoring Expert)

3
      PARIS21 which stands for Partnership in Statistics for Development in the 21st Century is a
      consortium established in 1999 to put countries in control of country-owned statistical
      systems with senior level support; serving key policy areas through priority setting and
      steering processes; improving statistical information and resources by addressing the
      required data needs.



                                                 2
   3. Dr. Buleti Nsemukila (Poverty Analyst)
   4. Dr. O.O. Ajayi (Statistician)

The Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Mission were to:

      Examine and report on the current poverty monitoring system put in place by the
       MPRS, the indicators to be used and the accompanying statistical system;
      Document the needs of each stakeholder from the PRS;
      Make suggestions on which of these needs could be met, and which might be
       provided for at a later date;
      Suggest ways in which the statistical system can be strengthened to provide for
       the priority needs of the MPRS;
      Make proposals for strengthening the analytical work in support of the MPRS and
       the dissemination and accessibility of information relating to poverty monitoring;
      Make proposals for the format and content of the proposed stakeholders‟
       workshop
      Draft a report for the review at the workshop; and
      Make suggestions on the content of a proposal to the World Bank Trust Fund for
       Statistical Capacity Building or the UN Trust Fund for Poverty Monitoring.




                                           3
2.        ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN AND MAIN FINDINGS


During the mission, a number of activities were undertaken in line with the TOR. These
activities together with main findings are presented in this section of the report.

2.1       Meeting with Officials

In order to build consensus about a responsive Poverty Monitoring System for the
Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy (MPRS), the mission visited and held discussions
with many officials from key stakeholder institutions based in the municipality of Zomba,
and the cities of Blantyre and Lilongwe. The institutions included the PRSP Secretariat at
NEC, National Statistical Office (NSO), sectoral Ministries, research institutions, the
private sector, the Non-governmental Organizations (NGO‟s), the press, donors and
international organisations.

Altogether discussions were held with 40 officials from different institutions. The full
list of officials met is given in Annex I.

The following are the highlights of these discussions:

(a)       National Economic Council

The National Economic Council (NEC) was established to perform the following
functions:

         co-ordination of inputs to Government from both public and private sector;
         strategic thinking and institutionalisation of Vision 2020;
         setting up of long and medium term national development goals, objectives and
          strategies;
         monitoring of the implementation of national development policies and
          programmes; and
         evaluating the impact of national development plans and programmes.

NEC which is headed by a Director General is supposed to report to the President. It has
a Secretariat which operationally liases with the Ministry of Finance and Economic
Planning. The Council is divided into divisions which include Management and
Direction, Economic Development, Strategic Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation, and
Administrative Support Services. It has a staff complement of 91 of whom about a third
are professionals. NEC is currently undergoing a functional review. NEC chaired the
Secretariat which co-ordinated the whole PRSP process.

In executing its functions, NEC uses a lot of data. Most of the data comes from the
National Statistical Office (NSO), Management Information Systems (MISs) in line



                                             4
Ministries and the Reserve Bank of Malawi. It has a special relationship with these
institutions. It also works closely with the civil society.

The regular work of NEC and indeed the MPRS process has sometimes been constrained
by lack of reliable and up-to-date information. Some of the information is scattered,
difficult to access and sometimes conflicting. NEC believes that there is urgent need to
improve capacity for data production and dissemination, establish a national databank
with all important national data, there is need for capacity building and better resource
flows into NSO and other institutions that collect data, there is a need to refine indicators
in the MPRS and to put in place a comprehensive Master Plan for the monitoring and
evaluation of the MPRS.

(b)    Ministry of Finance and Economic Development

The Treasury plays a central role in the MPRS and the national economy in general. It
mainly plays this role through the budget. The budget is based on sectoral plans which
comprise the MPRS.

In recent years, Malawi has undertaken reform to improve the effectiveness of public
expenditure management. This has involved, inter alia, rationalisation of the entire cycle
of expenditure-related activities – the identification of priorities, the costing of activities,
the allocation of resources, and the creation of systems for effective implementation and
reviews. In this connection, the Treasury in 1996 instituted a Medium Term Expenditure
Framework (MPEF) which is a three-year rolling programme. It was mentioned that the
budgetary process has also become participatory and it is expected that NGOs and other
stakeholders will be involved in monitoring expenditure on MPRS pro-poor activities.

The Treasury works closely with NEC, NSO and line Ministries. One of its main
problems is poor quality information e.g. expenditure returns from Ministries. The role of
NSO is very much appreciated by the Treasury. However, its funding like the funding of
many important national programmes, had suffered from a decline in domestic revenue
collection. However, it was mentioned that more resources would be made available to
NSO to enable it to co-ordinate the entire National Statistical System (NSS) more
effectively to make it more responsive to the needs for data and information for
monitoring MPRS.

(c)    National Statistical Office (NSO)

The National Statistical Office (NSO) which is a Department in the Office of the President
and Cabinet (OPC), is the ultimate source of official statistics on all sectors in the country.
The NSO was established in 1964 and it operates under the Statistics Act of 1967.

The NSO is located in Zomba, some 300 kms from Lilongwe, the Capital city. It is
acknowledged all round that this arrangement has been unsatisfactory. It was learnt that a
firm decision has been taken by Government to re-locate the NSO to Lilongwe so that the
office can be closer to the main users of its products and services. The office has Regional



                                               5
Branches in the cities of Lilongwe (Central Region), Mzuzu (Northern Region) and Blantyre
(Southern Region) which co-ordinate all NSO field activities in the regions. The office is
headed by a Commissioner for Census and Statistics, a Deputy Commissioner and three
Assistant Commissioners who are Division Heads. Currently the staff complement is about
300.

The profile of the NSO has been raised by locating it in the Office of the President and
Cabinet (OPC), ranking the Commissioner for Census and Statistics at the same level as
Principal Secretary and making the office self-accounting.

The NSO carries out censuses, surveys and other statistical activities which have been
invaluable in informing government policies and programmes. For instance, the
population data from censuses is the base for many indexes and rates used in the MPRS.
Also data from the NSO‟s Integrated Household Survey (1998) has been used to create
the poverty profile for Malawi. However, the NSO is not well staffed or funded. As a
matter of fact, some statistical activities have been shelved or started late because of
resource constraints. For instance, the latest Annual Business Survey was last carried out
in 1998. Also the Integrated Household Survey (IHS) which was supposed to start in
2001 has not taken off due to lack of resources. Various development partners have been
helping the NSO build necessary capacity to be able to meet national needs for data. It
should also be mentioned that the University of Malawi has recently agreed to help train
NSO sub-professional statistical personnel up to certificate level. NSO staff are involved
in the teaching of the practical aspects of the course.

Up till 1997, Malawi used to have a Statistical Common Service arrangement under
which all statistical personnel in Government were answerable to the Commissioner for
Census and Statistics. This enabled the NSO to co-ordinate statistical work in
Government and to promote standards for statistical production more effectively. The
NSO now has no mechanism for effectively promoting standards and co-ordinating
statistical production throughout the statistical system in the country.

For it to be able to compile GDP estimates and produce the Statistical Year Book, NSO
requires the input of other data producers. NSO, therefore, sees the urgency of
strengthening its own statistical capacity and the statistical capacity in line Ministries. For
a start, NSO has designed a Strategic Plan aimed at strengthening its capacity. It sees a
need to develop a National Statistical Master Plan as a co-ordinating tool for statistical
production in the country.

The NSO has actively participated in the MPRS process. It is expected to play a more
profound role in the monitoring of the strategy.

(d)    Sectoral Ministry and District Data Producers

Discussions with sectoral Ministries were crucial given the important role Management
Information Systems (MISs) will play in the monitoring and evaluation of the MPRS.
Discussions were held with officials at the Ministries of Education, Health, Agriculture
and the Decentralisation Secretariat. The officials indicated that resource constraints and


                                              6
limited capacity continue to hamper production of reliable and timely data. It was
mentioned that capacity to collect and manage data was particularly thin in districts. It
was also acknowledged that co-ordination among data producers in the country is weak.
The advantages of a co-ordinated statistical system under which all producers could have
their programmes properly aligned and co-ordinated were appreciated. These advantages
include but are not limited to:

         establishment of priorities for data production,
         prevention of duplication of effort which invariably leads to inconsistent
          statistical products,
         elimination of wasteful utilisation of scarce resources and facilitation of pooling
          meagre resources for greater impact,
         avoiding working at cross-purposes, and
         production of improved statistical products through use of better methods.

