Parliamentary Networkon the World Bank

www.pnowb.org

The World Bank

www.worldbank.org/parliamentarians

The “Parliamentarians in the Field” Program is one of the key activities of the Parliamen-tary Network on the World Bank (PNoWB). It is organized jointly with the World Bank and is supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland.

The aims of the program are to:

i) assess and encourage the participation of parliamentarians in poverty reduction strategy (PRSP) processes, ii) look at donor coordination in development projects, and iii) increase parliamentarians’ awareness of the World Bank’s mission and role at the country level.

To date, field visits have taken place in Kenya, Albania, Uganda, Burundi, Serbia and Montenegro, Ethiopia, Yemen, Nicara-gua, Vietnam, Ghana, Madagascar, Nigeria, India, Rwanda and Lao PDR.

The "Parliamentarians in the Field“Program is implemented jointly by the

PNoWB and the World Bank

Supported by the Ministry ofForeign Affairs of Finland

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland

The “Parliamentarians in the Field”Program

Executive Summaries and Main Findingsof Field Visits 2001 - 2007

Executive Summaries and Main Recommendations of the ‘Parliamentarians in the Field’ program

FOREWORD

On behalf of the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank (PNoWB), and the World Bank, we are delighted to present to you the executive summaries and main findings of the ‘Parliamentarians in the Field’ field visits program. The program has been running for over five years and has brought over 120 members of parliaments from both developed and developing countries to countries where the World Bank carries out its projects on the ground. "Parliamentarians in the Field" is one of the key activities of the PNoWB, organized jointly with the World Bank and supported by a grant from the government of Finland. To date, successful field visits have taken place in Kenya, Albania, Uganda, Burundi, Serbia and Montenegro, Ethiopia, Yemen, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Ghana, Madagascar, Nigeria, Rwanda and Lao PDR. There is a growing recognition of the role parliamentarians can play in the development debate by opening up dialogue between the World Bank and the communities it serves. But if they are to have an impact on development policies and projects, it is essential that they get a chance to make political assessments and check results on the ground. Hence the program which aims to foster a better understanding among MPs of the World Bank’s work where it matters most: in schools, roads and hospitals all over the world. Through these visits, the World Bank aims to broaden the input of MPs in the design and review of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper process. A key objective of the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank- which has over 1,000 parliamentarians from 110 countries is to involve elected representatives in the work of the World Bank and in the PRSP process. The involvement of the legislative branch is also a central component of forging global partnerships for development (Millennium Goal 8). As you will see in this document, the field visits typically involve a delegation of members of parliament from around the world to a PRSP country for the four-day visit. It includes discussions with government officials, donor community, civil society representatives, and the World Bank’s own country teams. We also encourage discussion with local parliamentarians who have a wealth of experience of the development priorities which need to be addressed. For MPs from donor countries, the visits aim to build awareness and capacity to make decisions on the allocation of development aid budgets in their national assemblies. For MPs from recipient countries, the visits are a useful vantage point to examine the Bank’s work, not least in their own countries.

Page 2 / 44

The visits aim to:

• Enhance, through the case study of the country visited, parliamentary understanding of the activities of the World Bank particularly in tackling the HIV/Aids pandemic;

• Review the participatory process and the outcome of the country-owned Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper;

• Encourage dialogue among the MPs on the delegation and between the delegation and World Bank staff, parliamentarians and civil society.

• Produce a report by an independent rapporteur, targeting donor governments and senior World Bank management with recommendations for future action at the end of each visit

Special thanks are due for the financial support of the government of Finland in both the publication of this report and the funding of the field visits’ program. We hope that you will find this document useful and that it will inspire parliamentarians to take a more active role in the oversight and ownership of poverty reduction policies. Best wishes,

Bert Koenders Outgoing Chair of the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank

Jean-Christophe Bas Development Policy Dialogue Manager World Bank

The PNoWB and the World Bank would like to express their gratitude to the Government of Finland for their support of the Parliamentarians in the Field Program. For more information about field visits and to learn more about the PNoWB please visit www.pnowb.org. For information on how the World Bank works with parliamentarians please visit www.worldbank.org/parliamentarians.

