Status and Evolution ofEnvironmental Prioritiesin the PovertyReduction Strategies

E N V I R O N M E N T A L E C O N O M I C S S E R I E S

Status and Evolution ofEnvironmental Prioritiesin the PovertyReduction Strategies

An Assessment of Fifty PovertyReduction Strategy Papers

Jan BojöRama Chandra Reddy

PAPER NO. 93

November 2003

37009

Papers in this series are not formal publications of the World Bank. They are circulated to encourage thought and discussion. The useand citation of this paper should take this into account. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed tothe World Bank. Copies are available from the Environment Department of the World Bank by calling 202-473-3641.

Status and Evolution ofEnvironmental Priorities inthe Poverty ReductionStrategies

An Assessment of Fifty PovertyReduction Strategy Papers

Jan BojöRama Chandra Reddy

THE WORLD BANK ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT

November 2003

The International Bank for Reconstructionand Development/THE WORLD BANK1818 H Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A.

Manufactured in the United States of AmericaFirst printing November 2003

iiiEnvironmental Economics Series

Contents

ABSTRACT v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vii

ABBREVIATIONS ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

Chapter 1Introduction 3

Building on Previous Reviews 3Purpose and Organization of the Report 4

Chapter 2The PRSP Sample 7

Interim PRSPs and Full PRSPs 7Joint Staff Assessments 7PRSP Progress Reports 7

Chapter 3Method of Assessment 9

Components of Mainstreaming Considered 9Joint Staff Assessments 12Scoring 12

Chapter 4Results 13

Average Country Scores 13Disaggregated View of Environment Scores 14Evolution of Environmental Priorities from Interim to Full PRSPs 15The Implementation of Environmental Priorities 16JSA Comments on Environmental Mainstreaming in PRSPs 17

iv Environment Department Papers

Status and Evolution of Environmental Priorities in the Poverty Reduction Strategies

Chapter 5Good Practice in Environmental Mainstreaming 19

Issues 19Poverty-Environment Links 20Response Systems 23Process 25

Chapter 6Scope for Improvement 27

Dissemination of Implementation Lessons 27Long-Term Perspective and MDG Horizon 27A Holistic Perspective on Environmental Health 27

Appendix AInterim PRSPs and Full PRSPs 29

Appendix BScoring Format of the PRSP Assessment 31

NOTES 33

REFERENCES 35

BOXES

1 Environment Targets and Indicators 25

TABLES

1 Regional distribution of PRSPs 72 Countries in the PRSP preparation process during 2002–03 83 PRSP implementation progress reports 84 Average country environmental mainstreaming scores 135 Evolution of country environment scores from Interim PRSP to Full PRSP 166 Implementation progress on the PRSP proposals 17

vEnvironmental Economics Series

Abstract

More than 50 countries are in various stages ofpreparation and implementation of PovertyReduction Strategies. This report examines theextent to which countries have integratedenvironmental considerations into suchstrategies.

The assessment is based on the 50 PRSPs and 7PRSP Progress Reports available as of October2003, and their Joint Staff Assessments. Of the50 PRSPs, 20 are in an interim stage, while therest are full. This report uses a simple scoringscale applied to 17 variables related to

environment. An unweighted average for eachcountry is reported.

The results show (a) considerable variationacross countries, (b) an average level ofmainstreaming that is still low, and (c) a strongtendency for full PRSPs to better integrateenvironmental factors than interim PRSPs.

This report contains several examples of goodpractice in mainstreaming, and identifies areasof potential improvement.

viiEnvironmental Economics Series

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the NorwegianGovernment for financial contributions to thiswork through the Trust Fund forEnvironmentally and Socially SustainableDevelopment.

The authors wish to acknowledge constructivecomments from our peer reviewers, includingLead Environmental Specialist Aziz Bouzaherand Lead Sustainable Development EconomistRobert Schneider. Sunanda Kishore alsocontributed to the paper.

This report is the second in an ongoing reviewof environmental considerations in PRSPs. Alarge number of colleagues and participants at

seminars inside and outside the World Bankhave commented on the previous edition ofthis review (Bojö and Reddy 2002) Many ofthose comments have been integrated into thisreport.

We thank Robert Livernash for his editorialsupport and Jim Cantrell for editorialassistance and managing production of thereport.

The authors are solely responsible for the viewsexpressed here, which do not necessarilyrepresent the opinion of the World Bank, itsexecutive directors, or the countries theyrepresent.

ixEnvironmental Economics Series

Abbreviations

AET Actual evapotranspiration

CAS Country Assistance Strategy

DFID Department for International Development, United Kingdom

EC European Commission

HIPC Heavily indebted poor countries

IDA International Development Association

IMF International Monetary Fund

IPR Implementation Progress Report

IPRSP Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

JSA Joint staff assessment

MDG Millennium Development Goals

PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

WDI World Development Indicators

1Environmental Economics Series

Executive Summary

Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs),which are written by the Bank’s client countrygovernments, are comprehensive, results-oriented frameworks for reducing poverty.

This paper (a) assesses the degree to whichintegration (mainstreaming) of environmentalfactors occurs in PRSPs, Joint Staff Assessments(JSAs), and PRSP Progress Reports (PRSP-PRs);and (b) provides selected examples of goodpractice.

This assessment builds on a previouslypublished review (Bojö and Reddy 2002), butgoes beyond that report in several ways. First,it expands the sample to cover 50 PRSPs, ofwhich 30 are now full PRSPs. Second, it includesreviews of the Joint Staff Assessments of theWorld Bank and IMF. Third, the seven availableImplementation Progress Reports are alsoincluded.

We have assigned ratings across 17 variablesunder four major areas of environmentalmainstreaming: (1) diagnosis of environmentalissues; (2) analysis of poverty-environmentlinks; (3) environmentally relevant actions; and(4) the extent to which participation andconsultation processes have allowedenvironmental concerns to be heard. The PRSPsare assessed on each of the 17 criteria, using aninteger scoring range of 0 (no mention), 1(mention, but no elaboration), 2 (elaboration), to

3 (good practice). The country scores areunweighted averages.

The main findings are:

• High variance. There is considerablevariation in environmental mainstreaming.It ranges from marginal attention (0.3) toconsistent mainstreaming across sectors(2.4).

• Low but improving average. The average scoreacross the sample is only 1.3 on the 0–3scale. It is not reasonable to expect allcountries to score a “3” across the board, aspriorities differ across countries. Theaverage is an improvement over the 2002assessment, which averaged 0.9.

• Full PRSPs are better mainstreamed. Incomparison to interim PRSPs, there is atendency for full PRSPs to better integrateenvironmental factors. As the samplematures, we expect mainstreaming tofurther improve.

• High-scoring countries. Countries in the high-scoring cluster are Zambia, Ghana,Cambodia, Mozambique, Azerbaijan, SriLanka, Yemen, Honduras, Nicaragua, andBolivia. Examples of good practice aregiven from these and other PRSPs.

Environment Department Papers2


• Environmental priorities. As expected,environmental priorities differ acrosscountries. PRSPs devote relatively moreattention to issues such as water supply,sanitation, vulnerability to natural hazards,land tenure, and institutional capacity. Theydevote relatively less attention to indoor airpollution, biodiversity, gender andenvironmental relationships, urbanenvironment, and the impacts ofmacroeconomic policies on theenvironment.

The conditions for effetive monitoring are often weak.Few PRSPs present quantified, time-bound,costed, realistic targets and indicators relating toenvironment. Environmental health indicatorsgenerally get more attention than naturalresources management indicators.

• Long-term perspective. A few PRSPs explicitlyintroduce a long-term perspective and makereference to MDGs for 2015, but most donot. PRSPs that present long-term targetscorresponding to the MDG 2015 horizonoften present unrealistic plans withoutadequate budget support and institutionalcapacity for implementation.

The JSAs are quite varied. Attention toenvironmental issues in the Joint StaffAssessments is inconsistent. To the extent that

such issues are dealt with, the discussion isoften focused on water and sanitation.Inadequate feedback on the treatment ofenvironmental issues is associated with PRSPsgiving limited attention to the environment. Onthe other hand, PRSPs with much attentiongiven to environment sometimes have JSAsurging further improvements.

• PRSP Implementation Progress Reports.Implementation progress reports aregenerally not satisfactory in theirdiscussions of the environmental proposalsoutlined in the PRSPs. Future annualprogress reports provide goodopportunities to address these gaps.

This report includes many examples of goodpractice across the 17 assessed variables.

Among the areas identified as needingimprovement, probably the most important oneis environmental health. PRSPs generally donot take a holistic view of the burden of diseasein a country; in addition, indoor and outdoor airpollution are generally given no or very cursoryattention. The severity of these issues variesacross countries, but this is often a genuineshortcoming rather than the result of a rationalpriority-setting process.


Introduction

A Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP)provides a framework for domestic policies andprograms, as well as for foreign assistance, withthe overall aim of reducing poverty. Written bythe countries, PRSPs are comprehensive andresults-oriented documents.1

If PRSPs are country-owned, what justifies theirassessment by World Bank staff? We undertakethis assessment with a clear recognition of thecountry authorship of PRSPs. This perspectiveis captured in the following statement of theIDA 13 Deputies: “Early experience shows thatcountries’ strategies have often given insufficientweight to issues that are important for sustainabledevelopment, such as the role of women,environmental management, fiduciary controls, andanalysis of the social impacts of policy reforms.While recognizing that the PRSP is a country-owneddocument, Deputies reaffirmed that IDA shouldcontinue to advocate good policies.” 2 (IDA 2002, p.11).