The data producers saw a need for the NSO to backstop some of their programmes. The
need for human resources development to ensure adequate capacity was stressed.
Creation of a unified training programme for the entire statistical system was seen as a
good strategy for development of statistical capacity.

Sectoral Ministries pledged to play an active role in the proposed stakeholders‟
workshop.

(e)       Research Institutions

The Centre for Social Research (CSR) and Centre for Education Research and Training
(CERT) at the University of Malawi indicated that they use a lot of data from the NSO
and other data producers. It was, however, mentioned that data are not always received in
desirable format and access to data from line Ministries was not as good as it should be.
It was acknowledged that although some analysis of basic data was being done, clearly
this was not enough. It also transpired that research centres were not providing as much
feedback to the producers of data as they should. Such feedback is crucial for improving
data quality. It emerged that co-ordination between data producers and users is weak and
not institutionalised.

Research institutions also participated in the work of the MPRS Thematic Working
Groups. They welcomed the proposal to hold the workshop as the forum would be useful
in building consensus on any unresolved poverty related issues identified in the
workshop. They pledged to play an active part in the workshop.

(f)       Private Sector/Quasi-government Institutions

The Malawi Investment Promotion Agency (MIPA) works closely with the NSO as it
obtains most of its data requirements from NSO. It has also collaborated with NSO in
carrying out a Capital Flows Survey. The MIPA information base has improved as a
result. But, of course, more consultation between MIPA and NSO needs to be made on



                                               7
other statistical activities. MIPA actively participated in the work of Thematic Working
Groups of the MPRS.

The Malawi Confederation of Chambers of Commerce and Industries (MCCCI) works
closely with Government institutions in such areas as marketing, investment, trade policy,
product standards, etc. The Chamber participated in the work of MPRS Thematic
Working Groups. MCCCI is on the NSO mailing list and uses a lot of data from NSO. It
also gets and uses some data from other producers e.g. the Reserve Bank of Malawi and
in special cases, it carries out small studies.

There is a need for NSO to get the MCCCI to assist in sensitising its members about the
importance of data and in urging members to provide requested data in establishment-
based surveys. There could be jointly organised seminars for companies to sensitise them
on good record keeping which in turn would help the NSO in its surveys.

The MCCCI welcomed the idea of a stakeholders‟ workshop.

(g)    The Media

The Malawi Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) was the only media house visited. It saw
great prospects in its co-operation with NSO. This could give the opportunity to NSO to
promote statistical awareness in society free of charge. The partnership with the media
could assist dissemination of data much more widely. A media workshop periodically
held will empower media practitioners to better understand, interpret and use statistical
information in their work.

(h)    Development Partners

 Discussions were held with development partners including NORAD, the World Bank,
EU, UNICEF and UNDP. Development partners are very important stakeholders. They
generally co-ordinate their activities like in the preparation of the Common Country
Assessment (CCA) and the production of Human Development Report (HDR). Many
development partners, both bilateral and multi-lateral were visited and discussions were
held with them on a wide range of issues.

The development partners supported the MPRS process in many ways including
catalysing it, funding some activities related to the process, participating in the work of
Thematic Working Groups, etc.

The partners were happy with the transparency of the MPRS process. They, however,
raised some issues relating to: (i) institutional arrangements for the implementation and
monitoring of MPRS – roles of different actors, (ii) some types of indicators selected, (iii)
concern about lack of capacity in the public sector to produce reliable information and to
use such information once produced, and (iv) improving co-ordination in statistical
production throughout government.




                                             8
They all supported the idea of the workshop. UNDP pledged to co-sponsor the workshop.
It was also going to draft and discuss with NEC and the NSO an expression of interest in
accessing funding from the UNDP Thematic Trust Fund for Poverty Reduction for
purposes of contributing to the establishment of a Poverty Monitoring Master Plan.

(i)    Non-Governmental Organisations

NGOs individually or collectively through the NGO Networks e.g. the Malawi Economic
Justice Network (MEJN), have played a key role in the MPRS process. They participated
in the formulation of the MPRS, drafting of the MPRS document, and the review of the
document. They are expected to play a big role in monitoring all the main sectors of the
strategy. For instance, there is a network that is monitoring the agricultural part of the
MPRS. It does this by looking to see if the priority poverty expenditure areas are being
funded.

Action Aid is participating in this monitoring. The monitoring is being done in a
simplified manner using the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation structures –
Agricultural Development Division (ADD), Extension Planning Area (EPA) and Rural
Development Project (RDP). A simple form has been designed to track expenditures. The
form will be filled by Extension Agents and results will be widely disseminated. The
method is being piloted in different parts of the country.

2.2    Document Review

In addition to the meetings with various officials, the mission benefited from a number of
documents prepared by institutions participating in the MPRS process. These documents
which included Plans, operational manuals and reports shed more light on the work of
concerned institutions.

A full list of documents accessed is given in Annex II.

2.3    Review of the Current Poverty Monitoring System

This section of the mission report identifies five priority areas in poverty monitoring,
namely (a) identifying the poverty baseline; (b) setting and costing poverty reduction
targets; (c) selecting indicators; (d) reviewing the monitoring processes, and (e)
evaluating the institutional framework.

(a)    Identifying the poverty baseline

Progress in poverty reduction can be measured in two ways: (i) improvement from a
baseline, and (ii) attainment of a target. Thus, a natural starting point for assessing a
poverty monitoring system is to examine how the baseline was determined. The relevant
information is summarised in the column headed „Current Status‟ in the table presented



                                            9
in Annex 4 (Selected Monitoring Indicators and Targets) of the MPRS. Out of 69
indicators, 20 have no baseline values. Of these 20 indicators, three are defined as new
units to be constructed by 2005 (boreholes, biogas plants and electrified sites), while
another four refer to numbers of beneficiaries from revived or new programmes Malawi
College of Distance Education (MCDE), Targeted Input Programme [TIP], Targeted
Nutrition Programme [TNP]), so that the implicit baseline values are zero. This leaves 13
indicators (19%) lacking baseline values for which no explanations are given. In the
absence of a baseline value, it is difficult to assess the feasibility of a target.

Although baseline values exist for over 80% of MPRS indicators, the precise date to
which the baseline value refers is never given. However, the term „Current Status‟ is
likely to be interpreted by many readers to mean (a) that the baseline date for all MPRS
indicators is the same, and (b) that this date is close to the publication date of the MPRS,
ie. April 2002. Both these interpretations are incorrect. Different indicators have different
baseline dates, and some of these baseline dates are several years prior to publication of
the MPRS. The poverty headcount ratio is derived from consumption data collected in the
1997-98 Integrated Household Survey, while the number of teachers in basic education is
recorded in the management information system of the Ministry of Education for 1999.
To avoid misunderstandings, it would be useful to include indicator-specific baseline
dates in future.

In certain cases, there appear to be strong grounds for challenging the quality of the data
used to provide baseline values. Annex 4 of the MPRS gives point estimates for maize
and cassava yields in kg/ha. However, the NSO stopped collecting agricultural
production data in the early 1990s when this task was taken on by the Ministry of
Agriculture and Irrigation. The Ministry‟s crop statistics have been questioned on several
occasions, so it may be better to omit an indicator for which data of minimum quality are
lacking than to include it and jeopardise the credibility of statistics among users.

(b)    Setting and costing poverty reduction targets

After defining the poverty baseline, the next step is to select targets for poverty reduction.
Targets are values which indicators should reach by a particular date, and they should be
SMART: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound. Note that while all
targets imply indicators, not all indicators imply targets - see (c). There should not be too
many targets or their role as an incentive device for resource mobilisation and allocation
is weakened. In the case of the MPRS, targets were proposed by each of the 21 Thematic
Groups and then apparently subjected to the fiscal discipline of the MTEF resource
envelope. Unfortunately, it was not possible during the mission to ascertain how this
validation process was done. However, it is important that those involved in the poverty
monitoring process are familiar with how targets are set because any subsequent failure
to reach a target may be due to the selection of an infeasible target rather than a weakness
in implementing pro-poor policies. In such cases, the appropriate response by policy
makers is to change the targets not the policies.

The MPRS targets are specific and for the most part measurable, at least in principle.
There are doubts about the quality of the agricultural statistics underlying the crop yield



                                             10
targets, while similar concerns may be expressed about the crime detection rate (listed
under Pillar 4) which is sensitive to changes in the proportion of crimes which are
reported by victims and/or the police. If the efficiency of the police in „solving‟ crime
increases, then a larger fraction of committed crimes may be reported. This in turn may
lead to a decline in the measured rate of crime detection, even though the (unobservable)
fraction of committed crimes which are solved/cleared up is actually increasing.