Page 3 / 44

Table of content

Field visit executive summaries and main recommendations:

Kenya Field Visit II ................................................................................................................ 4 Lao PDR Field Visit................................................................................................................ 9 Rwanda Field Visit ............................................................................................................... 13 Ghana Field Visit .................................................................................................................. 15 Madagascar Field Visit ......................................................................................................... 17 Vietnam Field Visit............................................................................................................... 18 Serbia and Montenegro Field Visit ....................................................................................... 20 Nicaragua Field Visit ............................................................................................................ 22 Yemen Field Visit ................................................................................................................. 24 Ethiopia Field Visit ............................................................................................................... 26 Albania Field Visit................................................................................................................ 29 Kenya Field Visit I................................................................................................................ 32 Burundi Field Visit ............................................................................................................... 34 Uganda Field Visit ................................................................................................................ 37 Nigeria Field Visit................................................................................................................. 40 List of MPs who attended field visits………………………………………………………42

Page 4 / 44

Kenya Field Visit II

Special Focus on Agriculture and Science for Development

September 10-14, 2006

DRAFT

A delegation of fourteen parliamentarians participated in a PNoWB field visit to Kenya organised on September 10-14, 2006 with the support of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR1) and the World Bank. The delegation included parliamentarians from Canada, Colombia, Finland, Iceland, India, Liberia, Poland, South Africa, Sweden, Tanzania and Uganda

The delegation was also accompanied by seven Kenyan PNoWB members in visits to the research centres supported by the CGIAR in Kenya and to World-Bank-supported educational and health projects. While agriculture provided the main focus, MPs had the opportunity to assess the Poverty Reduction Strategy process, in Kenya, in addition to issues such as corruption and trade through discussions with various stakeholders and representatives from the Kenyan Parliament and government, the World Bank, bilateral and multilateral donor community, civil society groups.

The main aims of the visit were two-fold:

• To present and review topics of relevance to Parliamentarians and related to the work of agricultural research and enhance, through the case study of the country visited, parliamentary understanding of the activities of the CGIAR and encourage more informed parliamentary engagement in the development debate;

• To provide MPs with a general understanding of Kenya’s development challenges, its Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRSP) and encourage dialogue among the MPs on the delegation, National MPs, the donor community, CSOs and think thanks.

1CGIAR is a strategic alliance of countries, international and regional organizations, and private foundations supporting 15 international agricultural centres that work with national agricultural research systems and civil society organizations including the private sector. The alliance mobilizes agricultural science to reduce poverty, foster human well being, promote agricultural growth and protect the environment. The science that made possible the Green Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s was largely the work of CGIAR centres and their national agricultural research partners. The scientists' work not only increased incomes for small farmers, it enabled the preservation of millions of hectares of forest and grasslands, conserving biodiversity and reducing carbon releases into the atmosphere.

Page 5 / 44

The World Agroforestry Centre and International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) organised field trips, where parliamentarians spoke directly to farmers, discussing the benefits and disadvantages of new crop varieties and farming systems. The Centre presented briefings on climate change, agriculture, regional trade, agricultural subsidies, biotechnology, avian flu, donor harmonisation throughout the week, which stirred up debates among parliamentarians. One outcome was a request from PNoWB members for readily accessible and coherent information, which would enable them to influence national and international policy in favour of agriculture, science and technology.

Climate change, while it was not an issue of major focus to begin with, stimulated a lot of discussion and interest which left a profound impression on visiting and Kenyan PNoWB members. Both developed and developing country members felt they like many of their counterparts round the globe, were only beginning to grasp the true extent of the problem. Urgent action was needed to overcome climate change as the single biggest threat to poverty reduction. In addition delegation members saw a clear role for greater cooperation between researchers and legislators in facing the climate change challenge and in forcing stronger policy responses from governments North and South.

So why the need to focus on agriculture? Kenya, like many of the countries visited in the PNoWB field visit program, is hugely dependent agriculture as the main source of subsistence for its poor and as a foreign exchange earner. Yet a huge gap in policy exists; agriculture’s importance is not suitably reflected in both the Kenyan government and donor priorities in poverty reduction. CGIAR argues that in a world where 75 percent of poor people depend on agriculture to survive, poverty cannot be reduced without investment in agriculture. Many of the countries with the strongest agricultural sectors have a record of sustained investment in agricultural science and technology. The evidence is clear: research for development generates agricultural growth and reduces poverty. The International Food Policy Research Institute, IFPRI2 estimates that if agriculture in Eastern and Central Africa remains in its current state, not a single nation in the region will achieve the Millennium Development Goal of halving poverty by 2015. This is the first PNoWB field visit to focus on agriculture to allow parliamentarians to check results on the ground and observe the benefits of agricultural research for development. For CGIAR the visit represented an important milestone in engaging parliamentarians in the fight against poverty. Elected representatives as agents of change and advocates for development can vote for increased financial support for the network in donor countries, and in recipient countries, it will enable them to contribute to designing and overseeing implementation of CGIAR programs. However Kenya’s chequered success in the development, and the rise and fall of its popularity with donors gave the delegation the ideal opportunity to discuss pros and cons of development aid with their counterparts from the Kenyan Parliament, donors as well as with civil society organizations. Kenya’s