Why should poor countries be concerned withenvironmental issues? Isn’t it possible to havegrowth first and clean up later? It is generallyagreed that poverty reduction andenvironmental management are closely linked—primarily through livelihoods based on naturalresources, environmental factors impactinghealth, and vulnerability to natural hazards.3 Ifwe define “environment” in this way,4 itbecomes clear that the environment is not a

“luxury” that concerns only a rich elite inindustrialized countries. It is an integral part ofthe well-being of poor people, and “theenvironment cannot wait.”5 In short, economicgrowth matters a great deal, but so does thequality of that growth. The World Bank’sEnvironment Strategy (World Bank 2001a)specifically states that “..integratingenvironmental considerations into the new PovertyReduction Strategy Papers is an urgent task.”

Building on Previous Reviews

An earlier assessment of environmental issuesin the PRSPs of 40 countries was published asWorld Bank Environment Department Paper 86in June 2002. During 2002–03, several interimPRSPs were revised into full PRSPs; in manycases, implementation is under way. This reportbuilds on the assessment reported in theprevious Environment Department Paper andfocuses on the progress made during the year,including:

First, all countries that progressed from interimPRSP to full PRSP stages and countries thatjoined the PRSP process by preparing interimPRSPs during 2002–03 were considered in thisreport.

Second, the Joint Staff Assessments (JSAs) ofPRSPs provide feedback from the staffs of theWorld Bank and the IMF to a country on its

1



PRSP (World Bank 2000). World Bank staffguidelines recommend that JSAs comment oncross-sectoral issues such as environment andon the scope of PRSP proposals in addressingenvironmental sustainability. The guidelinesrecommend that these assessments should focus“on the extent of income/consumption and otherdimensions of poverty (health includingenvironmental diseases, natural resourcedegradation, vulnerability, disempowerment) andtheir evolution over time.” This report includes areview of JSAs.

Third, the annual PRSP Progress Reports (PRSP-PR) provide insights into the extent to whichenvironmental priorities are reflected in theimplementation process (World Bank and IMF2002a, 2002b).

Fourth, feedback from the relevant World Bankcountry teams is considered in this assessment.While undertaking the assessment of a countryPRSP, each World Bank country director wasprovided with a preliminary assessment with arequest for specific comments.

Because of resource constraints, this reportfocuses only on the text of the PRSPs, JSAs, andprogress reports.6 It would be useful (but notpossible) to undertake an in-depth countrystudy for each of the 50 cases we have reviewed.This assessment thus should be seen as anoverview that supplements country-levelanalyses.

We have tried to develop a transparentframework to maximize consistency in theassessment across countries. However,subjectivity cannot be eliminated. Our aim isnot scientific precision—only for transparentand consistent reporting on the approximate

levels and trends of environmentalmainstreaming in PRSPs.

Does it matter what is written in the PRSPdocument? It is certainly possible that a well-articulated strategy may not be implementedwell. However, PRSPs are public documentsthat are widely available and often translatedinto local languages. Annual progress reportsand built-in systems for monitoring andevaluation—including targets and indicators,timetables, and explicit costs—force anincreasing level of transparency. Underpinningthis is the enhanced participation encouraged inthe development of PRSPs, which will graduallybuild greater accountability for results. As thePRSP process matures, we will increasingly beable to compare the text of the PRSP with theimplementation record.

Purpose and Organization of the Report

The objectives of this paper are to (a) assess thestatus and evolution of mainstreaming ofenvironmental issues in PRSPs, Joint StaffAssessments (JSAs), and PRSP Progress Reports(PRSP-PRs); and (b) provide examples of goodpractice.

What we mean by “mainstreaming” of theenvironment is summarized here and discussedin detail in the methods chapter. It is not theexistence of a stand-alone section or chapter inthe PRSP, nor is it the frequent reference to the“environment” in the PRSP. The term“mainstreaming” is used to denote the (a)description of environmental issues andopportunities; (b) analysis of links betweenpoverty and environment; (c) design ofresponses to meet the identified challenges; and(d) inclusion of the environmental constituency


Introduction

in the processes leading to the design andimplementation of the PRSP.7

This report is organized into six chapters.Chapter 2 describes the PRSP sample. Chapter 3

presents the methods used in the environmentalreview of PRSPs. Chapter 4 presents the resultsof the assessment. Chapter 5 highlightsexamples of good practice. Chapter 6 presentsconcluding remarks.


The PRSP Sample

This report is based on an assessment of 50Interim and full PRSPs, their Joint StaffAssessments, and 7 Implementation ProgressReports. The list of countries included in thisassessment and their stage in the PRSP arepresented in Appendix A.

Interim PRSPs and Full PRSPs

Of the 50 PRSPs considered for this assessment,30 are full PRSPs and 20 are interim PRSPs. Inthe previous assessment in 2001–02, 40 PRSPswere reviewed, including 8 full PRSPs and 32interim PRSPs. The regional breakdown inTable 1 illustrates the dominance of the Africaregion.

Table 2 categorizes countries according to theirstage in the PRSP process.

Joint Staff Assessments

Joint Staff Assessments are prepared by thestaffs of the World Bank and IMF. They provide

feedback on the core elements of a PRSP, suchas poverty diagnosis, priority public actions,participatory process, targets, indicators, andmonitoring systems. The JSAs provide animportant opportunity for the Bank and the IMFto advise countries on their poverty reductionagendas. All PRSPs reviewed here also have anassociated JSA.

PRSP Progress Reports

Annual reports on the implementation of PRSPshighlight efforts to convert identified prioritiesinto actions.8 Of the 30 countries that are in thefull PRSP stage, only seven have submittedimplementation progress reports. Table 3presents the list of countries and theirimplementation progress reports. The WorldBank and IMF guidelines on implementationprogress reports recommend consistencybetween national decisionmaking and reportingprocesses and their integration into annualbudget and national development reports(World Bank and IMF 2002a).

Table 1. Regional distribution of PRSPsRegion Interim PRSPs Full PRSPs Total PRSPs

Sub-Saharan Africa 11 17 28 Eastern Europe & Central Asia 5 4 9 East Asia 1 3 4 South Asia 2 1 3 Latin America & Caribbean 4 4 Middle East & North Africa 1 1 2 Total 20 30 50

2



This report seeks to assess environmental issuesin PRSPs and the progress reports submittedduring 2002–03. For purposes of comparison,the 8 full PRSPs and 10 interim PRSPs that were

not revised into full PRSPs and covered in theprevious report (Environment DepartmentPaper 86) have also been retained as part of thesample.

Table 2. Countries in the PRSP preparation process during 2002�03

Region Interim PRSPs Full PRSPs

Africa

Cote D’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti

Cameroon, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Malawi, Mali, Níger, Rwanda, Senegal, Zambia

East Asia and Pacific

Cambodia, Vietnam, Mongolia

Eastern Europe & Central Asia

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Maldova, Serbia and Montenegro

Albania, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan

Middle East

Yemen

Latin America & Caribbean

Guyana

South Asia Bangladesh, Pakistan Sri Lanka

Table 3. PRSP implementation progress reports

Region Country and year

Africa Burkina Faso 2000 -01, Burkina Faso 2001 -02, Mauritania 2001 -02, Mozambique 2001-02, Tanzania 2000 -01, Tanzania 2001 -02, Uganda 2000-01, Uganda 2001-02

Eastern Europe & Central Asia Albania 2002-03

Latin America & Caribbean Nicaragua 2001-02


Method of Assessment

The assessment framework used in this report isbuilt on the previous work on mainstreamingthe environment in PRSPs (Bojö and Reddy2002); aligning the environmental priorities ofpoverty reduction strategies with the Millen-nium Development Goal on EnvironmentalSustainability (Bojö and Reddy 2003);mainstreaming the environment in the CountryAssistance Strategies (Ekbom and Bojö 1997;Shyamsundar and Hamilton 2000); and on theGuidelines for the Joint Staff Assessment ofPRSPs (World Bank 2000).

We define the term mainstreaming to include(a) a description of environmental issues; (b) ananalysis of links between poverty andenvironment; (c) policy and program responsesto meet those challenges; and (d) the processunderpinning the strategy. Each of thesecomponents is further broken down intospecific items under 17 variables. A briefdescription of these variables is providedbelow.

Components of Mainstreaming Considered

The format for assessing environmentalpriorities in interim and full PRSPs is groupedinto four major categories:

• Issues — A description of specific concernsand opportunities relating to theenvironment

• Causal links — An analysis of multiplepoverty-environment linkages

• Responses — An outline of proposalsrelating to environmental management,investments in natural and human-madecapital, monitoring, and evaluation

• Process — Approaches used to promote theinclusion of environmental constituenciesandthe environmental agenda.