While most of the impact (outcome) targets and many of the intermediate targets are
relevant to the different dimensions of poverty, lack of data is a serious constraint in
some cases and has led to the inclusion of less relevant targets. Thus, improvements in
rural transport infrastructure are better measured by a reduction in the average time taken
by rural households to reach the nearest school or health clinic than by the number of
kilometres of rural roads graded or rehabilitated. However, information on journey times
by rural households to service delivery points is not currently available on a regular basis.

The highest annual expenditure on any of the goals included in the MPRS is on
„improving quality and access to education‟. Yet, there are no targets for the quality of
education, whether of outcomes, e.g. % of pupils in the final year of primary school
achieving minimum standards in mathematics and English, or inputs, eg. % of secondary
school teachers who are graduates. This omission cannot be wholly explained by a lack
of information, since the Press recently reported two events at which speakers
independently drew attention to poor results in the Malawi School Certificate of
Education (MSCE) in recent years (The Chronicle, 22-28 April 2002). Data on nation-
wide examination performance, admittedly of uncertain quality, are available from the
Malawi National Examinations Board (MANEB).

Data limitations can also not justify the omission of certain basic input and output targets
in health and education, such as
         Vaccination rates
         % of births attended by trained medical personnel
         Net primary school enrolment rate
         % of the relevant age cohort completing basic education

The exclusive use of the poverty headcount ratio for specifying a consumption-poverty
reduction target should be challenged. With nearly two thirds of the population living in
poverty and more than a quarter of the population living in extreme poverty, there is a
strong case for including as a target a poverty measure, such as the squared poverty gap,
which is sensitive to changes in income among those living below the poverty line.
Furthermore, exclusive reliance on the headcount ratio provides government with an
incentive to focus policy on the least poor rather than the poorest.

Some targets could be improved by re-specifying the indicators in such a way as to focus
more sharply on, and therefore provide an incentive to increase, the amount of sectoral
resources spent at the point of delivery. Thus, instead of formulating targets for the
number of Health Surveillance Assistants (HSAs), nurses, technical staff and physicians
trained, the MPRS should aim to increase the proportion of rural health clinics and
primary schools which are fully staffed with appropriately trained individuals. Other


                                             11
targets appear to add little value either because they come close to duplicating each other,
e.g. the three targets for irrigation, or because they are not central to MPRS priorities, eg.
parks under private sector. The latter should be dropped, while the former could be
reduced to a single target, such as the area under irrigation.

All targets, with the exception of those for health, are set for 2005 when the first three-
year cycle of the MPRS comes to an end. The health targets are fixed for 2007-08,
although the situation is not entirely clear. The infant mortality rate (IMR) appears twice
in Annex 4 of the MPRS: once under „Major impact targets‟ where it is defined as deaths
„per 1,000 children‟, and once under Pillar 2 where it is defined as deaths „per 1,000 live
births. The baseline value for the IMR (104) is shown as the same in each case, but two
target values are given: 90 for 2005 and 90 for 2007. The maternal mortality rate also
appears twice in Annex 4, but with the same definition on each occasion, i.e. deaths per
100,000 live births. However, on the first occasion, the baseline value is shown as 1,120
and the target value is 800 for the year 2005, while on the second occasion, the baseline
value is shown as 620 and the target value is 400 for the year 2007-08. These
inconsistencies should be resolved as soon as possible

As regards the achievability of MPRS targets, details of the costing exercise undertaken
to ensure consistency with the MTEF resource envelope are not included either in the text
or the annexes of the MPRS. So, it might be useful for the Malawi PRSP team to
compare whatever methodology their consultant used with alternative methodologies for
setting and costing targets which either are, or soon will be available. These include

   (i) Historical benchmarking

   Where a country possesses a sufficiently long time-series for a given outcome
   indicator, such as the literacy rate or infant mortality rate, then past trends provide a
   benchmark against which to set future targets.

   (ii) Macrosimulation

   Software (Simulation of Social Indicators and Poverty, or SimSIP) has recently been
   developed by the World Bank which allows credible poverty reduction targets to be
   estimated using regression results based on pooled international cross-section and
   time-series data. At present, the simulation is based on regional data for Latin
   America, but the methodology is being extended to Sub-Saharan Africa. This package
   also contains modules to cost targets in education and primary health care.

   (iii)   Microsimulation

   Where a recent multi-topic household survey, such as Malawi‟s Integrated Household
   Survey 1998, has been conducted, it may be possible to use the results of micro-
   econometric analysis to assess the feasibility of certain outcome targets in health and
   education.




                                             12
      Further details on each of these methodologies may be found in the chapter on
      „Setting and costing targets‟ in the World Bank‟s PRSP Sourcebook, which is
      available on the Bank‟s website.

Two final comments on the MPRS targets are in order. Firstly, spurious precision in
target setting should be avoided. If the government is able to measure the poverty
headcount ratio accurately to the nearest percentage point in 2005, that will be a
significant achievement. It is unlikely that it will be able to measure this ratio accurately
to the nearest one tenth of a percentage point, as is suggested in Annex 4 of the MPRSP.

Secondly, more thought should be given to the specification of annual point targets for
the target year where the relevant indicator is subject to large year-on-year variations for
reasons beyond the government‟s control. Thus, maize (particularly) and cassava yields
are likely to fluctuate from year to year depending on climatic conditions. Under these
circumstances, the use of a (3 or 5 year) moving average (MA) might be more
appropriate than using data for a single year. Note that if a three-year MA is adopted and
the target date is 2005, the monitoring authorities will not know until data for 2006 has
been processed whether the target has been reached. Another way of dealing with
indicators whose value is largely determined by variables exogenous to public policy is to
set targets as ranges rather than points. This is the approach taken by those Central Banks
whose monetary policy is guided by targeting inflation. In this case, the assumptions
underlying the upper and lower bounds of the target range should be made explicit

(c)      Selection of indicators

Since all targets presuppose indicators, much of what was said in (b) above applies more
generally to the choice of indicators, e.g. indicators should be relevant and measurable.
To avoid duplication, this section addresses three issues: (i) the number of indicators; (ii)
frequency of data collection for indicators, and (iii) district level indicators.

            i.      Number of indicators

         The MPRS contains fewer indicators than some other PRSPs. This is a result of
         discipline in selection and a lack of information. It should be stressed that not all
         indicators require targets to be set. This is relevant for two aspects of the MPRS,
         namely spatial variation in poverty incidence within the country, and the cross-
         cutting issues.

         All the indicators in Annex 4 of MPRSP refer to the national level. However, if
         progress towards the attainment of a particular national target is slower than
         expected, a first step to understanding why this is so would be to examine
         movements in more disaggregated versions of the indicator. Thus, if the national
         headcount ratio is rising, it is important to establish whether this is a general trend
         across the country, or whether poverty is rising in some regions but falling in
         others. In order to do this, regional headcount ratios need to be calculated, even
         though no regional poverty reduction targets have been set. This illustrates a more
         general principle that the selection of indicators should not be undertaken



                                               13
         independently of how information is to be used and by whom.

         Another feature of the MPRS is that there are no targets or indicators for any of
         the cross-cutting issues, i.e. HIV/AIDS, gender and empowerment, environment,
         and science and technology. Now, suppose that the IMR is rising nationally
         instead of falling as planned. In order to understand why this is occurring, it
         makes sense to look first at the extent of spatial variation in movements of the
         IMR as argued above, and also to check whether there are differences between
         male and female infant mortality. An obvious next step would be to see whether
         regional variations in the IMR and/or changes in the national IMR over time are
         associated with differences in the proportion of new born children infected with
         HIV. In order to do this, the appropriate indicators need to have been calculated,
         even though no targets have been set for cross-cutting issues.

         (ii) Frequency of indicators

         There is a large variation in the frequency with which information relating to
         different MPRS indicators is collected. Direct estimates of consumption-poverty
         are to be made available every 5 years, while data on intermediate indicators will
         be generated annually or even monthly. It would be useful to indicate the
         frequency of each indicator together with the data source and institution
         responsible in Annex 4 and in Table 6.2 of the main text4. It should also be
         possible, even before the Poverty Monitoring Master Plan (PMMP) is agreed, to
         draw up an annual calendar which indicates when data for which targets (and un-
         targeted indicators) will become available and how this information will be used
         in policy making, e.g. distributed to participants attending consultations for the
         annual public expenditure review and budget discussions. This calendar could be
         an input into the PMMP.