2 IFPRI report, Strategic Priorities for Agricultural Development in Eastern and Central Africa Steven Were Omamo, Xinshen Diao, Stanley Wood, Jordan Chamberlin, Liangzhi You, Sam Benin, Ulrike Wood-Sichra, and Alex Tatwangire, December 2006

Page 6 / 44

huge focus on anti-corruption and good governance since 2002 as a key prerequisite to reverse the slide into abject poverty has created a lot of international interest not least the visiting delegation. They were impressed by the progress achieved but felt by and large there was a need to move beyond the rhetoric. Corruption along with loan servicing and debt repayments continue to sap much-needed MDG resources from poor countries.

While Kenya has highlighted corruption is one of the most central concerns of its development partners as well as of the Kenyan public, there still remains a big gap between rhetoric and reality. The Kenya Anti-corruption Commission (KACC) has made some progress in strengthening public financial management and audit. However there remains a widespread perception even amongst Kenyans that that results from Kenya’s anticorruption efforts might be stagnating3.

Recommendations and observations By and large, the delegation felt that they had got a lot of the field visit. However, some like Lotte Hedstrom, MP, Sweden, felt that they still needed more clarification of the World Bank’s role in Kenya before making a fully-informed decision on what the shortcomings if any were. Percy Downe, Senator, Canada, agreed recommending that just seeing what worked was hugely limiting and that the visits should also look at projects that don’t work in order to draw lessons. Where CGIAR was concerned there was overall consensus on the good work being done, however here too there was a recommendation that there was still a gap in translating it into terms of what role for parliamentarians. Delegation leader Professor Ben Turok, MP, South Africa, said he was impressed with Kenya’s ambitions to fight poverty and the plans presented, “…the challenge now is whether Kenya implements those plans”, Professor Turok argued. He however echoed the sentiments of delegation members and paid particular tribute to the resilience and innovation of Kenyans in trying to improve lives with limited resources. The success of the Kitengela project with the Masai, where CGIAR and ILRI had introduced innovations to improve incomes, as well as the teachers and pupils of Ayani school with meager resources were testament to this. A stronger partnership between firstly, the legislature and research institutes, and secondly, research institutes/scientists and practitioners is needed if agriculture is to improve. Many of the Kenyan MPs came from both rural and urban constituencies where agriculture was key to their constituents. As Gor Sungu, MP Kenya, commented, “…science and technological amount to nothing if they do not reach those that need it most, the poor”. Greater efforts were needed on the part of donors to revolutionize agriculture, and the Kenyans especially felt that smaller tailor-made indigenous solutions would work

3 Transparency International Kenya survey, June 2006 Kenyans interviewed felt that corruption was unchanged, the same number as in 2003. Respondents also reported that bribery increased in 2005 following declines in 2003 and 2004, source, World Bank report on Kenya

Page 7 / 44

better than large-scale initiatives. The Green Revolution while it was great could not be replicated in the African environment they stressed. Members of the delegation were impressed by CGIAR efforts to address poverty through science and technological innovation. However they felt that much of this effort was at risk unless governments, donor and recipient, were to place agriculture as a priority on the development agenda, especially in Africa where on average the Bank, as the leading development agency, still had some way to go and was only now beginning to focus on agriculture. More effort was needed here. Poor countries have contributed the least to global warming but are likely to be hit the hardest by its effects. Climate change needs urgent attention from rich countries especially, as a development and poverty and security priority. However poor-country governments too have their role to play; they must promote environmentally-friendly policies and introduce stiffer penalties for non-compliance. This will discourage more powerful countries from using poor countries as a dumping ground for waste, and as a cheap source of energy for the big polluters. The United States, China, Russia and India are the top national emitters of greenhouse gases. Of the top four, only Russia is part of the Kyoto Protocol which mandates cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in the 2008-2012 period. Also more support from donors was needed to help poor countries invest in low-carbon energy and energy efficiency measures and technology as part of development. Donors like the World Bank need to work more closely with Kenyans to help tackle corruption as one of the single biggest obstacles to effective poverty reduction and the MDGs. This should go beyond support to the Executive and towards independent civil society oversight bodies. Members of the delegation visited projects which had programs suspended due to corruption investigations. These are often vital, life-saving projects like one HIV/Aids program in the Kibera slums whose budget was severely constrained by the suspension. The poor are unfortunately the victims. Also delegation leader, Professor Ben Turok, MP, South Africa argued the need for the good governance debate to also encompass the North. He felt that there was an unbalanced focus on recipients yet there were corruption cases which involved companies from the North, “Good governance does depend on good performance by donor and recipient countries” stressed Professor Turok. He did however agree that the Kenyans had a role to play in tackling corruption, at the visit to Ayany Primary School in the Kibera slum he and other delegation members applauded efforts by the school to have a transparent mechanism fro tracking the school’s budget but Prof Turok felt that this was still weak and needed strengthening. Norbert Mao, former MP, Uganda and PNoWB Board member agreed and highlighted Uganda’s simple but effective remedy to public sector related corruption; making sure money released was advertised widely and severe sanctions like immediate sacking of corrupt officials. It was clear from the discussions with Kenyan MPs, representatives from the Kenyan government as well as civil society organizations that conditionalities associated with donor assistance still remain a problem. PRSPs and World Bank administered programs remain unpopular in Kenya and delegation members were urged to put pressure on donors to reduce the number of conditionalities as well as