Issues

Priority environmental issues in developingcountries vary significantly based on theirresource base, problems, and opportunities. Notall countries are expected to give the same levelof attention to all issues. There are four themes:

• Land use. Issues relating to soil and sub-soilresources, including mining, erosion,desertification, waterlogging, salinization,nutrient depletion, and overgrazing; andaboveground resources, includingdeforestation and the degradation of forestsand woodlands

• Water. Issues relating to the quantity andquality of water supply for humanconsumption, irrigation and other uses;water pollution; coastal zone and marineaspects; climate variance; and droughts andfloods

• Air and climate. Issues relating to indoor andoutdoor pollution–including lead,particulate matter, sulfur, nitrogen oxides

3



and emissions of greenhouse gases–fromdomestic energy use, industrial processes,and transport systems.

• Biodiversity. Issues relating to thedegradation of ecosystems, threats tospecies or genetic resources, andopportunities for sustainable use.

Causal links

Diagnosing a country’s environmental issuesprovides the foundation for a causal analysis. Insuch an analysis, two important questions needto be answered. First, is poverty contributing toenvironmental degradation? Second, is environ-mental degradation hurting the poor? In thiscontext, we look at seven key linkages to assessthe performance of PRSPs:

• Natural resource degradation and poverty.Most poverty is still rural, and most ruralpeople are directly dependent on the use ofnatural resources to secure a livelihood.The linkage between poverty and thequality of soils, vegetation, and waterresources is critical.

• Environmental health. Up to one-fifth of thetotal burden of disease in the developingworld, and close to a third in Sub-SaharanAfrica, may be associated withenvironmental risk factors (Lvovsky 2001).PRSP analysis of how indoor and outdoorpollution, provision of water supply andsanitation, and the housing environmentare linked to health outcomes and theburden of disease can be valuable inpreparing cost-effective interventions.

• Vulnerability. Globally, natural hazardsclaim about 100,000 lives per year, most ofthem in developing countries (DFID andothers 2002). Analysis of how climatevariability and natural disasters such asdroughts, floods, earthquakes, and

hurricanes impact the poor is valuable forimplementing mitigation and adaptationstrategies.

• Property rights. An analysis of how naturalresources are “owned” and how tenureregimes impact their utilization can be ofsignificant value. Unequal land ownershipand insecure tenure can force the poor tocultivate marginal environments, and maydeter long-term investments.

• Incentives. Policies relating to pricing,subsidies, taxes, restrictive trade practices,and the exchange rate can significantlyinfluence the use of natural resources andthe emission of pollutants into theenvironment. Gasoline and diesel fuel salesbenefited from about $18 billion insubsidies in 1999, and irrigation from $10–$15 billion (IMF, UNEP, and World Bank2002).

• Empowerment. In this context,empowerment largely concerns the degreeto which the poor control thedecisionmaking of a country’s resourcesand environment. While this point is closelyrelated to property rights, it is moreconcerned with the level of participationand rules of collective decisionmakingabout the environment than about legaltitle.

• Gender and environment. This link drawsattention to gender-related policies such asthe extent to which women have a voice inthe management of communal resources,and whether they have the right to securetenure. Women and girls are particularlyburdened by the degradation of theenvironment; for example, shortages offuelwood and water often mean thatwomen must travel longer distances andspend more time searching for theseresources.


The PRSP Sample

Response systems

To be meaningful, the discussion on issues andan analysis of causal links must be followed bya set of actions. These are grouped into fivecategories.

• Environmental management capacity.Environmental management capacity isassessed in terms of actions concerninglegislation, regulation, environmentalstandards, data and information systems,institutional capacity, enforcementcapability, and the use of economicinstruments such as user fees, effluent/emission charges, and green taxes.

• Investment in natural capital. The proposedprograms for natural resource managementindicate the government’s priorities and itscommitment to improve natural resourceproductivity. Examples include programssupporting the sustainable management orrestoration of soils, forests, woodlands,wetlands, coral reefs, fisheries, andmanagement of protected areas.

• Investment in human-made capital. Programsrelating to slum improvement, watersupply, sanitation, energy efficiency, wastemanagement, air and water pollution,urban and rural infrastructure investmentsaimed at environmental improvementsindicate the government’s commitment inthese areas.

• Monitoring natural resource outcomes.Indicators are important components of thePRSP monitoring process. In this context,targets and indicators for natural resourcemanagement—including land use and soilconservation, such as trends in productivityor the rate of rehabilitation of degradedlands; forest resources, such as the annualrate of deforestation; area protected, such asthe percent of land or sea area protected;

water stress or scarcity, such as per capitaavailability in cubic meters; and energy,such as dependence on traditional energyand the shift to renewable energy—providethe relevant information.9

• Monitoring human resource outcomes.Indicators that measure human resourceoutcomes such as health are important.Examples include infant mortality andmorbidity, such as the infectious andrespiratory disease burden attributable toindoor pollution; access to safe water, suchas the percent of the population with accessto safe water in rural/urban areas;sanitation, such as the percent of populationand poor households covered; and housingstandards, such as crowding (floor area/person).

Process

The description of the process employed in thepreparation and implementation of a PRSP ispart of the assessment. Process issues arerelevant for all aspects of the PRSP, but they areconsidered in this assessment because aninclusive and participatory process is requiredfor identifying and addressing the concerns ofenvironmental health, natural resourcedegradation, vulnerability to natural disasters,and for undertaking environmental investmentsand monitoring their progress.

It is not possible here to evaluate the quality ofconsultation other than through its expressionin the PRSP. Critics have argued that“participatory” events are sometimes designedas top-down events, leaving little room forupward feedback. It has also been argued thatconsultations often result in the focus ofimmediate priorities to the detriment of long-term ones such as those relating to theenvironment. This may be true in some cases,



but the lack of inclusion of environmentalconcerns or actions is then reflected in lowratings under those categories.


Guidelines for the Joint Staff Assessment (JSA)of full Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers(World Bank 2000) recommend that the JSAexamine the trends in key poverty determinantsand outcomes presented, specifically, the extent ofincome/consumption and other dimensions ofpoverty, including environmental diseases, naturalresource degradation, vulnerability,disempowerment, and their evolution over time.Feedback from the JSA could serve to improvethe focus on environmental sustainabilityaspects during implementation. JSAs areassessed according to the extent their commentsand feedback relating to environment in thePRSPs are explicitly noted. The JSAs of 22 fullPRSPs, 8 interim PRSPs, and 7 ImplementationProgress Reports are considered in this report.

Scoring

Assessing 50 PRSPs across 17 variables is notpractical unless qualitative judgments areformalized and simplified. The 17 variablesdiscussed below are scored with respect to eachcountry’s PRSP. A score in the range of 0 to 3 isused depending on the treatment of relevantissues:

0 = no mention1 = mentioned but not elaborated2 = elaborated3 = good practice

Though not intended to be scientifically precise,this scoring method is a practical way tocondense considerable information intonumbers that have a clear interpretation. Theunweighted average scores are presented in theresults section (Table 4). We consideredapplying explicit weights to different variables,but this would have made the scoring processless transparent.10 Instead, we assigned scoresaccording to our valuation of the significance ofeach set of variables.

Any assessment, including scoring, involvessubjective judgments. In this format,subjectivity is transparent and consistent acrosscountries. We do not encourage attention tosmall differentials in scores between countries.The assessment process enables us to succinctlypresent quantitative information to complementthe qualitative analyses undertaken by theCountry Teams and the Poverty Reduction andEconomic Management (PREM) Networkwithin the Bank, as well as by external donorsand NGOs. An overview of the aspectsincorporated in the scoring format is presentedin the following sections; the scoring formatused is summarized in Appendix B.

PRSP Progress Reports are scored in a similarmanner. However, the focus of that assessmentis only on the follow-up of the implementationenvisaged in the PRSP. Hence, that assessmentis more of a consistency check between theProgress Report and the PRSP.

In contrast to the use of a structured scoringformat used for the PRSPs, the JSAs areassessed qualitatively on the coverage ofenvironmental issues and the feedbackprovided on the PRSP.


Results

This section presents scores of countries withrespect to environmental mainstreaming; thesalient aspects of environmental mainstreamingcommon to PRSPs; and an overview of theirevolution from the interim to the full PRSPstage.

Average Country Scores

From the scores in Table 4, three observationsstand out. First, it is clear that there is asignificant variation in the integration of

environmental priorities into PRSPs, with theaverage country score ranging from 0.3 to 2.4.Second, the average score is about 1.3 on the 0-3point scale. This is a broad indicator of thelevel of attention paid to environmental aspects.There may be more or less good reasons for notmentioning or elaborating on such issues. Weare not in a position to pass judgment on eachparticular case, but offer these scores for moredetailed country-specific scrutiny to ourreaders. Third, the full PRSPs generally rankmuch higher than the interim PRSPs. The

Table 4. Average country environmental mainstreaming scores

S.No Country Region PRSP type Average

environment score

1 Zambia Sub Saharan Africa Full 2.4 2 Ghana Sub Saharan Africa Full 2.2 3 Cambodia East Asia Full 2.2 4 Mozambique Sub Saharan Africa Full 2.2 5 Azerbaijan Central Asia Full 2.1 6 Sri Lanka South Asia Full 2.1 7 Yemen Middle East Full 2.1 8 Honduras Latin America Full 2.1 9 Nicaragua Latin America Full 2.0 10 Bolivia Latin America Full 2.0 11 Vietnam East Asia Full 1.9 12 Kenya Sub Saharan Africa Ínterim 1.9 13 Bosnia and Herzegovina Eastern Europe Interim 1.9 14 Mali Sub Saharan Africa Full 1.7 15 Burkina Faso Sub Saharan Africa Full 1.7 16 Senegal Sub Saharan Africa Full 1.7 17 Rwanda Sub Saharan Africa Full 1.7 18 Malawi Sub Saharan Africa Full 1.7 19 Albania Eastern Europe Full 1.6 20 Ethiopia Sub Saharan Africa Full 1.6 21 Guinea Sub Saharan Africa Full 1.6 22 Lao PDR East Asia Interim 1.6

4



average as a sub-group is about 1.8 for the fullPRSPs.