         Since 80% of the indicators listed in Annex 4 derive from administrative records,
         this constitutes a major challenge to the management information systems of the
         Ministries of Education (33% of indicators), Agriculture (12%) and Health (9%).
         The adequacy of different MIS is assessed in section (d) below.

         The only survey which will produce annual data on poverty indicators is the
         CWIQ. Hopefully, the CWIQ will contain a set of poverty proxies which are
         common to both the IHS and Population Census. This will ensure a degree of
         consistency between the methods used for disaggregated spatial poverty mapping,
         i.e. Census and IHS, and those used to track annual changes in poverty, i.e.
         CWIQ. Work currently being undertaken by IFPRI for the Centre for Social
         Research (CSR) will be valuable in this regard.


4
    Table 6.2 seems less carefully prepared than, and is not always consistent with Annex 4. This
    table mentions ‘consumption’ as an indicator, but without specifying a poverty measure. The
    table also includes a composite welfare index and HIV infection in the list of indicators.
    Neither of these indicators appears in Annex 4. However, unlike Annex 4, Table 6.2 does
    give the data source for each indicator listed.


                                                14
       iii)    District level indicators

       As the process of decentralization and devolution proceeds, attention must be
       given to the choice and use of district level indicators. These data are likely to be
       of two types: (i) indicators common to all districts which are collected by the
       NSO or line Ministries as part of their routine work programmes, and (ii) district-
       specific indicators which are identified as part of a participatory process and will
       be used only at local level. The latter are likely to vary across districts and will be
       used to monitor the implementation of District Development Plans. Indeed, the
       extent of such variation may be a good proxy for the vitality of the devolutionary
       process. The study group from Malawi which is to visit Tanzania should meet
       with representatives of the Ministry of Regional Administration and Local
       Government which recently produced a report on the selection of indicators for
       use at the district level in that country. A major challenge facing district and sub-
       district (ward) level authorities will be how to integrate quantitative data from
       surveys and routine administrative records with qualitative information gathered
       from participatory poverty assessments.

(d)    Reviewing the monitoring processes

Four types of monitoring process can be distinguished in the MPRS according to the type
of information used:

(i)    Public sector financial management

This relates to the control and tracking of all public expenditures from the centrally
agreed budget figures to the actual spending on particular line items by individual public
service delivery units (schools, clinics). This is essentially a task for the Treasury
together with the line Ministries, and will be carried out by means of an Integrated
Financial Management Information System (IFMIS). This software will support the
Financial Management Transparency and Accountability (FIMTAB) project currently
being implemented by the World Bank. FIMTAB aims to produce regular and timely
reports on actual expenditures across government departments. This is a complex and
highly specialised area, which the mission had neither the competence nor the time to
examine. Suffice it to say that while the Treasury appears to have learnt from Tanzania‟s
experience with IFMIS, many challenges remain. Financial control will be exercised in
the measure that all expenditure transactions are entered into the system. If transactions
are made and allowed to persist outside the system, then leakage of expenditures will
occur. The process of devolving power to the districts is also likely to place considerable
strain on IFMIS, given the lack of institutional capacity at local level and the system‟s
vulnerability to technical glitches, including power failures.

Civil society in the shape of CISANET, a network of NGOs, is currently piloting a
simpler system of expenditure tracking in several areas of the country. The July
workshop provides an opportunity to compare their experience to date with that of
government agencies monitoring and tracking public spending.




                                             15
(ii)    Management information systems of line Ministries

These are a key source of information on (physical) inputs, outputs and outcomes in the
different sectors. The Ministry of Health is in the process of installing a sophisticated
computerised system which has been piloted in Lilongwe and will soon be extended to
other districts. Other Ministries, including Education, have also computerised their
administrative records.

Several problems are evident in attempting to use data generated by Ministry MISs. The
quality of data is often poor, despite attempts over many years to improve it, particularly
in the Ministry of Agriculture. This is the result of a lack of resources, limited human
capacity, high staff turn-over, weak incentives and the absence of a discriminating
demand for information by policy-makers. Where computerised MIS have been
introduced, the problem is not only the risk of a mismatch between the demands of the
hard/software and the managerial/ technical skills available, but the fundamental lack of
experience in systematically using data to inform decision-making. In such cases,
electronic systems should be developed slowly and carefully in stages starting with few
indicators based on good data which are actually used. Trigger criteria covering
timeliness, quality and use of information should be defined and met at each stage before
the system proceeds to the next more demanding stage.

Another difficulty is the existence of parallel data recording systems within the same
Ministry which rarely interact. Data on primary school enrolment are collected in two
ways by the Ministry of Education. The Statistics Unit of the Planning Division carries
out an Annual School Census which includes information on enrolment, while Education
Advisory Services in the same Division collects monthly enrolment figures from schools
which are forwarded from the districts. No consistency checks between these two data
sources appear to exist, despite the fact that the census data are collected in November
after the onset of the rains when agricultural activities are at their peak. This is likely to
be the period when parents living and working on small farms have the strongest
incentive to take some of their children out of school to help with field tasks. If this is the
case, the enrolment figure from the census may have a seasonal bias downwards. The
validity of this argument could be checked by looking at the monthly data collected from
the same school to see if any seasonal pattern emerges. Since the school-level census data
covers several years, the Ministry has a panel data set (the quality of which would need to
be checked) which could be used to track repetition and drop-out rates over time. This
could provide the basis for highly disaggregated performance targets for schools
produced either by an in-house educational research and analysis unit, or an external
body such as the Centre for Educational Research and Training at the University of
Malawi.

(iii)    Surveys and Censuses

The NSO and other bodies have recently conducted a series of surveys which are highly
relevant to the data needs of the MPRS. An Integrated Household Survey (IHS1) was
conducted in 1997-98, and a second such survey (IHS2) is planned for 2002-03. The CSR
took a sub-sample of IHS1 to form a household panel which has been re-interviewed in



                                              16
three waves (Jan-June 2000, Oct-Dec 2000 and July-Oct 2001). A fourth wave was
planned but has not yet been implemented. Unfortunately, the household consumption
aggregates are not comparable over the four waves. The first and second waves excluded
non-cash consumption derived from home production, while IHS1 and the third wave
included non-cash consumption. Nevertheless, other consumption poverty proxies in the
questionnaire may be comparable over time. A Demographic and Health Survey (DHS)
was conducted in 2000, and the CWIQ was successfully piloted and will be applied
nationally as an annual poverty monitoring instrument. A Housing and Population Census
was carried out in 1998, which together with other demographic data collected since the
1970s and the DHS 2000, provides the basis for population projections up to 2006 which
are used as the denominator in many MPRS indicators, such as the poverty headcount
ratio, the level of per capita income and the literacy rate. These projections have been
made using a module developed by the US Bureau of the Census which allows for the
effect of HIV/AIDS on mortality rates.

The main priority in this area is for the NSO to develop as soon as possible a credible and
sustainable development plan for itself and the entire national statistical system covering
the next 5-10 years. Among other things, this plan would fix a timetable for future
surveys and Censuses in such a way as to meet the needs of data users without placing
the NSO under excessive pressure in any one year.

(iv)    Qualitative data

Considerable experience has been accumulated in Malawi with respect to the use of
participatory techniques to generate data for a variety of purposes. The NEC has
assembled teams made up of representatives from different Ministries and NGOs to
undertake Qualitative Impact Monitoring (QUIM). Such data are an important
complement to the quantitative information collected through surveys and routine
administrative records. Use of these techniques also gives more opportunity for civil
society to participate in the generation of data than in some other forms of data collection.

Qualitative data are likely to be of particular significance for planning at district and sub-
district level. The Decentralisation Secretariat in the Local Government and Development
Management Programme (LGDMP) has just created a monitoring and evaluation unit
which will offer training in participatory planning and assessment at local level. A
Village Action Planning (VAP) Manual was published in 1999 and has been widely
distributed.

The priority in this area is to clarify how these qualitative data will be combined and
integrated with quantitative data for policy making at different levels. Participatory
techniques can be used to improve questionnaire design by re-phrasing questions and
using local units of measurement (area, volume, weight), while the results of PPAs may
be useful in the interpretation of econometric results derived from household surveys.
One issue which policy makers should address is how to respond when participatory
poverty assessments and survey-based consumption-poverty measures give contradictory
signals as to the direction and/or magnitude of changes in poverty. This occurred in




                                             17
Uganda and is likely to happen elsewhere, since the two sets of techniques use different
definitions of „poverty‟ and so measure different things.