Page 8 / 44

harmonizing the myriad requirements, on spending and reporting back on donor funds. Conditionalities came up as the first question at the press conference with representatives from the Kenya media. In response Professor Turok said that it was no surprise that the World Bank has conditions attached to lending in Kenya, indeed the Singapore World bank and IMF Annual Meetings in the autumn, 2006, there were plans to consider an extension of conditionalities. He accepted that the Bank, as a global institution accountable to big powers will not lend without conditions, “…the Bank is not a charity”, he stressed. However this view was questioned by Lotte Hedstrom who reported that conditionality was a big issue in her country Sweden where there was concern about the quality of aid. She argued that the food security should take precedence i.e. “putting lives first to make sure aid is delivered in the fastest and simplest way.” Also donors like the Bank and Fund must be careful not to squeeze crucial public sector budgets in the drive to shrink the public sector to make economies like Kenya more efficient. Some of the Kenyan MPs highlighted the need for a careful balance between efficiency and poverty reduction efforts which often needed huge increases in spending. This was particularly so in education and health to allow Kenya to meet the MDGs. The World Bank has highlighted the business sector as the engine of growth and development to lift poor countries out of poverty, yet Professor Turok and other delegation members felt that in their meeting with private sector representatives, the latter did not necessarily see themselves as having such a role. More work was needed with the private sector to firstly create an enabling environment for business, and secondly, to ensure that any gains also benefit the poor. Kenya must not go the way of countries like India and China where growth has been impressive but with little impact on absolute poverty. Women by and large bore the burden of poverty and poverty was about food and subsistence. Lotte Hedstrom, MP, Sweden, and some of the female members of the delegation were struck by what they saw as inequality and a lack of voice for women. They viewed Kenya’s record in this area and their representation in Parliament as poor. Ms Hedstrom argued that women were the future and more efforts and investment was needed here if Kenya is to have a sustainable exit from poverty.

Page 9 / 44

Lao PDR Field Visit

March 5-10, 2006

DRAFT

A ten-member delegation of members of the PNoWB visited Lao PDR from March 5 to March 10, 2006 to assess the country’s PRSPR, the National Growth and Poverty Eradication Strategy, and crucially the potential of the Nam Theun 2 hydroelectric dam project to reduce poverty in Lao PDR which has 1.9 million people living on less than $1 a day. The delegation led by Kimmo Kiljunen (Finland) and Beatrice Kiraso (Uganda) included the President of the Nordic Council and MPs from France, Germany, Greece, India, Republic of Korea, Senegal, South Africa and Uganda. Like Rwanda, the last field visit country, Lao has a high dependence on external support, a good percentage of which is accounted for by technical assistance which donors are providing to support the Lao government policy reform agenda. Lao PDR’s PRSP, the National Growth and Poverty Eradication Strategy (NGPES) approved in 2003 is the 5th five-year national socio-economic development plan and is the country’s own Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). Members of delegation had the opportunity to conduct in-depth meetings with all major stakeholders of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers process, including a visit to the Nam Theun 2 Hydropower Project, supported by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. The visit provided a unique opportunity for PNoWB members to assess first-hand the role of the largest and most controversial hydropower project in poverty reduction. Lao PDR’s economic performance continued to improve throughout 2004 and 2005 with projections of up to 7% growth in 2006. However much of this growth is accounted for by increased foreign investment in hydropower and mining without which growth would be 4.8% in 2005/20064 Members of the Network have long been lobbied by civil society organizations on the Nam Theun 2 dam issue arguing that as parliamentarians with privileged access to the Bank, they had a duty to investigate environmental and social concerns around the construction of the dam. These include the destruction of fragile eco-systems5, the displacement of several thousand indigenous people living on the Nakai plateau, with its attendant problems of impoverishment and loss of livelihoods. Critics also refer to the Lao government’s poor record of transparent revenue management and human rights.