In the debate about environmentalmainstreaming, we are sometimes asked toidentify “the best example.” Rather thanpicking a specific PRSP, we would point to atop cluster of PRSPs with scores of at least 2.0 toreflect the coverage of environment priorities.This includes the geographically diverse PRSPsof Zambia, Ghana, Sri Lanka, Cambodia,Mozambique, Azerbaijan, Yemen, Honduras,Nicaragua, and Bolivia.

The cluster of PRSPs with low scores is madeup entirely of interim PRSPs.11 Readily

available data from the World DevelopmentIndicators 2003 (World Bank 2003b) show thatseveral of these countries have a high level ofrural population dependent on naturalresources for their livelihood; high levels oftraditional fuel usage; low levels of access tosafe water and adequate sanitation; and highinfant mortality. Low ratings on these variablesindicate that there is considerable scope forimprovement in focusing on such issues.

Disaggregated View of EnvironmentScores

The country averages reported in Table 4 maskthe differences in scoring among the 17

Table 4. Average country environmental mainstreaming scores (continued)

23 Níger Sub Saharan Africa Full 1.5 24 Guyana L. America & Caribbean Full 1.5 25 Benin Sub Saharan Africa Full 1.5 26 Mauritania Sub Saharan Africa Full 1.4 27 Bangladesh South Asia Interim 1.4 28 Tajikistan Central Asia Full 1.2 29 Gambia Sub Saharan Africa Full 1.2 30 Kyrgyz Republic Central Asia Full 1.2 31 Uganda Sub Saharan Africa Full 1.1 32 Madagascar Sub Saharan Africa Interim 1.1 33 Pakistan South Asia Interim 1.1 34 Georgia Central Asia Interim 1.0 35 Cape Verde Sub Saharan Africa Interim 1.0 36 Tanzania Sub Saharan Africa Full 0.9 37 Mongolia East Asia Interim 0.8 38 Maldova Eastern Europe Interim 0.8 39 Chad Sub Saharan Africa Interim 0.8 40 Cote d’Ivoire Sub Saharan Africa Interim 0.8 41 Armenia Central Asia Interim 0.7 42 Cameroon Sub Saharan Africa Interim 0.6 43 Lesotho Sub Saharan Africa Interim 0.6 44 Sierra Leone Sub Saharan Africa Interim 0.6 45 Dem Rep of Congo Sub Saharan Africa Interim 0.6 46 Guinea-Bissau Sub Saharan Africa Interim 0.5 47 Djibouti Sub Saharan Africa Interim 0.5 48 Serbia & Montenegro Eastern Europe Interim 0.4 49 Central African Rep Sub Saharan Africa Interim 0.3 50 Sao Tome Principe Sub Saharan Africa Interim 0.3 Average score 1.3

S.No Country Region PRSP type Average

environment score


Results

variables considered. Disaggregated analysis ofthe overall environment score into componentscores provides additional insights. We refrainfrom commenting separately on all variables,but consolidate the scores (in accordance withsection 3) into (a) diagnosis of issues andopportunities; (b) analysis of poverty-environment links; (c) proposed responses; and(d) process.

Issues. There is strong heterogeneity in theissues covered in PRSPs, with land and waterreceiving some attention, while air pollution,energy use, and biodiversity receive limitedattention. The environmental issues that PRSPsoften highlight in rural areas are landdegradation and deforestation; in the urbancontext, water pollution, lack of propersanitation, and growth of slum environmentsare often mentioned. Poor air quality—indooror outdoor—is seldom mentioned and rarelydiscussed at length. Biodiversity receiveslimited attention, although a few countries seethis as an important asset that can generateincome to poor people. Short-term climaticvariability is sometimes discussed, and isextensively discussed in countries facingpersistent drought and severe flooding. Theaverage score of this component (covering fouraspects) is 1.0 on a scale of 0 to 3 (see AppendixB for a summary format). The low scoreindicates that many countries have not utilizedthe diagnostic basis laid down in their NationalEnvironmental Action Plans or similarinitiatives.12

Links. Poverty-environment links—in terms ofnatural resources degradation, environmentalhealth, and climate vulnerability—receivedmore attention than aspects of property rights,empowerment, incentives, and gender. Theaverage score for the seven items listed under

this theme is 1.2. It shows that even with aweak description of environmental issues,several PRSPs highlight the links betweenpoverty and environment.

Responses. On this theme, the average scoreacross five rated aspects is 1.7. Most PRSPspresent a generic outline of proposals relatingto legislation, institutions, and regulation tostrengthen environmental management.Though programs relating to natural resourcesmanagement, water supply, and sanitation areoften described, information on the cost ofinterventions and schedule for the interventionsis often missing. Inadequate information ontargets and indicators makes it difficult toassess performance of actions of the PRSPcountries.

Process. The averages score across countries forthis one item (participation) is about 1.6.Though PRSPs describe the processesundertaken to promote consultation, it isdifficult to assess the extent to whichenvironmental constituencies have beenconsulted and the extent to whichenvironmental concerns of the poor areconsidered in developing the implementationpriorities. The attention devoted to processissues is generally improving as interim PRSPsare turned into full PRSPs.

Evolution of Environmental Prioritiesfrom Interim to Full PRSPs

The revision from the interim into the full PRSPstage improved the treatment of environmentsignificantly. As shown in Table 5, the averageenvironment score of the interim PRSPs thatunderwent revision to full PRSPs more thandoubled.



The Implementation of EnvironmentalPriorities

What ultimately matters is how a PRSP isimplemented. To assess the extent to whichcountries are successful in implementing theenvironmental priorities outlined at the PRSPstage, it is useful to review the PRSP ProgressReports (World Bank and IMF 2003). A total ofseven countries have made theirimplementation reports available. Countriesthat initiated the implementation in 2000 havereported for two years, while countries thatinitiated the implementation in 2001 provideone year of implementation progress.

For this assessment, we considered the portionof the PRSP scoring format under responsesystems, which is most directly relevant for the

implementation (see Appendix B). Under theresponse systems, we assessed (a) measures toenhance environmental management capacity,(b) investment in natural capital, (c) investmentin human-made capital that can improveenvironmental quality, and (d) monitoring andevaluation of environmental programs andplans.

From Table 6, it is clear that progress reportedon the environmental proposals outlined in thePRSPs is not satisfactory except for Albania. Inthis case, the progress report discusses prioritiesoutlined in the PRSP, along with information onindicators used in the implementation and thegaps in implementation. In the case ofMozambique, the implementation report wasassessed to be particularly weak, particularly in

Table 5. Evolution of country environment scores from Interim PRSP to Full PRSP

S.No Country Score of interim PRSP Score of full PRSP

1 Zambia 0.5 2.4 2 Ghana 0.9 2.2 3 Mozambique 0.5 2.2 4 Cambodia 1.2 2.2 5 Honduras 1.6 2.1 6 Yemen 0.4 2.0 7 Nicaragua 1.3 2.0 8 Bolivia 0.7 2.0 9 Vietnam 0.8 1.9 10 Senegal 0.4 1.7 11 Rwanda 1.3 1.7 12 Malawi 0.6 1.7 13 Mali 0.6 1.7 14 Albania 0.7 1.6 15 Ethiopia 0.8 1.6 16 Guinea 0.9 1.6 17 Guyana 1.0 1.5 18 Benin 0.5 1.5 19 Tajikistan 0.4 1.2 20 Gambia 0.9 1.2 21 Kyrgyz Republic 0.5 1.2 Average Score 0.8 1.8


Results

view of the high score for the environmentproposals in the full PRSP. In the cases ofBurkina Faso, Mauritania, Tanzania, andUganda, the Progress Reports are considered tobe weak in comparison to their full PRSPs.

There is a strong need to examine the reasonsbehind weak implementation scores, andsuitable actions should be initiated tostrengthen the implementation and reportingprocesses. The continued weak environmentscores of the implementation progress reports isa cause for concern in terms of the realism ofthe proposals made and resources committed totheir implementation. Implementation progressand the reporting process should be a highpriority in the country level monitoring ofPRSPs to generate reliable information on thetranslation of PRSP priorities into action.

JSA Comments on EnvironmentalMainstreaming in PRSPs

An overview of JSAs and their feedback onenvironmental priorities indicates a highlyuneven level of attention. Scant feedback onthe environment is strongly associated with thecountries having low attention to theenvironment. In several JSAs, environmental

issues received either no or passing reference.However, certain JSAs give explicit attention tothe environment, holding the PRSPs to highstandards. Interestingly, some of the bestmainstreamed PRSPs (such as Zambia) stillreceive JSA comments on the need forimprovements—and vice-versa. Informally,there appears to be some correlation betweenthe level of attention of the PRSP and the JSA interms of environmental mainstreaming. This isprobably based on close communicationbetween PRSP teams and the associated WorldBank teams. Some—but not all—JSAs focus onenvironmental priorities; those that do presentfeedback on a variety of multi-sectoral issues.Some examples are given below.