(e) Evaluating the institutional framework

All MPRS monitoring and evaluation activities will be co-ordinated through a system
developed from the existing Poverty Monitoring System (PMS) which was established to
track progress of the Poverty Alleviation Programme launched in 1994. This system is
designed to operate at four levels namely:

          Cabinet Committee on the Economy;
          MPRS Monitoring Committee comprising Principal Secretaries;
          Technical Working Committee comprising technocrats from government, civil
           society organisations, researchers, media, district representatives, and
           parliamentary committees; and
          Government institutions responsible for monitoring inputs and outputs,
           outcomes and impact assessments and poverty analysis.

For the last category, the Ministry of Finance has the important role of co-ordinating the
implementation of the MPRS where public expenditure is involved using mechanisms
such as the three year Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) and the annual
Budget. The National Economic Council (NEC) will be responsible for co-ordinating all
outcome and impact monitoring activities across all sectors and for producing poverty-
related analysis based on data from the National Statistical Office (NSO), the Ministry of
Finance, and other information systems within and outside the MPRS Monitoring
System.

The PAP Policy Framework instituted in 1994 was the Malawi government strategy for
addressing poverty. Lessons learnt from such a strategy will be essential in avoiding
pitfalls for the MPRS. The position and role of the Ministry responsible for the Poverty
Alleviation Programme (PAP) Policy Framework is being discussed at the current time. It
is also not clear as whether the NEC has the capacity for independent policy analysis on
poverty and on what steps the NEC should take to improve that capacity. It should be
acknowledged that strengthening collaboration between the NEC and the Centre for
Social Research of the University of Malawi would strengthen independent policy
analysis that should inform policy making in the NEC. It is also unlikely that the NSO
can assume responsibility for supervising data collection at the district level without a
substantial injection of funds. Overall, the monitoring system should be designed in such
a way as to preserve and enhance the inclusive and participatory features of the process
used in drafting the MPRS.

2.4     The Strategic Plan for the National Statistical Office




                                           18
The Strategic Plan (2002-2006) for the NSO was reviewed and proposals made for issues
relating to it to be raised at the workshop. Several other recommendations by the team have
already been incorporated in the Plan by the NSO since the consultants visit


(a)    Importance of a Strategic Plan

A Strategic Plan is crucial for the NSO as it provides a road map for the development of
national statistics produced by the office. It also provides a mechanism for harnessing a
critical mass of resources (both national and international) required to support statistical
development and to enable it to meet the ever-increasing demand for statistical data and
information. The team notes the recognition by the NSO of the need for such a Plan And
the steps already taken to produce a draft for consultation.

The NSOs‟s first Strategic Plan was produced in 1996 and it ended in 2000. A successor
Plan has been designed and is under discussion. One of the TOR for the mission was to
comment on second Strategic Plan, and make recommendations on issues which should be
identified in the workshop for further development of the plan. .

(b)    Process

It cannot be emphasised enough that a Strategic Plan should be based on a critical
assessment of the immediate, short term and long-term requirements of the Office on the
one hand and the requirements of stakeholders for data and information on the other.
Regarding requirements for information, it ought to be restated that lack of reliable
statistical information was one of the constraints faced in the design of the MPRS. And as
mentioned earlier, some 20% of the MPRS indicators have no baseline values.

The view was formed that further consultation with stakeholders would be helpful in
developing a strategy for the national statistical system. The needs of the MPRS need to be
fully addressed and the proposed workshop will be an important step in the consultative
process. The second Plan was issued as a consultative paper to all departments and also
placed on the Malawi NSO website for comment from a wider group of stakeholders. Many
comments were received from the private sector and civil society.

 The draft NSO Strategic Plan acknowledges that it does not attempt to address the wider
system of official government statistics. At present the Commissioner for Census and
Statistics has no legal responsibility for the wider statistical system. The current Strategic
Plan is therefore an organisational plan for the National Statistical Office only. One issue
the workshop should consider is reviving the Statistical Common Service, this would require
a change in the legislation, but evidence from stakeholders suggests that there may be
widespread support for this.




                                             19
(c)    Civil Service Functional Review of NSO:

The Civil Service Functional Review of NSO is mentioned in the proposed Plan. The
recommendations of this review have been incorporated into the Plan. The most important
recommendation was for the NSO to become semi-autonomous. The implications of this
may require further elaboration.

(d)    Contextualization of the Plan

 In taking forward a strategic plan for the national statistical system the national
development policy framework might guide the priorities and direction of the system. The
current overarching national development policy framework is the Malawi Poverty
Reduction Strategy (MPRS) which aims to achieve sustainable poverty reduction in the
country. The Strategic Plan should be anchored in the MPRS, making a very strong case for
mainstreaming information as one of the key cross-cutting issues.

(e)    Vision

The vision for the NSO is well stated. Further development of the plan to cover the National
Statistical System should include co-ordinating and setting standards for the National
Statistical System (NSS). This issue is expected to assume greater importance in the
monitoring of the MPRS given that information for such monitoring will come from a
variety of sources. These sources need to use appropriate methods in order to produce
reliable data. NSO will need to play a crucial role in this matter.

 The development of national statistics is a very important goal set out in the Plan. One issue
that the workshop will need to resolve is the relationship between the NSO and Management
Information Systems (MIS) in line Ministries, civil society and the private sector.

(f)    Targets for the Statistical System

The introduction of numerical targets to be achieved by the NSO should be considered in
further plan development. These targets will assist with preparing a budget for NSO
activities. Numerical targets will facilitate the monitoring of Plan performance and any
evaluation.




                                              20
(g)    Logical framework matrix

A logical framework (logframe) matrix to establish the links between objectives, expected
outputs, activities, performance indicators and assumptions made has now been added to the
plan.

(h)    Work programme and capacity building programme

Work and capacity building programmes should be the main pillars of a Strategic Plan for
any national statistical office in Africa. Further elaboration of the capacity building
requirements to achieve the plan objectives might be considered in developing the plan for
the statistical system. This will ensure that capacity building develops the existing
capabilities to achieve the plan objectives. It would be desirable to include a training plan
for the statistical system within the strategic plan. A training strategy for the NSO already
exists, but this might be extended to cover the entire system and incorporated in a plan for
capacity building.


(i)    Resource requirements and Costs

Any plan for the statistical system will require resources. It is recommended that the plan
consider a prioritised, sequenced, costed rolling programme. If individual activities were
to be costed, then it would help convince those who allocate resources to the NSO of the
full resources requirements of the statistical programme. Assumptions should also be
made explicit, this would make it easy to defend the budgets.

Experience from other African countries has shown that it is helpful to indicate which
activities are to be funded by donors and which are to be funded by Government. This
would facilitate the possibility of “basket funding” by donors.

(j)    Implementation of the Plan

Among the key stakeholders mentioned in the implementation of the Plan is the Judiciary
with regard to provision of legal assistance in the review and amendment of the Statistics
Act. The Judiciary would need to be consulted should it be decided to reinstate the
Common Statistical Service.

(k)    Research and Training Institutions

Collaboration between NSO and the Centre for Social Research at the University of
Malawi has been beneficial in carrying out thematic and policy-related analysis of the
data collected by the NSO. This relationship might be expanded and could be discussed
at the workshop.




                                             21
The extension of the current in-service training by NSO to include both sector and district
requirements for capacity building in survey design, data collection, data processing,
analysis and dissemination could be considered for inclusion in the Plan.

(l)       Statistical Governance

The establishment of a Board for the NSO should be considered. This might include
members of government and also those from academia and civil society. The Board is an
important component in ensuring statistical independence and maintains links between key
users and the producers of statistics.

2.5       Key Issues

Arising from the mission‟s interaction with officials from various institutions, review of
documents and review of the current Poverty Monitoring System and the proposed NSO
Strategic Plan (2002 - 2006) are the following issues:

         Information requirements for poverty monitoring
         Number, type and level of monitoring of indicators
         Institutional arrangements for implementation and monitoring of MPRS
         Sources of data and information (MIS, surveys and censuses, qualitative
          information)
         Accessibility and dissemination of data
         Enhanced NSO (Strategic Plan)
         National Statistical System (National Statistical Master Plan)
         Poverty Monitoring Master Plan
         Statistical Governance

It is important that consensus is built on these issues in the stakeholders‟ workshop.




2.6       Proposals for a Stakeholders’ Workshop

The need for a stakeholders‟ workshop was explored. Proposals have been made as to the
format and content of the proposed workshop.