4 Source: Lao PDR Economic Monitor, World Bank, October 2005 5 The delegation raised the issue with Bernard Tribollet, Chief Executive Officer, Nam Theun 2 Power Company- a consortium led by the French state-controlled Electricite de France and which includes two Thai companies as well as the Lao government. The response given was that the plateau mainly consisted poor farmland and degraded forest that was heavily bombed during the Vietnam war. Conservationists campaigned against the dam on the grounds that it was home to endangered species.

Page 10 / 44

However, representatives from the consortium who met with the delegation stressed that on environmental and social impact, a lot of thought and money had gone into mitigating the adverse effects of building the dam. The concession agreement calls for the dam’s catchment area, 4,000 square kilometers of rain forest, to be set aside for a national biodiversity conservation area, with the consortium $1 million to maintain it. Also, in discussions with the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the consortium, members of the delegation heard that as a minimum, the consortium had agreed to double the annual income of affected villagers to $800 per year in Lao which has among the lowest per capita incomes in the world ($340). The parliamentarians also congratulated the government of Lao PDR for its exemplary achievements in poverty reduction. According to a UNDP report published in 20056, Lao PDR is making solid progress towards halving the proportion of people living below the national poverty line by 2015. Lao PDR is also on track to achieving the target of 100 percent primary enrolment by 2015. Although the progress toward the promotion of gender equality has been relatively slow and the ratio of girls to boys decreases as the education level increases. The country has shown consistent improvement in the UNDP Human Development Index (HDI), being ranked 141st out of 173 countries in 1993, and climbing to 135th by 2003. However, although Lao PDR has experienced advances in social development in recent years, and significant progress has been made towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the country faces many development challenges. Inequity levels, as measured through the Gini coefficient, have increased from 0.286 in 1992 to 0.357 in 1997. That figure is still valid, according to a 2002/2003 survey. Poverty in rural areas is twice as high as in urban areas. The rise of the Gini index indicates that a significant part of the population has not enjoyed the benefits accruing from a relatively high gross domestic product (GDP) growth of almost 6 per cent per annum. Disparities among the rural poor, women and ethnic groups would need to be addressed. The delegation also appealed to both the donors and the government to help build the capacity of civil society in general, and of parliamentarians in particular, to enable them to fulfill their role in oversight of the projects, to ensure true ownership and sustainability of poverty reduction strategies. Here delegation leader Kimmo Kiljunen, MP, Finland, expressed his hope that the forthcoming election in Lao PDR would provide the ideal opportunity for strengthening the role of parliamentarians as champions of development. Members also stressed the importance of the government developing human resources to encourage a move away from subsistence agriculture as the main source of livelihood. Developing the private sector and trade as a viable long-term strategy, were also seen as key, to expand the government’s source of revenue, which currently relies very heavily on donor support. They also heard about the need for better coordinated donor assistance.

6 2005 UNDP report “Voices of the Least Developed Countries of Asia and the Pacific: Achieving the Millennium Development Goals Through a Global Partnership”

