The Uganda PSIA Demonstration Exercise

1
The Uganda PSIA Demonstration Exercise

• Presentation to DFID PSIA Seminar Series, London
• 12 March 2003
• David Booth, Deborah Kasente, George Mavrotas,
  Gloria Kempaka Mugambe and Abdu Muwonge

2
PSIAWhat is it? Why now?

• Ex ante PSIA looking at the likely consequences
  of a policy before implementing it
• 1997-1999 self-criticism at IMF and World Bank
  for not doing it much
• 1999 PRSPs - general adoption of Ugandas PEAP
  model poverty reduction efforts and analysis
  need to be Government-led, consultative

3
The process in Uganda

• MFPED agreement with DFID to sponsor a
  demonstration exercise
• Purpose to show it can be done, is helpful to
  policy, and what the problems are likely to be
• Approach Open-ended discussions between initial
  research team and stakeholders (April 2002)
• Topic selected and team finalised

4
Deciding what to focus on

• Principles
• something topical and important
• something do-able, using mostly existing data
• try out a range of quantitative and qualitative
  methods
• dont try to be comprehensive add value to
  existing debate
• Decision
• look at neglected aspects of the Strategic
  Exports Initiative (STRATEX)
• focus on coffee and fish to keep it manageable

5
Why strategic exports?

• A recent presidential initiative - partly arising
  from concern about excessive dependence on donor
  support
• Controversial with donors - public-private split,
  supply- versus demand-driven, etc.
• Some analytical work done, but scope for new
  knowledge to make a difference
• Not widely debated - thus, an important challenge
  for keeping the PEAP dialogue vigorous and
  inclusive

6
Which impact issues?/ What previous work?
Incentives
Distribution

• Macro

World market prospects signalled?
Does production structure favour equitable
distribution of benefits?
Are there incentives to sustainable production?
Meso
Are redistributive mechanisms needed?
Are incentives reaching the farm gate?
Are marketing margins fair to producers?
Micro
Gender division of labour and supply response?
Will higher earnings improve nutrition, health
and education?
Sub-micro
7
Which impact issues?/ What previous work?KEY

• Roman text main focus of debate until now
  consultants reports suggesting world market
  prospects poorly signalled method supply-driven
  rather than facilitative
• Italic text partially covered good work on
  marketing chains especially
• Bold text entirely absent

8
What did we ask?

• What does the 1999/2000 survey say about
  households in coffee and fishing?
• What do local studies and interviews with experts
  tell us about macro-micro-submicro links, for new
  crops and export fishing?
• What was in the initial PPA2 reports on fishing
  communities?
• On what topics could a quick study add value to
  the policy debate?

9
Key findings

• 1) Opportunities for poverty reduction through
  coffee are by no means exhausted
• 2) But STRATEX will work badly if it doesnt
  confront 2 consequences of gender division of
  income
• male bias of household spending is likely to
  prevent improvement in welfare of women and
  children - especially dramatic in export-fishing
• womens position on export crops also likely to
  weaken supply response in coffee

10
What is the policy issue?

• STRATEX needs to address micro-issues, if it is
  to work
• And it is running in parallel with GoUs own
  instrument for micro-level facilitation of
  commercialisiation - PMA
• Some project experience shows facilitating
  cooperative solutions to crop-choice and resource
  utisation can work
• PMA/NAADS demand-driven approach is suitable for
  scaling-up these successes

11
Recommendations

• Harmonise STRATEX and the PMA
• Adjust STRATEX methods in the light of existing
  criticisms
• But also
• deliberate targeting of women farmers by NAADS is
  crucial
• facilitation for cooperative gender solutions,
  and womens de facto land access
• stronger focus on adult literacy for women
• more resources for gender mainstreaming in all
  sector-wide strategies

12
What did we learn?1 about data

• The survey analysis was disappointing
• Poverty-measurement surveys area not ideal for
  exploring income scenarios in detail
• Tailor-made surveys needed?
• Relevant local case study evidence was abundant -
  Uganda and international
• Although well-known in research circles, not
  taken into account by policy makers
• So there can be value-added from just making
  research-policy linkages

13
What did we learn?2 about method

• Practical snags obstructed intellectual
  integration and timely reporting
• Go for a simpler organisational model?
• Report unwieldy for Ugandan policy purposes
• Be clearer about audience
• Include fewer of the frills required for
  international public
• Focus on gap-filling, value added and
  experimentation doesnt persuade readers?

14
Way forward in Uganda?

• Use the PEAP research programme to mainstream
  PSIA
• identify issues and commission PSIAs in good time
• Schedule next ones ahead of the 2003 PEAP
  revision
• Separate commissioning and research roles, and
  keep the former close to policy