(a)       Need for a workshop

Discussions with stakeholders have highlighted the need for a Stakeholders Workshop to
provide a forum for further discussion of the information requirements of the MPRS and its
key stakeholders. It is expected that during the workshop, participants will review the
current situation in Malawi and examine good practice regionally and internationally. The



                                             22
workshop will discuss the possible application and adaptation of international examples for
use in Malawi, drawing on the experiences of practitioners in neighbouring countries. The
workshop will also enhance the consultative process which has been the hallmark of the
MPRS.

(b)       Workshop objectives and expected outputs

Workshop Objective

The objective of the workshop will be to provide a forum for major stakeholders in the
MPRS to:

             *   review what data and poverty information exist and identify what
                      stakeholders are currently using and would possibly need
             *   examine good practice regionally and internationally
             *   outline an action plan for developing the current poverty monitoring
                      system in Malawi.

Expected Outputs

The expected outputs from the workshop will be consensus on:

                an outline framework for developing an effective monitoring and evaluation
                 system to underpin the MPRS, this kind of exercise is currently being
                 undertaken by Cabinet and any results could be discussed and elaborated on
                 in the workshop,
                institutional response,
                mainstreaming statistical information as one of the cross-cutting issues,
                the proposed Strategic Plan for the National Statistical Office,
                the need for the development of a National Statistical Master Plan,
                donor support,
                arrangements for the production of a Poverty Monitoring Master Plan,
                Trust Fund Support – UNDP and World Bank

(c)       Scope of the workshop

The workshop will focus on four issues, namely:

         the information demands placed on the National Statistical System (NSS) by the
          MPRS,
         the capacity of the NSS to meet these demands,
         proposals to improve the capacity of the NSS to allow for effective poverty
          monitoring and impact evaluation,
         a review of neighbouring countries‟ experiences in poverty monitoring.


                                             23
Altogether, fifteen (15) invited papers will be presented in four workshop sessions.

Summaries of the papers presented at the workshop will be given in the report of the
workshop proceedings. The full papers will be published in a separate workshop report.

(d)      Preparatory Activities

The success of the workshop will depend in a large part on successful completion of a range
of preparatory activities which are detailed in Annex V. Proposed workshop follow-up
activities are given in Annex VI.

(e)      Duration, dates and venue

In order to allow for discussion of a whole range of issues on MPRS and its monitoring,
the Workshop will last for three (3) days. Proposed dates for the workshop are 24 – 26
July, 2002. The workshop will be held away from Lilongwe. A possible venue is Sun n
Sand Hotel in Mangochi.

(f)      Participants

A total of about 75 participants are expected to attend the workshop. Participants will be
drawn from the following institutions:

       Key and relevant Government Ministries
         Ministry of Health
         Ministry of Agriculture
         Ministry of Education and Sports
         Ministry of Finance
       National Economic Council
       National Statistical Office
       Centre for Social Research, University of Malawi
       Bunda College of Agriculture, University of Malawi
       Centre for Education Research and Training, University of Malawi
       Reserve Bank of Malawi
       Decentralization Secretariat
       Department of Meteorology
       Donors and International organisations
       NGOs
       Private Sector (Chamber of Commerce and Industry)
       The Press.

(g)        Sponsorship




                                            24
It is proposed that the Workshop be jointly sponsored by:

         MPRS Secretariat,
         NSO,
         PARIS21, and
         UNDP Malawi.

(h)        Workshop Organisers

Agreement has been reached to form an Organising Committee as follows:
      Chairperson      Chairman, MPRS Technical Committee or designate (NEC)
      Secretariat      Commissioner for Census and Statistics or designate
      Members          Ministries
                                 Treasury
                                 Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation
                                 Ministry of Health
                                 Ministry of Education
                       NGOs (Christian Service Committee)
                       Donors and International organisations
                                 UNDP
                                 DFID
                                 World Bank
                                 European Commission




                                             25
3.     MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


3.1    Main Conclusions

Extensive consultations with a broad range of stakeholders in the development of the
Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy (MPRS) was crucial for transparency and ownership
of the strategy. The Strategy took into account the situational analysis and poverty
profile, past developmental efforts and performance, and lessons learnt. Arrangements for
the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the MPRS are given, including the
budget, indicators and targets and the review process. These arrangements provide for the
involvement of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and communities in the
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the strategy.

Monitoring indicators and targets need to be fine tuned with regard to baselines, costing,
numbers, frequency and level. Some indicators for the cross-cutting issues should be
added. A major challenge is to clarify how qualitative data will be combined and
integrated with quantitative data for policy making.

Ministry MISs will be a major source of information in different sectors. However, the
quality of data is often poor and results from a lack of resources, limited human capacity,
high staff turn-over, weak incentives and the absence of a discriminating demand for
information by policy-makers. The NSO has recently conducted a series of surveys and
censuses which are highly relevant to the data needs of the MPRS. There is a need to for
the development of a credible and sustainable National Statistical Master Plan covering
the next 5-10 years. This plan will underpin a Poverty Monitoring Master Plan whose
development is under discussion by Cabinet. The NSO needs to be strengthened in order
for it to effectively co-ordinate and provide technical leadership to the National Statistical
System. The proposed Strategic Plan which aims to strengthen the NSO needs to be
recast to reflect its new roles in the monitoring and evaluation of the MPRS.

There are some risks of duplication of function between the office of the Minister of State
responsible for Poverty Alleviation (MSPAP), the Ministry of Finance and NEC.
Institutional arrangements for poverty monitoring, therefore, need to be better defined.

There is a need for holding a stakeholders‟ workshop to provide a forum for further
discussion of the information requirements of the MPRS. The need was supported all
round. Advance planning is essential for the success of the workshop.




                                             26
3.2       Main Recommendations

The following recommendations are made, which could be considered in the workshop
where roles and responsibilities should be agreed for follow-up action:
(a)       Monitoring system

Poverty baselines

         Establish baseline values for those MPRS indicators currently lacking them.
         Include indicator-specific baseline dates in future MPRSs.
         Omit indicators for which data of minimum quality are lacking.
         Improve the quality of agricultural statistics as a high priority

Setting and costing poverty reduction targets

         Use participatory techniques to track changes in the propensity of the poor to
          report crimes to the police, so that changes in the crime detection rate do not
          mislead policy makers
         Replace at the earliest opportunity (possibly by use of the CWIQ) targets for the
          number of kilometres of rural roads graded and rehabilitated by the average time
          taken by rural households to reach the nearest school and health clinic.
         Include outcome targets defined in terms of educational attainment at primary and
          secondary level
         Include additional intermediate targets for health and education which are
          commonly used internationally
         Consider inclusion of the squared poverty gap as an additional consumption-
          poverty target
         Re-specify certain indicators in such a way as to focus more sharply on, and
          therefore provide an incentive to increase, the amount of sectoral resources spent
          at the point of service delivery
         Consolidate or omit those targets which add little value
         Resolve the inconsistencies surrounding the targets for infant and maternal
          mortality rates
         Evaluate the current methodology used to set and cost MPRS targets with
          alternative methodologies.
         Avoid spurious precision in target setting
         Reconsider the specification of annual point targets where the relevant indicator is
          subject to large year-on-year variations for reasons beyond the government‟s
          control.

Selection of Indicators

         Spatially disaggregated indicators together with selected indicators for cross-
          cutting issues (HIV/AIDS, gender, environment, science and technology) should
          be included in the MPRS. None of these additional indicators require targets.



                                              27
       Draw up an annual calendar of monitoring activities linked to the frequency of
        data collection and the public expenditure cycle (budget and MTEF).
       The study group to visit Tanzania should discuss the choice of district level
        indicators with their counterparts in MRALG-PO.
       Consideration should be given to how quantitative and qualitative data collected
        at the district and sub-district level will be used.

Monitoring Processes

Use the July workshop;
 As an opportunity to evaluate and compare the experiences of public expenditure
   tracking undertaken to date by government agencies and by civil society
 To discuss and agree mechanisms for the improvement of co-ordination in data
   collection, data verification and data use in the management information systems of
   the line Ministries.
 To discuss evaluating the quality of MIS data in the public sector, and where it
   sufficiently good to bear simple statistical analysis, undertake a pilot study in one line
   Ministry to demonstrate how such analysis can be used for evidence-based policy
   making.
 To explore possibilities of establishing a User-Producer Committee with membership
   coming from major stakeholders.
 To discuss producing a sequenced, costed, sustainable Strategic Plan for the NSO (or
   revise the current draft) and the entire national statistical system which can be used as
   an input into the Poverty Monitoring Master Plan
 To suggest that the MPRS Technical Working Committee commission a study on
   how to integrate quantitative and qualitative data for poverty monitoring, particularly
   at the local level.
 To explore possibilities of holding a media workshop periodically to empower media
   practitioners to better understand, interpret and use statistical information in their
   work.