The JSA for the Cambodia PRSP expressesconcern about three environmental issues. First,it notes the resource and capacity constraints ofthe ministry of environment to lead nationalenvironment initiatives. Second, the JSAdiscusses the low level of integration ofenvironmental considerations into the strategicplans of ministries and line agencies as a cross-cutting theme requiring action. Although thereare examples of forest crime monitoring andecotourism development, very few line agencieshave defined objectives in their planning. Third,

Note: * This score considers a specific part of the overall score, so it varies from the overall score presented in Table 1. Thescores for Burkina Faso, Tanzania, and Uganda are for two annual progress reports.

Table 6. Implementation progress on the PRSP proposals

Country

Score on the environment programs and

monitoring proposed in the full PRSP

(part score under response systems)* Score of PRSP Progress Reports

Albania 2.4 2.4 Burkina Faso 2.0 0.8 (2000-01); 1.2 (2001-02) Mauritania 2.2 1.6 Mozambique 3.0 0.6 Nicaragua 2.2 2.0 Tanzania 2.2 0.8 (2000-01); 1.2 (2001-02) Uganda 2.4 1.2 (2000-01); 1.4 (2001-02)



the JSA— in the context of protected areamanagement—points to conflicting institutionalroles of agencies in wildlife development,community development, and land tenureadministration. With respect to forestry, the JSAnotes the slow progress on governance andmonitoring, while it appreciates progress madewith respect to a new forestry law and theextension of land titling benefits to women.

For Guinea, the JSA highlights the overlyambitious nature of long-term targetscoinciding with the MDG time frame. The JSAnotes that the target for access to safe watersupply (to increase from 49 percent in 1999 to

100 percent in 2010) is unrealistic, given pastprogress and anticipated budget allocations.

For the Zambia PRSP, the JSA highlights theimportance of consistent coverage ofenvironment across sectors, the need for areview of the extent of current coverage, thedevelopment of a cross-cutting agenda, and theneed for better environment indicators.

For Sri Lanka, the JSA calls for improvements inthe monitoring framework, with a focus onenvironment appraisal, data collection, analysis,linkages with policy, and monitoring of inputs,outputs, and outcomes.


Good Practice in EnvironmentalMainstreaming

Many priorities compete for attention in aPRSP. One should therefore not expect to findlengthy elaboration or comprehensive coverageof issues. This section highlights good practicein PRSPs in terms of (a) the issues identified; (b)the analysis of poverty-environment linkages;(c) response systems; and (c) the processfollowed in developing PRSP priorities. Thesection presents only brief examples of goodpractice, as the full PRSPs are easily available tothe general public.

Issues

Several countries highlight the environmentalissues resulting from unsustainable use ofwater, land, air, and biological resources.

Land use

Countries present diverse issues of land usesuch as loss of vegetation, soil erosion,desertification (Yemen, Niger). Severedeforestation has been highlighted as a majorland use change in Ghana, Niger, and SriLanka. The forested area in Ghana is reportedto have declined from 8.2 million ha to 1.7million ha in the last few decades. Nigerhighlights the impact of deforestation anddesertification, leading to the loss of 2 millionha of forest cover during the 1990s. Sri Lankareports adverse impacts of deforestation anddegradation of biodiversity, irregular waterflows, soil erosion, and a shortage of fuelwood.

Water resources

PRSPs highlight water resources issues such aswater scarcity (Yemen), inadequate planningand usage (Zambia), pollution (Sri Lanka), andfishery loss (Ghana). Increasing water pollutionis attributed to a poor regulatory framework,lack of enforcement, inadequate sanitation, andpoor waste management.

The imbalance in available water resources andtheir usage is clearly reflected in the YemenPRSP, which notes that the per capita share of137 m3 is 2 percent of the world average percapita and is expected to decline to 66 m3 by2026. Over 91 percent of the water is used foragriculture, most of it very inefficiently. Theexpansion of Qat cultivation has adverselyimpacted water resources. The scarcity of waterresources constitutes a real constraint todevelopment projects that depend upon water,since most of the known water resources havealready been tapped and are subject to rapiddepletion. Costs rise significantly duringdrought periods, affecting the ability of the poorto access groundwater.

In contrast, Zambia’s PRSP highlights the issuesof inadequate planning, utilization, and lack ofreliable data as major factors influencing thecountry’s water resources. It is estimated thatZambia accounts for over 35 percent ofSouthern Africa’s water resources and is asource of several wetland ecosystems that

5



support economic activities of significance suchas tourism, fishing, and transport.

Sri Lanka emphasizes the widespread erosionof 55 percent of the country’s coast, which isadversely affecting the livelihoods of fishingfamilies. The armed conflict has alsocontributed to the destruction of rainwaterharvesting, lagoon barrages, and solid wastemanagement facilities on the Jaffna Peninsula,causing aquifer pollution and a decline inrecharge.

In Ghana, marine fish production has declined.Factors contributing to the decline include adrop in marine fish stocks, the proliferation ofdemersal trawling activities near shore, the highcost of fishing operations, the absence of a legalframework, and the lack of active fisheriesresource management.

Air quality

With the exception of countries in EasternEurope, most PRSP countries use biomass fuelsto a large extent in rural and even in urbanareas. Solid fuel usage has adverse impacts onindoor and outdoor air quality, as well as onforest resources. Urbanization and the ensuingair pollution is also a source of concern for somecountries.

In Sri Lanka, a large number of old cars andtrucks and the poor quality of gasoline anddiesel fuels contributed to an alarming rise inurban air pollution. Vehicular emissions of leadand particulates affect the poor disproportion-ately; malnourished children and those withiron or calcium deficiency have a particularlyhigh propensity for lead absorption.

Air pollution in Azerbaijan is mainly from theemissions of toxic pollutants of power plants,industry, and transport. The health of the

population living on the Absheron Peninsula isseverely affected because of the largeconcentration of nearby manufacturingindustries and power plants and the poorenforcement of pollution controls.

Biodiversity

PRSPs do not often present information onbiodiversity. Countries that mention this issueare either those with high threats to theirbiodiversity (Yemen) or countries that have alarge untapped potential (Zambia).

Zambia’s protected areas—including 19national parks and 34 game managementareas—cover 33 percent of the country, but only5 percent has been developed for tourism. InYemen, rich biodiversity is found in themountain and coastal areas and islands of theRed Sea and the Gulf of Aden. However,overgrazing and firewood collection haveadverse impacts on diversity in the mountainregion. Chemical pollutants, explosives, andfishing with dragnets threaten coral reefs andmarine diversity.

Poverty-Environment Links

The relationships between poverty andenvironment are complex and vary acrosscountries. Some of the linkages noted in theassessed PRSPs are summarized below.

Poverty and natural resources degradation

Cambodia notes that on average fishconsumption accounts for 30 percent of thepopulation’s intake of animal protein. Theincreasing population has placed strongpressures on natural resources, especially oncommunity fisheries. The failure of legalprocedures has also resulted in growing


Good Practice in Environmental Mainstreaming

conflicts between small and commercial fisherystakeholders.

In Zambia, five major environmental problemsimpose high social costs: water pollution,inadequate sanitation, soil degradation, airpollution in the copper belt, and deforestation/wildlife depletion. The environmental andsocial costs fall disproportionately on the poor.

In Yemen, small and fragmented land holdingspose major impediments to land productivityimprovements. The cultivated area isdistributed among 1.2 million landholders, with44percent holding less than 5 ha. The rapidgrowth in population density on agriculturalland and the per capita decline in water reflectthe adverse impact of demographic pressure onYemen’s natural resources.

Azerbaijan inherited several environmentalproblems from the Soviet period. Poverty is anaggravating factor in the overgrazing ofpastures and in overfishing of the Caspian Sea.Poor people cannot afford the cost of modernenergy; as a result, the country’s forests arethreatened due to uncontrolled fuelwoodremovals for cooking and heating.

Environmental health

Environmental risks account for approximatelyone fifth of the Disability-Adjusted-Life-Years(DALYs) in developing countries. Theproportion is even higher for Sub-SaharanAfrica, where most of the PRSP countries arelocated.13 In this context, the role ofenvironmental factors in the disease burden ofpoor households cannot be overemphasized.

The high incidence of diarrhea in northernGhana is attributed to the lack of access to safedrinking water and adequate sanitation. A

study of 60 communities in the Kumasimunicipality and five other districts found that23 percent of the sample did not have access topiped water. More than 63 percent had a pipednetwork, but did not have water or experiencedirregular flow, and up to 30 percent ofhouseholds depended on dug wells. Usingwater as an indicator of poverty, it is estimatedthe level of poverty falls between 50–75 percent.Those hardest hit by high exposure tocontamination are the poor.

In Mali, trypanosomiasis infection causessleeping sickness in humans and animals and istransmitted by the tsetse fly, which infests200,000 km2 with moderate to severe intensity.The disease causes mortality, morbidity,infertility, stunting, and low work capacity ofanimals, accentuating the protein deficiencies inalready poor regions.