Page 11 / 44

With respect to projects like Nam Theun 2, the delegation underlined the need for effective mechanisms to channel the generated revenues, towards the improvement of infrastructure and the development of other programs that would be equally beneficial to the community. Over the course of the first 25 years of operation, the Nam Theun 2 will earn an estimated $2 billion- a huge windfall for poverty reduction if even a percentage of it is invested here. Members also felt that the Bank and other major donors could play a role in encouraging the government of Lao to allow greater freedom of expression and to promote human rights as indispensable fundaments of good governance and effective poverty reduction. Donors not only have influence (up to 80% of the development budget is provided by donors), but they can also provide support to help drive political and economic reform in the country Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have highlighted the absence of basic freedoms in Lao PDR as an area of great concern. Lao PDR’s approach to development and the results achieved led some members to question World Bank policy and conditionalities which tie effective poverty reduction to governance reform. Khalifa Sall, MP, Senegal, was particularly struck by the different approach taken by the Bank here given its emphasis on ‘good governance’ in his country and in Africa in general. He felt that the Bank needed to take a consistent approach especially where there was a weak human rights record Diversification of growth- while Lao PDR’s steady growth is to be lauded, it still remains largely reliant on hydropower and mining which are not sustainable in the long-term. Developing agriculture is key if Lao is to develop; more than 70% of its population live in rural areas and depend on subsistence agriculture. Lao’s rural population is ideally placed to develop agriculture beyond subsistence and for export bringing in more foreign exchange. Lao is squeezed by its giant neighbors China, Thailand and Vietnam who are aggressive economic reformers but they would provide a ready-made market with big earning power On Nam Theun 2, sufficient guidelines exist- recommendations of the World Commission on Dams and the World Bank’s own environmental and social safeguard policies-the challenge is to ensure that they are respected. Other safeguards include monitoring bodies charged with assessing progress and making recommendations to the country’s Communist government and the consortium. An independent panel of experts will check whether livelihood opportunities and housing relocation are in place before the dam is closed. In theory, electricity may not be generated or exported if it is not.7 Members of the delegation stressed the importance of getting Nam Theun 2 right. it had enormous potential as a blueprint for effective poverty reduction through large infrastructure projects. Nam Theun 2 is a watershed and marks the Bank’s return to such projects which it abandoned in the mid-1990’s in the face of sustained criticism of its role. The Asian Development Bank and the World Bank, as

7 Source: article by Ioannis Gatsiounis, Dam project brings Laos cash and controversy International Herald Tribune, 16 March 2006

Page 12 / 44

well as the consortium had an obligation to make the dam work for development. Efforts must be made to spread the gains- as the gap between the rich and the poor shows, much of the gains the country has made have not filtered down to the poor. Most of the electricity, for example is exported leaving few beneficiaries locally. While some obstacles remain, Nam Theun 2 has the potential to be the sustainable exit from poverty that Lao PDR needs. According to the World Bank, Lao PDR is the poorest and least developed country in East Asia with four out of five people surviving on subsistence agriculture. There are still some environmental and displacement issues around the Nam Theun hydro-electric power project and members of the delegation felt that these still needed to be addressed.

Page 13 / 44

Women Cooperative (picture by Senator Guerry)

Rwanda Field Visit

January 31 - February 2, 2006

Fifteen parliamentarians from the five continents participated in the 4 day field visit to Rwanda in January/February 2006. The visit was very successful and the delegation felt that it gained a great insight into challenges faced by Rwanda in its efforts to reduce poverty. Long running tensions between the Hutu and Tutsi communities within Rwanda culminated in war and acts of genocide between April and June 1994 during which some 800,000 Rwandans lost their lives.

The strains placed by these events on the social fabric of the country have been great, and the visit’s findings must be seen in the recent historical context, making the progress achieved to date all the more remarkable. The impact of the violence on the economic structures of the country was equally significant. Despite high economic growth in the years following 2004, it took until 2000 for GDP to return to its 1990 level and until 2002 for per capita GDP to reach the pre-genocide levels. Rwanda is therefore highly dependent on external assistance and further concerted efforts are needed from the international community to help avoid a return to conflict. In the course of the visit, the delegation examined:

• The process that led to Rwanda’s 2002 Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, the priorities evidenced within it and the limitations of current policy;

• Preventing genocide through poverty reduction, in the socially and economically challenging context of high population density, intense pressure on the land stemming from a high dependence on subsistence agriculture, and marked inequalities in wealth distribution;

• The multi-sectoral HIV/AIDS project – a real focus of the visit - that aims to bring about behavioral change in the population at large to prevent the spread of the disease and in parallel bolster health infrastructure to enhance diagnosis and treatment;

• The ongoing work to demobilize and reintegrate ex-combatants and in particular Rwanda’s children, a very large proportion of whom were exposed to the violence at first hand; and

• The role of the international community in supporting Rwanda in delivering human rights to all segments of the population.

Page 14 / 44

Members of the delegation were inspired by much of what they found in Rwanda and paid tribute to the efforts of the population at large, the actions of the government, and the work of the World Bank. The delegation’s key recommendations, centered on building upon the progress made to date, highlight the need to:

• Enhance the Gacaca courts process to maximize the chances of achieving post-genocide justice and reconciliation and ensure that support from the international community is forthcoming in this crucial and complex area;

• Continue to rebuild the economy with coordinated assistance from the donor community, facilitating structural change including land reform to reduce the Rwanda’s high level of dependence on agriculture, exploiting cheaper and more sustainable sources of energy, and increasing competitiveness by bringing about a fairer deal for Rwanda and other poor countries in international trade;

• Bring about more social and economic equality; and, crucially, respond most effectively to the dangers posed to Rwanda by HIV/AIDS.