Institutional Framework

   The design of the institutional framework for monitoring the MPRS should
    incorporate any further lessons learnt from the experience of monitoring the PAP, and
    also preserve and enhance the inclusive and participatory features of the process used
    in drafting the MPRS.
   It may not be necessary to maintain the 21 Thematic Working Groups. Poverty
    monitoring may best be served by having fewer groups, e.g. four or five.
   The monitoring role of the Ministry for Poverty Alleviation should be clarified to
    avoid duplication of functions with the Ministry of Finance and/or NEC
   Mechanisms should be strengthened for independent policy analysis by encouraging
    further collaboration between the NEC and external „think tanks‟ and research
    centres, such as the Centre for Social Research of the University of Malawi




                                             28
     Explore possibilities of creating a unified training programme for the entire statistical
      system as a strategy for development of statistical capacity within the strategic plan
      for statistics.


(b)      Stakeholders’ Workshop

     A Stakeholders‟ Workshop should be held in July to provide a forum for further
      discussion of information requirements of the MPRS
     Workshop should build consensus on the information demands placed on the National
      Statistical System (NSS) by the MPRS, the capacity of the NSS to meet these
      demands, proposals to improve the capacity of the NSS to allow for effective poverty
      monitoring and impact evaluation and a review of neighbouring countries‟
      experiences in poverty monitoring.
     To allow for discussion of a whole range of issues, the workshop should run for three
      days.
     There should be wide stakeholder participation in the workshop.
     Identified preparatory activities need to be undertaken to ensure the success of the
      workshop.
     The Workshop Organising Committee should be constituted as a matter of urgency to
      begin working on workshop preparatory activities.




                                               29
Annex I: Institutions Visited and Officials Met


NSO
1.     Mr. Charles Machinjili    -    Commissioner of Census and Statistics
2.     Ms. Mercy Kanyuka         -    Deputy Commissioner of Census and
                                      Statistics
3.     Mr. Jameson Ndawala       -    Asst. Commissioner (Demography)
4.     Ms. Elizabeth Chikoti     -    Acting Asst. Commissioner (Economic)
5.     Mr. Hunphrey Moyo         -    Principal Statistician (Agriculture)
6.     Mr. Elliot Phiri          -    Principal Statistician (Industry)

CERT

7.     Mr. Chris Dzimdzi         -    Research Fellow

CSR

8.     Dr. W.R. Chilowa          -    Director
9.     Mr. Maxton G. Tsoka       -    Research Fellow (Public Policy)

Malawi Confederation of Chambers of Commerce & Industry

10.    Mr. Bell Baxton Mawindo   -    Chief Executive
11.    Dr. Exley B.D. Silumbu    -    Chief Economist
12.    Ms. Flossie T. Manyunya   -    Senior Trade Promotion Officer

Malawi Broadcasting Coporation

13.    Mr. Joshua Kambwiri       -    Controller of Programmes (Radio 1)

Treasury

14.    Mr. Ted Sitima-wina       -    Deputy Chief Economist

MPRSP Secretariat

15.    Mr. George Zimalirana     -    Head, MPRS Secretariat, NEC

Malawi Investment Promotion Agency (MIPA)

16.    Mr. Nerbert Nyirenda      -    Director
17.    Mr. Felix Kadewere        -    Manager, Planning & Research




                                     30
World Bank

18.    Mr. Taziona Chaponda       -       Country Office Economist

Ministry of Health

19.    Mr C.M. Moyo               -       Deputy Director (HIMS)
20.    Mr. C.J. Kamanga           -       Principal Statistician
21.    Mr. F. Khunga                      -      Assistant Statistician

Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

22.    Mr. Z. D. Chikhosi         -       Controller of Planning Services
23.    Mr. Ben Mkomba             -       Head, Food Security Section

EU

24.    Mr. Theo Kaspers           -       Economic Advisor
26.    Mr. Peter Rundell          -       EC Cooperation & PRSP Process

UNDP

27.    Ms. Zahra M. Nura          -       Resident Representative
28.    Mr. Peter Kulemeka         -       Ass. Resident .Representative (Poverty Unit)
29.    Mr. Augustine Bobe         -        “     “             “      (Strategic Unit)
30.    Mr. Karsten Skovgcard      -       Ass. To the Resident Coordinator
31.    Ms. Mari Tertsumen         -       Programme Analyst

UNICEF

32.    Mr. Runar Soerensen        -       Programme Coordinator
33.    Mr. Gopal Sharma           -       Head, Social Policy, Advocacy and
                                                 Communication
USAID

34.   Mr. Sirys Chinangwa         -       Programme Economist
35.   Mr. Kalinde Chindebvu       -       M.& E Specialist (PDA)

Ministry of Education

36.    Mr. Clive T. Mchikoma      -       Senior Assistant Statistician (EMIS)

Royal Norwegian Embassy

37.   Ms. Britt Hilde Kjoelaas    -       First Secretary
38.   Ms. Tori Hoven              -       Policy Advisor
Decentralisation Secretariat



                                         31
39.   Mr. Richard Nyirongo   -    Training Manager

NGO – Action Aid

40.   Mr. Edson Musopole     -    Policy Coordinator




                                 32
Annex II: List of Documents Accessed


1.   Government of Malawi, Vision 2020: The National Long-Term Development
     Perspective for Malawi, 1998


2.   Government of Malawi, Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, Final Draft, April
     2002


3.   Jenkins, R. and M. Tsoka, Institutionalising the PRSP Approach in Malawi, Chapter 5
     of the “PRSP Institutionalisation Study. Final Report” submitted to Strategic Partnership
     with Africa (2001)


3.   LDGMP, Village Action Plan (VAP) Manual, 1999


4.   Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Crop Estimates Sample Survey Methodology
     (Draft 2002)


5.   Ministry of Education, Science and Technology
               Education Basic Statistics, 1999
               Annual Primary School Census questionnaire, 2001


6.   Ministry of Health


               Community Health Diary
               Health Management Information System: Training and Reference Manual,
                June 2001


7.   National Statistical Office, Strategic Plan 2002-2006, Zomba, 2002


8.   Nsanje District Development Office, Nsanje District Profile, 1999




                                            33
Annex III: Draft Workshop Programme

                                    DAY 1

8.45    Arrival of Participants
9.00    Registration

Session 1: Opening Ceremony
        Chairperson    Dr. Zaki Chalira, Director General, NEC
9.30    Remarks        Remarks by Chairperson
                       Remarks by Mr. Charles Machinjili, Commissioner of Census
                       and Statistics
                       Remarks by Antoine Simonpietri, PARIS21 Secretariat
                       Remarks by Ms. Zahra M. Nuru, UNDP Resident
                       Representative
        Official       Hon. Friday Jumbe, Minister of Finance and Economic
        Opening        Planning
10.30   Break

Session 2: Issues of Poverty Monitoring in the MPRS
        Chairperson   Mr. Muhango, Christian Service Committee
11.00   Speaker 1     MPRS – Where are we now?
                      Dr. George Zimalirana
11.20   Presenter 1 Monitoring & Evaluation – A Theoretical Framework
                      World Bank Institute
11.50   Presenter 2 A Practical Guide to Developing Good Indicators
                      Ms. Margaret Kakande – Uganda
12.15   Discussions and Action Points
12.30   Lunch

Session 3: Poverty Monitoring – Strategies and Outcomes
        Chairperson    Dr. Maxwel Nkwezalamba – Principal Secretary, Economic
                       Affairs, Treasury
14.00   Speaker 2      Government of Malawi general response to PARIS21 mission
                       report – Issues.
                       (later sessions will focus on individual issues)
                       Mr. Cliff Chiunda – NEC
14.20   Presenter 3    Developing a PRSP – What are the Information Needs?
                       Mr. Steve Mwale – NEC
14.40   Speaker 3      The Millennium Development Goals & Country Monitoring
                       UNDP
15.00   Tea Break