Poor households in Sri Lanka cite the provisionof safe drinking water and sanitation as thehighest social service priority. Inadequatesewage and sanitation infrastructure in urbanand peri-urban areas is a leading public healthproblem, requiring active participation of theprivate sector in the provision of water andsanitation services to urban settlements.

Vulnerability

Natural hazards such as hurricanes, floods, anddroughts affecting rainfed agriculture can beformidable sources of vulnerability to the poor.

In Niger, average annual rainfall variessignificantly from the Sahara to the Sahel-Sudan zone. Since it is difficult to manage riversthat cross international boundaries, waterpotential is limited to ponds and artificialreservoirs. Underground water replenishmentis low. People perceive population growth,



drought, poor harvests, isolation, and locustattacks as major constraints that compromisetheir already difficult living conditions. In ruralareas, livestock is the second leading activityafter crop cultivation, and is affected byrecurrent droughts. A poor rainy seasonalways leads to a famine that increases thevulnerability of the impoverished.

Property rights

Several PRSPs highlight the importance of landtenure to investment in land productivity andrising income levels.

Cambodia proposes to establish a nationwideland administrative system as part of landtenure reform. This includes measures toimprove incentives for investment inagriculture, enhance the value of land ascollateral, and improve land registration,dispute resolution, and demarcation ofadministrative boundaries. With respect to landdistribution, idle state land is proposed to bedistributed as part of social concessions to thelandless and the victims of natural disasters.

The Sri Lanka PRSP finds that state ownershipof over 80 percent of the land is the mostimportant impediment to agriculturalprosperity. Most poor farmers operate landparcels without a clear title. Since the poor arenot empowered to make choices on land use,they cannot use land to its most productivepotential. Uncontrolled access and insecureusufruct rights to natural resources are the twomajor causes of common land degradation. Thefragmented nature of land tenure also createsinefficiencies in farm management decisions.Since most farmers do not have clear title, theycannot use it as collateral for loans.

In Zambia, customary tenure accounts for about94 percent and leaseholds for about 6 percent of

land holdings. As a result, about 97 percent offarmers do not have title to the land theycultivate, strongly limiting their motivation toinvest in land improvement and infrastructuredevelopment.

Incentives

Public policy can enhance the incentives forenvironmental management, but policydistortions have the potential to increase theadverse impacts on the environment. A fewPRSPs highlight the negative impacts of theexisting policy and incentive structure.

The Azerbaijan PRSP discusses the perverseinfluence of energy subsidies. It is estimatedthat government spending on energy is 50percent higher than on health and educationbecause of the subsidies granted to energy andgas companies. Even subsidized prices are noteffectively passed on to consumers. The averagelevel of energy bill collection was found to be 27percent for electricity and 30 percent for gas,encouraging wasteful use of energy andensuing pollution. Since the amount of subsidyreceived by households depends upon thequantity they consume, and low-incomefamilies have limited access to modern energysources, household utility subsidies have beenfound to be regressive.

In Zambia, state control of prices for watersupply and waste disposal discouraged newinvestments in these sectors. This led todeterioration of plant and equipment, causingoutbursts of diseases such as cholera.

Empowerment

Cambodia’s fishery management is slowlytransforming from a state monopoly to co-management. This entails encouraging theparticipation of local communities in the



management and conservation of fisheries, andcontrolling undesirable practices of illegalfishing and toxic pesticide dumping in fishingareas.

Zambia’s Community-Based Natural ResourceManagement Program seeks to build thenecessary capacity of local communities in themanagement of their natural resources such asforests, wildlife, fisheries, water, and arableland. The Zambia Forestry Action Program andProvincial Forest Action Programs seek toassess forest resources, and to support nationaland provincial capacity. The Soil Conservationand Agro-Forestry Extension Program promotesextension efforts in soil conservation.

Gender and environment

Poverty and environmental degradation have aprofound influence on women and girls interms of greater time expended in gatheringfuelwood and water. Women also often do nothave property rights to land, which limits theirability and incentive to invest in landproductivity improvements. Their knowledge issometimes ignored by male-dominatedagencies, and extension services tend to directtheir information more to males than females.

The Zambia PRSP emphasizes the actionsproposed to integrate women’s traditionalknowledge for environmental management intoextension programs. The government ofZambia has initiated policies to mainstreamgender into land use policies and reserved 30percent of land allocations to women.

Under the land development ordinance of SriLanka, women are not ensured the right totenure and title in land settlement areas, andincomplete land records further exacerbate theirdisadvantages. Proposals include a policy to sell

and allocate state-owned land on the basis ofmarketable title, and correcting anomalies inthe legal structure relating to land inheritancethat discriminate against women.

Response Systems

As expected, the response systems of countriesvary depending on socioeconomic conditions,pressing environmental issues, institutionalframework, and policy measures alreadyimplemented. Some initiatives mentioned inPRSPs are summarized below.

Environmental management capacity

Environmental management capacity refers tothe institutional capacity to plan, legislate, andimplement environmental interventions. Itincludes the capacity to enforce environmentalstandards, implement economic instruments,build data systems, and manage knowledge. Astrongly related variable is the level of publicexpenditure for environmental management.

Sri Lanka proposes to revise the tourism law,rain forest law, and human settlement planninglaw. The revisions of the tourism and rain forestlaws have the potential to improve the tourismsector and to improve the conservation ofnatural resources. The regulatory frameworkand tariff structure for water supply aim tofacilitate private sector involvement in thedelivery of clean urban drinking water. Thestrategy for solid waste management is tocombine the capacity of local authorities andform public-private partnerships to expandsanitary disposal systems.

In the case of Zambia, environmental legislationis already enacted, but implementation needsimprovement. The Environmental Council of



Zambia seeks to enforce the standards formining and industrial production and toimplement and monitor the environmentalmanagement plans for mines and define thecommitments for adherence. In the context ofwater supply and sanitation, the Water Supplyand Sanitation Act 28 of 1997 seeks to improveservice provision and to provide support to theNational Water Supply and Sanitation Councilas regulator for service provision. The ZambiaWildlife Authority Act 12 of 1998 supportscommunity management of resources andgenerates revenue and employment benefitsfrom wildlife resources.

Investment in natural resources

Many countries are concerned about the declinein their natural resource productivity. ThePRSPs provide opportunities to commitresources to improve their productivity andpromote resource conservation.

Cambodia seeks to improve the management ofwater resources in both lowland and highlandareas. It proposes to expand irrigation toimprove productivity, generate employment,and control floods. It seeks to improve theefficient use of groundwater and surface waterby licensing water uses, generating resourcesthrough user fees, promoting privateinvestment in irrigation and drainage,regulating groundwater mining, andimplementing the provisions of the MekongAgreement.

Yemen seeks to implement the Agricultural andFisheries Production Promotion Fund, theSocial Fund for Development, the Managementof the Land Resources Project, and LocalCommunity Development programs as vehiclesfor investment in natural resources. Theprograms to enhance the productivity of natural

resources include improvements in farm-levelirrigation with active farmer participation, andoptimal use of fisheries and the marineenvironment. Proposed surveys would developa database on fishery resources. This willprovide a basis for regulation of fisheriesthrough definition of appropriate methods andquantity limits.

Investment in human-made capital

The investment programs relating toenvironmental infrastructure and serviceprovision concern water supply, sanitation,waste management, slum improvements, andother forms of environmental infrastructureimprovements.

Zambia’s energy sector programs focus onelectrification, efficient charcoal production,improved stoves, and substitution of charcoalwith millennium gel fuel in urban households.The Rural Electrification Master Plan aims tointegrate renewable energy to support energyservices to rural communities, and wouldpromote solar energy in education, health, andrural development sectors.

In Mali, water supply and sanitation prioritiesinclude increasing access, reducing regionaldisparities, developing sanitation infrastructure,and linking water supply and sanitation policyto health, education, nutrition, ruraldevelopment, and revenue-generatingactivities.

The Sri Lanka government’s objective is toensure safe water to the entire population by2010 and to at least 79 percent of the populationby 2005 (from the present 70 percent). In ruralareas, community-based organizations are toprovide safe drinking water systems inresponse to local demand. The costs of



maintaining and operating these systems are tobe borne by the community. In towns and cities,the private sector is encouraged to invest andoperate clean drinking water systems.

Monitoring outcomes

Tracking the outcomes of PRSP implementationrequires a sound monitoring and evaluationsystem. To judge progress, baseline data areessential to monitoring and evaluation. Mostcountries maintain baselines and targetsrelating to access to water and sanitation. Inother areas such as deforestation andbiodiversity, very few PRSPs provide baselinesand targets. The definition of input, output,outcome, impact, and process indicators is oftenmissing, which makes the sample of goodpractice limited.

Zambia presents targets for ecotourism in termsof tourist arrivals, investment per annum, andrevenue from park fees. For water supply andsanitation, the targets are service provision to2.5 million peri-urban residents and 2.5 millionpeople in rural areas. Energy access is targeted

to grow from 20 to 35 percent by 2010, charcoalproduction to be increased by 400,000 metrictons, and electricity exports to increase by 300percent. Deforestation is targeted to be reducedfrom 300,000 ha per year in 2001 to 100,000 in2004, air pollution to decline from 500 µg/m3 in2001 to 200 µg/m3 in 2004, and nitrate pollutionin water from 6.36 mgl in 2001 to 3.5 mgl in2004. The PRSP also sets targets for enforcementof environmental laws, curriculumdevelopment, training of personnel, andenvironmental impact assessments.