Following a series of briefings on key developments within the country, meetings with key political figures and site visits to enable participants fully to understand the complex backdrop to development in Rwanda and to see at first hand the progress being made, the visit concluded with a press conference and debriefs with Parliament and the local World Bank office. The delegation commended the host country for enabling it to conduct the field visit in a manner that allowed members a clear insight into the challenges faced by Rwanda as it strives to move the country forward.

Page 15 / 44

Ghana Field Visit

July 24- 28, 2005

A delegation of sixteen parliamentarians from Benin, Cameroon, Finland, India, Ireland, Kenya, Malaysia, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, Rwanda, Uganda, United Kingdom and Zambia visited Ghana, from July 24 to July 28, 2005.

Co-organized with the World Bank, the visit involved in-depth discussions with all the major stakeholders in the PRSP process through meetings and visits to projects supported by the World Bank.

The delegates had the opportunity to discuss with the major stakeholders involved in the PRSP process, including the Parliamentary Committee, the PNoWB-Ghana executive, as well as the Minister of Finance, the Head of the World Bank and international donors.

While the goal of this 4-day field visit was to assess the GPRS/PRSP process and to what extent it was participatory, it also focused on Ghana's fight against HIV/AIDS with local experts on HIV/AIDS from the government, NGOs, donors and the World Bank participating. The GPRS is a nationally owned document which is the result of a consultation mechanism among the different stakeholders to define the development priorities of the country. The series of meetings and visits to projects provided the parliamentarians with an excellent overview of the PRSP process to date; assessing just how well the PRSP process has lived up to its principles of ensuring a country-driven, results-orientated, partnership-focused approach to development. However parliamentarians on the visit identified problems which they felt put achievements at risk, the lack of capacity being one of the most pressing concerns. This was in part related to poverty and the lack of sufficient resources to tackle it. It also meant that even when given the opportunity, parliamentarians could not contribute meaningfully to a country owned poverty reduction strategy. MPs agreed that building coalitions across the political spectrum and across stakeholders was paramount if participation is to be effective and that improved consultation on PRSP was one way of achieving this goal.

Faith Mukakalisa, MP, Rwanda. and People Living with HIV/Aids

Page 16 / 44

The MPs congratulated Ghanaians for a parliament that was exemplary in its attempt to democratize. They felt very strongly that in order to secure the progress, urgent investment in capacity -building was called for. The very absence of a strong infrastructure behind the state was a threat to peace and development MPs felt that while there was still some way to go with donor coordination, Ghana was nonetheless already benefiting from increased donor cooperation through Multi Donor Budgetary Support (MDBS) even with only a handful of donors signing up.

Page 17 / 44

Madagascar Field Visit

April 5, 2005

On April 5, 2005, a group of female parliamentarians from the Women Parliamentarians’ Network participated in a special field visit to Madagascar, organized by PNoWB and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Francophonie, APF.

Twenty-eight women parliamentarians visited three World Bank-supported projects on community development, nutrition and HIV/AIDS. They also met with the World Bank’s Country office to discuss Madagascar’s PRSP and with civil society organizations collaborating with the Bank.

Page 18 / 44

Monica Frassoni, MEP , PNoWB Board Member with

schoolchildren

Vietnam Field Visit

March 21- 24, 2005

A delegation of PNoWB members visited Vietnam from March 21 to March 24, 2005 to review the World Bank activities. The delegation headed by Monica Frassoni, member of the European Parliament, included PNoWB Board members and members of parliament from countries as diverse as Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, India, Jordan, Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan and Republic of Korea.

During their four day visit, the delegates visited three World Bank projects: the Hon Mun Marine Protection Area Project in Nha Trang; the Community Based Rural Infrastructure Project in Ninh Thuan province; and the Urban Upgrading Project in Ho Chi Minh City. The delegates highlighted the participatory consultations carried out across these three projects with the community, and the efforts made in some cases to enhance both physical infrastructure and human capital.

It seems that economic growth in Vietnam is being transformed into poverty reduction though various reforms and instruments such as the Comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy (CPRGS). However, Vietnam still faces significant challenges with around 30 percent of the population living below the poverty line. Vietnam is the highest recipient of World Bank IDA-only lending in the world. During their time in Vietnam, PNoWB members met mainly with Vietnamese government officials at central and local levels, staff of the World Bank in Vietnam and project staff from World Bank funded projects. In general, the delegates were pleased with the way in which the World Bank works in partnership with the Government of Vietnam and efforts to engage with the community at the local level. Nonetheless, delegates were conscious that they only saw a small part of Vietnam in a very short time and did not have the opportunity to meet with members of civil society that are perhaps critical of the approach of the World Bank and the Government of Vietnam.