                                         34
Session 4: Poverty Information – What is Needed?
15.30    4 Facilitated Parallel Sessions A
         Session A1 – Room 1        Expenditure Tracking
         Session A2 – Room 2        Monitoring Well-being (outcome & impact
         Session A3 – Room 3        indicators)
         Session A4 – Room 4        Programme monitoring (input & output indicators)
                                    Information sharing & dissemination
Session A1 Expenditure Tracking
15.30    Presenter 4                Tracking Expenditure – Government Approach
                                    Mr. Ted T. Sitima-Wina – Treasury
15.50    Presenter 5                Tracking Expenditure – NGO Approach
                                    Mr. Edson Musopole, Action AID
16.10    Developing the Tracking    Discussion Chairman:
         needs of Malawi            Facilitator:
17:00    Close of Day
Session A2 Monitoring Well-being
15.30    Presenter 6                Value of Integrated Surveys
                                    Ms. Mercy Kanyuka – Deputy Commissioner, NSO
15.50    Presenter 7                Value of Qualitative Information for Poverty
                                    Monitoring
                                    Mr. Maxton Tsoka – CSR
16.10    Developing the Poverty     Discussion Chairman: Dr. Charles Mataya – Bunda
         Monitoring needs of        College
         Malawi                     Facilitator:
17:00    Close of Day
Session A3 Poverty Programmes
15.30    Presenter 8                Using Management Information Systems in Health
                                    Mr. C. Moyo – Ministry of Health
15.45    Presenter 9                Malawi Education Management Information
                                    System
                                    Dr. Kutemba-Mwale – Ministry of Education
16:00    Presenter 10               Role of Agricultural Information
                                    Mr. Ben Nkomba - Ministry of Agriculture &
                                    Irrigation
16.10    Developing the Poverty     Discussion Chairman:
         Monitoring needs of        Facilitator:
         Malawi
17:00    Close of Day
Session A4 Information Sharing
15.30    Presenter 11             Poverty Mapping – Using GIS Functionality
                                  NSO
15.50    Presenter 12             Database for Poverty Monitoring
                                  Mr. C. Mkai- Tanzania
16.10    Developing the Poverty   Discussion Chairman:
         Monitoring needs of      Facilitator:
         Malawi
17:00    Close of Day




                                           35
                                     DAY 2
         Groups Report Back
         Chairperson              Mr. Charles Machinjili – Commissioner, NSO

Session 5: Sharing Regional Experience – Methods

9.00     Presenter 13              Tracking HIV programmes
                                  Prof F. Omaswa – Uganda
9.20     Presenter 14             Community Statistics
                                  Tanzania
9.50     Presenter 15             District Statistics & CWIQ survey
                                  Ghana
10.10    Presenter 16             Involving Civil Society
                                  ActionAid – Kenya
10.30    Tea Break

Session 6: Parallel Sessions
11.00    Parallel Discussions – What do we have what more do we need, Indicators,
         Data Sources, Capacities?
         Session A1               Expenditure Tracking
         Session A2               Monitoring Well-being (outcomes & impacts)
         Session A3               Programme monitoring (inputs & outputs)
         Session A4               Information sharing & dissemination
12.00    Groups Report Back to
         Plenary
12.30    Lunch Break
Session 7: Strategies for Development the Monitoring System
         Chairperson                Mr. Antoine Simonpietri, Manager PARIS21
14.00    Presenter 16               Poverty Monitoring Plans – Findings of Study Tour
14.20    Presenter 17               Support for Poverty Analysis – Using Study Funds
                                    Dr. Buleti Nsemukila – Zambia
14.40    Presenter 18               National Statistical Master Plan – Main
                                    Considerations
                                    Prof. Ben Kiregyera – PARIS21 Consultant
15.00    Discussion and Action Points
15.15    Tea Break
         Parallel Sessions – B Strategies for Malawi
         Group B1                 Poverty Monitoring Plan
         Group B2                 Plan for the Statistical System
         Group B3                 Analysis and Dissemination Plan
         Group B4                 Institutional Arrangements
17.00




                                           36
                                   DAY 3
         Chairperson           Dr. George Zimalirana – NEC
9.00     Groups Report Back

Session 8: Strategies for Action

9.30     Presenter 19          NSO Strategic Plan (2002-2005)
                               Mr. Charles Machinjili – NSO
10.00    Presenter 20          Poverty Monitoring Master Plan – Putting it
                               Together
                               Dr. Chris Scott – London School of Economics &
                               Political Science *
10.30    Tea Break
11.00    Parallel Groups – Agreeing the Strategies
         Group B1               Poverty Monitoring Plan
         Group B2               Plan for the Statistical System
         Group B3               Analysis and Dissemination Plan
         Group B4               Institutional Arrangements
12.30    Lunch Break
         Chairperson           Dr. Maxwel Nkwezalamba – Principal Secretary,
                               Economic Affairs, Treasury
14.00    Reporting Back and Discussion – Agreeing Next Steps
          - Institutional Arrangements
          - Monitoring Indicators
          - Management Information Systems
          - Surveys and Censuses
          - Qualitative Assessments
          - Analysis & Dissemination Strategy
          - National Statistical Master Plan
          - Poverty Monitoring Master Plan
15.30    Coffee Break
16.00    Closing Remarks
         Mr. Chilambe, Secretary to the Treasury
16.15    Close




                                         37
Annex IV: Guidelines for Paper Preparation and Presentation


Focus and length of papers

Papers will be expected to present the topic in a concise manner and focus on the main issues.
No details will be needed, unless serving as relevant illustration. Suggested length: maximum
5000 words (10 pages in single spacing).

Time available for presentation

Each presenter will be given a maximum of 20 minutes to make their presentation. Session
Chairpersons will apply this rule strictly. Use of visual aids for the presentation (e.g. power point
and overhead projector) is strongly recommended.

Discussions

Time has been allocated for discussions when all papers covering a particular theme have been
presented. Discussants will be expected to be brief and to the point.

Deadlines

It will be very much appreciated if ALL the papers are received in soft copy by the National
Statistical Office (NSO) by 10 July. This will facilitate their reproduction and distribution in
advance of the workshop.

Contact Person

The Contact Person at the NSO on all matters to do with the workshop is:

1.      Ms. Mercy Kanyuka
        Deputy Commissioner of Census and Statistics
        Telephone: (265) 525363 or (265) 960602 or (265) 524377

2.      Mr. Elliot Phiri
        Principal Statistician
        Telephone: (265) 524377 or (265) 854737




                                                 38
Annex V: Preparatory Activities for the Workshop


    1.     A document should be drafted which brings together all the
           comments/criticisms/suggestions made by different stakeholders on the M & E
           section of the MPRS. The document might suggest possible arrangements for
           producing a Poverty Monitoring Master Plan. These arrangements might
           include rationalising the Thematic Working Groups into a smaller number of
           working groups, each of which would draft a different section of the PMMP
           under guidance of the MPRS Technical Committee. This document should be
           circulated in advance of the workshop.
    2.     Identification of who to attend the workshop
    2.     Identification of papers
    3.     Preparation of Papers and follow-up of authors
                Identification of authors
                Follow-up of authors
    4. Identification of chairpersons and discussants
    5. Identification of Rapporteurs
    6. Identification and Engagement of facilitators
    7. Venue of workshop arrangement
    8. Costing for the workshop
    9. Invitation to participants
    10. Opening Ceremony arrangement
    11. Setting up secretariat for the workshop
    12. Organisation of Coffee Break/Lunch break
    13. Getting stationery and other supplies
    14. Hiring equipment for presentation
    15. Hiring equipment for Secretariat (photocopy)
    16. Provision of computers/printer
    17. Getting the venue ready
    18. Registration of participants arrangement
    19. Logistic support (vehicles)
    20. Design workshop programme




                                          39
Annex VI: Anticipated Activities After the Workshop


  1.   A detailed data needs assessment which takes stock of main data producers
       and users (their capacities), current and future data needs, adequacy of
       existing data and their accessibility, arrangements for data collection and
       management (co-ordination, methodologies, databases, dissemination
       programmes, access, etc),
  2.   Establishment of the producer/producer and user/producers committees with
       timetable of meetings and Terms of Reference (TOR) for all the committees
       so established.
  3.   Conducting technical group discussion for various groups on (methodologies,
       training, data needs and prioritisation, subject – matter groups, data analysis
       groups).
  4.   National Statistical Master Plan
  5.   Finalising the Proceedings of the workshop
  6.   Training of users in data handling and enhancing their analytical capacity
  7.   Training of Producers in data analysis
  8.   Media workshops
  9.   Developing co-ordination and standardisation guidelines.




                                       40

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:11
posted:10/28/2011
language:English
pages:48
xiaohuicaicai xiaohuicaicai
About