Process

Process refers here to both the design andimplementation of the PRSP’s environmentalpriorities. PRSPs describe the series ofconsultations involving civil society,government, and donor agencies. Participationappears to have increased from interim to fullPRSP stages in most countries. Improvementsin the process and participation are reflected inthe higher scores on several aspects ofenvironmental priority setting. The true

Box 1Environment Targets and Indicators

Ghana. Degradation relating to crop and livestock activities to be reduced by 20 percent; loss of forests throughfire, logging, fuelwood extraction, and encroachment to be reduced by 10 percent; environmental resourcedegradation from mining and manufacturing to be reduced by 20 percent.

Yemen. Increase the coverage of water supply to 69 percent in urban areas and 65 percent in rural areas; in-crease electricity access to 40.3 percent of the population, including 22.2 percent coverage in rural areas, andreduce electricity losses to 25 percent.

Mali. Monitor access to water supply and sanitation, villages benefiting from at least one accessible waterpoint, number of hectares reforested, regional development plans implemented, and operational rural woodmarkets.

Azerbaijan. The number and efficiency of protective structures, extent of salinity, number of hectares recultivat-ed, replanting and rehabilitation of native vegetation, new protected areas established, reduction of mercuryand oil contamination of soil, transparency of implicit energy subsidies, payment of energy bills, quality ofenergy supply, and environmental education in secondary schools.



influence of consultation and participation canonly be observed from the implementationresults. Programs implemented with greaterparticipation are more likely to be cost-effectiveand have larger impact than those implementedprimarily as government initiatives.

Improved participation involving the privatesector, NGOs, local communities, and donoragencies is reported in several full PRSPs(Malawi and Zambia). The consultation andawareness of the PRSP process also improvedbecause of the dissemination of key documentsin local languages (Rwanda and Vietnam).

The Poverty Reduction Strategy Plan ofMozambique exemplifies a strong commitmentto incorporating priorities highlighted in theconsultations through an interactive andinformative multiple stakeholder dialogue atboth national and regional levels. In theseconsultations, the focus on environment formeda cross-cutting theme. Important prioritiesrelating to environmental protection wereraised under the umbrella of rural

development, agriculture, health, andinfrastructure development. During the 1998–2000 period, 99 consultations were held withthe active involvement of line ministries andwith important contributions from the privatesector, donors, NGOs, provincial authorities,and local people.

In Sri Lanka, community-drivendevelopmenthas a major role in theimplementation of the PRSP. Communityparticipation is stressed in coastal zonemanagement, reef stabilization, fisheries, andsocial infrastructure development. Thegovernment will support community-ledinitiatives in cooperation with nongovernmen-tal and community-based organizations toassist specific target groups of very poorcommunities. Local community organizationsestablished in park buffer zones will beprovided a share of ecotourism earnings andtrained to assist in wildlife preservation. ThePRSP proposes a system of transferable wateruse entitlements for large-scale water users andcommunity-based organizations.


Scope for Improvement

Though the PRSPs have improved in the scopeand quality of environmental issues covered,there are still gaps. This section highlights themajor gaps. For interim PRSPs, the timeavailable for revision from interim to full stagecan be effectively utilized to improve the focusand coverage of the identified priorities. For fullPRSPs, improvements in the implementationphase and revision possibilities at 3-to-5-yearintervals provide opportunities to build on theachievements and to address the gaps.

Dissemination of Implementation Lessons

It was noted above that the description ofenvironmental issues and opportunities is oftencursory. All IDA countries could utilize theirNational Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) orsimilar strategic environment plan. Experiencefrom the implementation of NEAPs needs to beanalyzed and built into the PRSPimplementation

Long-Term Perspective and MDG Horizon

Developing countries have committedthemselves to the Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs). While a few PRSPs explicitlyintroduce a long-term perspective and makereferences to MDGs for 2015, this is notobserved consistently. Even for those PRSPsthat present long-term targets corresponding tothe MDG horizon, they are often without

adequate budget support and institutionalcapacity. To verify whether the current andmedium-term strategies are consistent withachieving those goals, the PRSPs need to bealigned with the MDG timeline.14

A Holistic Perspective on EnvironmentalHealth

This point is perhaps the most fundamental interms of identifying cross-cutting deficiencies inPRSPs. Most often, the documents take asectoral perspective on providing healthservices through the ministry of health, andproviding water supply and sanitation throughthe ministry of water & sanitation. Therefore,they lack a holistic perspective on the burden ofdisease in the country, and there is generally nodiscussion about cost-effective measures to dealwith cross-sectoral issues.

In this context, it is noteworthy that there isgenerally very little attention paid to airpollution, and particularly indoor air pollution.The number of premature deaths due to airpollution has been estimated at close to 3.5million per annum. Of this total, the number ofpremature deaths attributable to outdoor airpollution is estimated at 1.8 million, and toindoor air pollution at 1.6 million. However, inAfrica, the number of deaths due to indoor airpollution is almost nine times that of outdoorair pollution (Lvovsky 2001). In estimating the

6



burden of disease for developing countriesclassified as “high mortality,” WHO (2002)ranks unsafe water, sanitation, and hygienethird, and indoor smoke from solid fuels fourth.Together, these risk factors account for almost10 percent of the DALYs in high mortalitydeveloping countries. Many of the PRSPcountries within our sample fall within thatcategory. A holistic perspective on the burdenof disease would have identified indoor airpollution as an issue. We hypothesize that (a)the damage function of indoor air pollution isnot well understood, and (b) because womenand children bear the brunt of this damage,their concerns are not effectively identified andaddressed.

Targets and Budgets

Several PRSPs present generic targets that arelinked to identifiable budget allocations. Moreattention needs to be given to linking medium-term expenditures (where applicable) to thePRSP’s priorities.

Monitoring

Institutional capacity to monitor progressappears to be a major constraint in mostcountries. It is essential to clearly defineenvironmentally relevant targets and indicators.This can be combined with disaggregated

analysis, which allows for a more targetedapproach to environmental management. Inthis context, the initiative to use regional maps(Burkina Faso) is commendable and deserves tobe elaborated.

Progress Reports

The PRSP Progress Reports present goodopportunities to also update the PRSP’senvironmental priorities. As noted above(section 4), our review shows that someProgress Reports fall short of the standard thatthe country’s own PRSP has established.


It is not surprising that JSAs are written with astrong emphasis on macroeconomics. That isappropriate. However, an institution such asthe World Bank—concerned withenvironmentally and socially sustainabledevelopment—should take a cross-cuttingapproach to its assessment of the PRSP. Thatmust also include the environment.

In summary, we have pointed here to a set ofissues where improvements are possible withvery limited additional effort and resources.Our paper can only go so far: we provide anoverview and leave the details for more specificcountry-by-country discussions.


Appendix A —Interim PRSPs and Full PRSPs

S. No Country Region IPRSP PRSP

Implementation

progress report

1 Albania Eastern Europe Dec 4, 2001 April 2002 2 Armenia Central Asia Jan 11, 2001 3 Azerbaijan Central Asia May 22, 2001 May 14, 2003 4 Bangladesh South Asia June 2003 5 Benin Sub Saharan Africa July 13, 2000 Feb 23 2002 6 Bolivia L. America & Caribbean Jan 27, 2000 June 5, 2001

7 Bosnia & Herzegovina Eastern Europe Oct. 2, 2002

8 Burkina Faso Sub Saharan Africa June 30, 2000 Dec 6, 2001, Sept 2002

9 Chad Sub Saharan Africa July 25, 2000 10 Cameroon Sub Saharan Africa Oct 10, 2000 11 Cambodia East Asia Jan 18, 2001 Feb 2003 12 Cape Verde Sub Saharan Africa April 8, 2002 13 Central African Rep. Sub Saharan Africa Jan 18, 2001. 14 Congo, DR Sub Saharan Africa June 11, 2002 15 Cote D'Ivoire Sub Saharan Africa March 28, 2002 16 Djibouti North Africa Feb 27, 2001 17 Ethiopia Sub Saharan Africa Mar 20, 2001 Sept 17, 2002 18 Gambia Sub Saharan Africa Dec 14, 2000 July 16, 2002 19 Georgia Eastern Europe Dec 19, 2000 20 Ghana Sub Saharan Africa Aug. 24, 2000 March 4, 2003 21 Guinea Sub Saharan Africa Dec. 22, 2000 July 25, 2002 22 Guinea Bissau Sub Saharan Africa Dec. 14, 2000 23 Guyana Caribbean Nov 14, 2000 Sept 17, 2002 24 Honduras L. America July 6, 2000 Oct 11, 2001 25 Kenya Sub Saharan Africa Aug 1, 2000 26 Kyrgyz Rep. Central Asia July 5, 2001 Jan 23, 2003 27 Lao PDR East Asia April 24, 2001 28 Lesotho Sub Saharan Africa March 6, 2001 29 Mali Sub Saharan Africa Sept 7, 2000 Feb 27, 2003 30 Malawi Sub Saharan Africa Dec 21, 2000 Aug 29, 2002 31 Madagascar Sub Saharan Africa Dec 19, 2000 32 Mauritania Sub Saharan Africa Feb 6, 2001 Sept 25, 2001 June 18, 2002 33 Moldova Eastern Europe Dec 14, 2000 34 Mongolia East Asia Sept 27, 2001 35 Mozambique Sub Saharan Africa April 6, 2000 Oct 1, 2001 April 2003 36 Nicaragua L. America Dec 21, 2000 Sept 25, 2001 37 Niger Sub Saharan Africa Dec 20, 2000 Feb 7, 2002 38 Pakistan South Asia Dec 4, 2001



