STANDARD VOICE Poverty And Poverty Alleviation Strategies In Sierra Leone Posted by on Jan 18, 2008, 14:11

Despite the growing volume of literature on the subject of poverty, there continues to be no consensus on the definition of the phenomenon. Nor is there even an agreement on whether poverty is an economic concept or a social concept. Poverty as an economic concept uses monetary measures to measure well being of individuals. As many analysts have indicated that when measuring poverty using monetary measures, one may have a choice between using income or consumption as the indicator of well being of the population. The authors however thought that, consumption appears to be a better indicator of poverty measurement than income, since for example actual consumption is more closely related to well-being-having enough to meet current basic needs. This means that poverty as an economic concept lays emphasis on what the individual has in terms of food, shelter, clothing, financial and other assets.

Poverty as a social concept uses non-monetary measure of well-being. Poverty as a social concept has many dimensions; subjectively defined, influenced by culture, beliefs and traditions. As a social concept, poverty is associated not only with insufficient income or consumption, but also with insufficient outcomes with respect to health, nutrition, and literacy, and with deficient social relations, insecurity, and low-self esteem and powerlessness. This means that poverty as a social concept puts emphasizes on what a human being is-sick, illiterate, can¡¦t afford a three-square meal per day, excluded from society, and dies very quickly of preventable and treatable diseases.

The Definition Problem

The problem with a definition for poverty is that there is no single one that will satisfy all situations. One way to overcome this is by focusing on the indicators of poverty. Thus, poverty becomes defined by the World Bank and UNDP in terms of mortality rates, levels of literacy, per capita income, access to basic amenities such as health, safe drinking water; life expectance at birth and so on. This approach is most useful when comparing countries in the world.

 The lack of consensus on a definition of poverty shows that poverty has many faces and changes from time to time and from place to place. The World Bank² in 2000 described poverty this way:

ƒæ     Poverty is hunger

ƒæ     Poverty is lack of shelter

ƒæ     Poverty is being sick and not being able to see a doctor

ƒæ     Poverty is not being able to go to school

ƒæ     Poverty is not having a job

ƒæ     Poverty is fear of the feature

ƒæ     Poverty is loosing a child to illness brought about lack of clean water

ƒæ     Poverty is powerlessness

ƒæ     Poverty is lack of representation and freedom

ƒæ     The only clear thing about poverty is that poverty is a situation that people would like to escape from.

POVERTY IN SIERRA LEONE

Notwithstanding its natural endowments of minerals, fish resources, a tropical climate favourable for agricultural production, and human resources, Sierra Leone is still classified as the poorest of the poor countries in the world. The Country has repeatedly been ranked bottom of the countries listed in UNDP Human Development Report from 1991-2007. This manifested in declining per capita incomes, high infant mortality rate, and life expectancy among the least in the world.

Poverty alleviation strategies

To reverse this level of poverty and its underlying causes, the GoSL completed its first full PRSP for the period 2005-2007 in February 2005, preceded by an Interim PRSP (I-PRSP) and a National Recovery Strategy (NRS) of 2001 and 2002 respectively. The PRSP, which presents the Sierra Leone Poverty Reduction Strategy (SLPRS), provides a comprehensive framework for reducing poverty, achieving economic growth, increasing food security, increasing job opportunities and providing better basic social services, as well as effective social safety nets for the poor and vulnerable in Sierra Leone. It comprises the following three pillars: (1) Good Governance, Security and Peace Building; (2) Pro-poor Sustainable Growth for Food Security and Job Creation; and (3) Human Development. The PRSP is consistent with the Millennium Development Goals (MDG¡¦s) and has the overall goal to reduce poverty to at least the 1990 level by 2007. It is estimated that this will require a real GDP growth between six and nine percent p.a. during the 2005-2007 period. Agriculture, fisheries and allied sectors are supported under Pillar 2 of the SLPRS.

As an input into the SLPRS, Government prepared a comprehensive Agricultural Sector Review and Agricultural Development Strategy1, with assistance from IFAD, FAO, UNDP and WB. The short-term objectives of Government intervention are diversification of small-scale subsistence agriculture in the uplands and intensification of production in the lowlands, mainly through the introduction of new technologies, input provision, targeted extension support, especially to the unemployed youth and the small-scale farmers, as well as food-for work programmes for more vulnerable farmers. In the medium-term, support to small-scale farmers will mainly aim at: (i) increasing their capacity to be able to produce enough to meet their own input needs directly or through established input and output markets; (ii) increasing the stability and reliability of food supplies through a comprehensive feeder (farm-to-market) roads programme; and (iii) the provision of market, storage and drying floor infrastructure.

During the November 2005 Consultative Group (CG) meeting for Sierra Leone in London, development partners acknowledged that the SLPRS provides an adequate framework for poverty reduction and a transition towards sustained medium-to-long-term development. The SLPRS contains a prioritized programme for each of its three pillars in the form of an Activity Matrix, representing the country¡¦s mid-term investment programme and presently being integrated in the budget. The Activity Matrix is complemented by a Results Matrix, which is to

help monitor the outcomes supported by both Government and Partner resources. Together, the SLPRS, the Activity Matrix and the Results Matrix provide the prioritized strategic framework for the partnership between Government and donors as agreed at the CG.

However, while the overall costs of the SLPRS are estimated at US$1.7 billion for the period 2005-07, the projected domestic revenues and identified financing from donors only amount to around US$800 million. This large funding gap of over US$900 million makes further prioritization necessary to ensure that the most critical programmes and projects receive sustained

support. It has been generally acknowledged at the CG that for successful implementation of the SLPRS there is a need to strengthen government capacity to monitor and evaluate the impact of programmes, to reinforce the capacity of implementing agencies to develop and execute programmes, and to ensure timely, predictable volumes of external financing.

At the last CG meeting, development partners also discussed two new funding mechanisms that will support the goal of increased harmonization and potentially leverage additional resources to Sierra Leone during its transitional period to development. These include the Multi-Donor Budget Support (MDBS) programme, which is an approach initiated by the EC, DfID and the World Bank to harmonize their budget support processes in an effort to increase development impact, reduce transaction costs, and promote the predictability of resource flows. Other partners, such as the African Development Bank may also contribute to the MDBS mechanism. The MDBS will focus on strengthening public financial management and will promote the leadership of the GoSL to drive SLPRS results through the budget process. In addition, a proposal was made for a multi-donor PRS Trust Fund with the aim to support critical aspects of the SLPRS that are not being financed through existing bilateral programmes and technical assistance, and to offer new donors a low transaction-cost vehicle for contributing resources toward the objectives of the SLPRS. It should be noted, however, that these mechanisms would not exclude other modalities of bilateral funding.

Donors hold regular (quarterly) Development Partnership Committee (DEPAC) meetings in Freetown, with the main objective of reviewing progress in the implementation of the SLPRS. In order to achieve greater aid harmonization and effectiveness, annual CG meetings are planned as a forum for partners to align their support to the Government¡¦s budget, to review progress and to agree jointly on priorities.