39 Rwanda Sub Saharan Africa Dec 21, 2000 Aug 6, 2002

40 Sao Tome & Prin. Sub Saharan Africa April 27, 2000

41 Serbia & Montenegro Eastern Europe June 20, 2002

42 Senegal Sub Saharan Africa June 20, 2000 Nov 20, 2002

43 Sierra Leone Sub Saharan Africa Sept 25, 2001 44 Sri Lanka South Asia March 7, 2003

45 Tajikistan Europe & Central Asia June 8, 2000. Oct 10, 2002

46 Tanzania Sub Saharan Africa April 4, 2000 Nov. 30, 2000 Nov 27, 2001, March 2003

47 Uganda Sub Saharan Africa Nov. 30, 2000 March 2001, 2002

48 Vietnam East Asia April 12, 2001 July 2, 2002

49 Yemen Middle East Nov 27, 2001 Aug 2002

50 Zambia Sub Saharan Africa August 4, 2000 May 22, 2002

S. No Country Region IPRSP PRSP

Implementation

progress report


Appendix B —Scoring Format of the PRSPAssessment

1. Issues in Focus

1. Land use: degradation, deforestation, erosion, overgrazing, etc. 2. Water: drinking water, irrigation, fisheries and water pollution, etc. 3. Air & climate: air quality, solid fuel usage, emissions, climate variability 4. Biodiversity : threats to ecosystems, species and genes , nature-based opportunities

2. Causal Link Assessment

1. Poverty and NR degradation : resource dependence and inequality 2. Environmental health: communicable diseases, housing environment, and pollution 3. Vulnerability : impacts of natural hazards 4. Property rights: tenure and user rights 5. Incentives: pricing interventions, taxation, subsidies, exchange rate, trade, etc. 6. Empowerment: community-based management, decentralization and partnerships 7. Gender: role of women in environmental management

3. Response systems

1. Environmental management capacity: legislation, regulation, institutional reform, data systems,

cross-sectoral coordination, environmental standards, environmental economic instruments, etc. 2. Investment in natural capital: investment in natural resource productivity 3. Investment in human-made capital: investment in environmental infrastructure 4. Monitoring natural resource outcomes: deforestation, afforestation, rehabilitated areas, protected

areas, soil & water conservation measures, renewable energy use, etc. 5. Monitoring human resource outcomes: infant and child mortality, disease burden related to

environmental risk factors, time spent collecting fuelwood and water

4. Process

1. Description of the participatory process and inclusion of environmental constituencies, particularly with respect to the identification of environmental issues, poverty links, and actions

Score: 0 = not mentioned; 1 = mentioned by not elaborated; 2 = elaborated; 3 = good practice.


Notes

1. For countries that have high external debt,PRSPs form the basis for debt relief underthe enhanced Heavily Indebted PoorCountries Initiative.

2. “IDA13” signifies the 13th round ofreplenishment to the InternationalDevelopment Association, also knows asthe “credit window” of the World Bank.

3. For a detailed discussion of poverty-environment links, see the World Bank’sEnvironmental Strategy (2001) MakingSustainable Commitments, and DFID, EC,UNDP, and The World Bank (2002): LinkingPoverty Reduction and EnvironmentalManagement: Policy Challenges andOpportunities, paper prepared for the WorldSummit on Sustainable Development,Johannesburg. For environmental healthrisks, see WHO (2002).

4. More precisely, “environment” refers to boththe living and non-living components of thenatural world. The environment is (a) asource of raw material and energy, (b) arecipient and partial recycler of wasteproducts from the economy; and (c) animportant source of recreation, beauty,spiritual values, and other amenities. SeeDFID and others (2002) for further discussion.

5. For an expansion of that argument ineconomic terms, see “Can the EnvironmentWait” (World Bank 1997), which illustratesthe significant cost of environmentalpollution to poor people today.

6. The World Bank and IMF Reviews on PRSPpreparation and implementation are also toa large extent based on the PRSP documents(World Bank and IMF 2001b, 2002b, 2002c,and 2003).

7. In this paper, for the sake of simplicity weuse the term “PRSP” to also include interimPRSPs when the distinction is not essential.

8. The World Bank Board may discuss PRSPImplementation Progress Reports and itsJSA on its own or in association with theIMF and IDA operational programs. Theannual progress report is also required forcountries under the poverty reductiongrowth facility (PRGF) of the IMF and forthose countries that do not update theirPRSP within three years under an IDAarrangement (World Bank and IMF 2002b).

9. For a detailed discussion aboutenvironmental indicators, see Shyamsundar(2002).

10. In our discussion with Country Teams, weshare our entire scoring sheet, not only theaverage score.

11. In the country with the lowest scoring fullPRSP (Tanzania), the government iscurrently active in shaping a mainstreamingprogram together with a set of supportivedonors.

12. See World Development Indicators 2003 for alisting of environmental action planscovering most PRSP countries.

13. Definitions of “environmental risk” vary,but generally include at least the impacts of



unsafe water, poor sanitation, indoor andoutdoor air pollution, and agro-industrialwaste. See Lvovsky (2001) and WHO (2002)for background on these issues.

14. See Bojö and Reddy (2003) for a detailedreview of PRSPs in the context of theMillennium Goal on EnvironmentalSustainability.


References

Bojö, Jan, and Rama Chandra Reddy. 2002.“Poverty Reduction Strategies andEnvironment: A Review of 40 Interim andFull Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers.”Environment Department Paper No. 86. WorldBank, Washington, D.C.

———. 2003. “Poverty Reduction Strategies andMillennium Development Goal onEnvironmental Sustainability:Opportunities for Alignment.” EnvironmentDepartment Paper No. 92. World Bank,Washington, D.C.

Department for International Development(DFID), Directorate General forDevelopment, European Commission (EC),United Nations Development Program(UNDP), and The World Bank. 2002. LinkingPoverty Reduction and EnvironmentalManagement: Policy Challenges andOpportunities. Paper presented at the WorldSummit on Sustainable Development,Johannesburg, South Africa.

Ekbom, A., and J. Bojö. 1997. “MainstreamingEnvironment in Country AssistanceStrategies.” Discussion Paper No.1. WorldBank, Environment Group, Africa Region,Washington D.C.

IDA (International Development Association).2002. Additions to IDA Resources: ThirteenthReplenishment. IDA/SecM2002-0488,Washington, D.C.

IMF (International Monetary Fund) and IDA(International Development Association).1999. “Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers—Operational Issues.” Prepared by the staffsof the IMF and the World Bank.Washington, D.C. Processed.

IMF (International Monetary Fund), UNEP(United Nations Environment Programme),and the World Bank. 2002. FinancingSustainable Development. Washington, D.C.

Lvovsky, K. 2001. “Health and Environment.”Environment Strategy Papers No.1. WorldBank, Washington, D.C.

Shyamsundar, P. 2002. “Poverty-EnvironmentIndicators.” Environment Department PaperNo. 84. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Shyamsundar, P., and K. Hamilton. 2000. “AnEnvironmental Review of 1999 CountryAssistance Strategies—Best Practice andLessons Learned.” World Bank,Environment Department, EnvironmentalEconomics and Indicators Unit,Washington, D.C. Processed.



WHO (World Health Organization). 2002. WorldHealth Report 2002: Reducing Risks, PromotingHealthy Life. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.

World Bank. 1997. Can the Environment Wait?:Priorities for East Asia. World Bank,Washington, D.C.

———. 2000. Guidelines for Joint Staff Assessments(JSA) of a Full Poverty Reduction StrategyPaper. World Bank, Washington DC.

———. 2001a. Making Sustainable Commitments— An Environment Strategy for the WorldBank. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

———. 2001b. “Poverty Reduction StrategyPapers — Progress of Implementation.”Prepared by the staffs of the IMF and theWorld Bank. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

———. 2003a. Putting Our Commitments to Work:Environment Strategy Implementation ProgressReport. World Bank. Washington, D.C.

———. 2003b. World Development Indicators2003. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

World Bank and IMF (International MonetaryFund). 2002a. Guidelines for ImplementationProgress Reports. World Bank, Washington,D.C.

———. 2002b. “Poverty Reduction StrategyPapers (PRSP) — Progress inImplementation.” Prepared by the staffs ofthe World Bank and IMF. World Bank,Washington, D.C.

———. 2002c. “Review of the PovertyReduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) Approach:Early Experience with Interim PRSPs andFull PRSPs.” Prepared by the staffs of theWorld Bank and IMF. World Bank,Washington, D.C.

———. 2003. “Poverty Reduction StrategyPaper—Detailed Analysis of Progress inImplementation.” Prepared by the staffs ofthe World Bank and IMF, Washington, D.C.

Date post:	06-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	anil-sagar
View:	214 times
Download:	1 times

Status and Evolution ofEnvironmental Prioritiesin the PovertyReduction Strategies

Documents