Page 19 / 44

The main findings of this field visit are:

• Strong economic growth in Vietnam is contributing to poverty reduction. • The Government of Vietnam is not overly dependent on ODA; rather it looks to international

donors to compliment its own poverty reduction strategy. • The World Bank in Vietnam works well with the Vietnamese government. For most

parliamentarians, this is a positive finding. Some parliamentarians would like to see the World Bank deal more actively with a lack of democracy and dissent in Vietnam.

• The World Bank projects visited in Vietnam seem to involve community consultation and combine economic and social objectives. However, the short time available did not allow for exhaustive analysis and evaluation.

Page 20 / 44

Serbia and Montenegro Field Visit

November 30-December 4, 2004

Nine Members of Parliament participated in the fifth field visit of the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank in Serbia and Montenegro. The trip aimed to advance the role of MPS in the development debate in general and in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper process in particular. During the four-day visit, the delegation met with government, civil society and donors and visited four projects supported by the World Bank. The delegation found that the open and participatory nature of the PRSP consultation mechanism in both Serbia and Montenegro was, in itself, the main positive outcome of the process. This marked the first time that

a broad range of views from academia and civil society had been included in drafting government policy. In particular, the PNoWB group found that most of the recommendations made by the various stakeholders were adopted in the final version of the Strategy Papers. The structured framework and clear schedule of the PRSP process was conducive to constructive and efficient consultation in both Serbia and Montenegro. Finally, the traveling MPs concluded that the PRSP dialogue marked a positive step towards better coordination among donors. Prospects for the next step – implementation – appear more problematic. The PNoWB delegation was concerned that no provisions are made to assist civil society and the legislative branch to act as watchdogs when the strategy is turned into action. The delegation expressed strong reservations, based on the PRSP experience in other countries, as to the capacity of the government to implement the strategy effectively with little or no oversight mechanisms in place. The group also underlined the need to decentralize implementation capacity to a more local level, which the government in both Republics seems reluctant to do. Although formally involved in the process, it became apparent that the role played by parliamentarians in Serbia and Montenegro in the PRSP process has been much smaller than that of civil society, “expert groups” or government. The visiting parliamentarians suggested that the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank and the donor community should emphasize strategies to strengthen the mandate and capacity of MPs to play a more active role in the next phases of the process.

Field visit to Serbia and Montenegro ( December 2003)

MP Delegation with the project manager

Page 21 / 44

MPs meet with H.E. Dragoljub Micunovic, President of the Parliament of Serbia and Montenegro

Main Recommendations The main recommendations of the delegation to the Governments of Serbia and Montenegro and to the World Bank and other development partners are as follows:

- Maintain and replicate the participative, constructive and inclusive consultation process used in drafting the PRSPs for Serbia and Montenegro.

Increase and facilitate the role of Parliamentarians in both the PRSP consultation process and the implementation of the strategy through:

• Capacity building for parliamentarians (through PNoWB for example) • Financial Support for Parliaments (to support research, training, local travel expenses) • The introduction of “traceable” and timed PRSP budget items

- Provide financial support to civil society organizations beyond the consultation mechanism to allow then to remain involved as partners in the implementation phase.

- Encourage decentralization of PRSP implementation tasks to lowest appropriate level of government.

Page 22 / 44

Nicaragua Field Visit

October 11-14, 2004

Twelve members of Parliament from eleven developed and developing countries traveled to Nicaragua for a four-day field visit to learn from the country’s experience with the poverty reduction strategy paper (PRSP) process. The delegation was very fortunate to work with members of the Nicaraguan National Assembly, members of the government, civil society and the donor community during this field visit. The group also visited four projects in two regions of the country reflecting priorities expressed in the PRSP in the field of agriculture, commerce and health. Nicaragua remains one of the poorest countries in Latin

America. About half the population lives in poverty and 17.3 percent in extreme poverty. The country’s main development challenges include a very high level of debt, dependency on donors for resources, high illiteracy rates, high unemployment and underemployment and among the highest levels of income and other inequality in the world. The delegation got a first-hand impression of the political uncertainty in Nicaragua. President Bolaños’ authority continues to be challenged by the two largest parties in Parliament. As a result of these recurring problems at the highest level of the state, the country’s efforts in poverty reduction have been significantly affected over the past years. The delegation found that evaluating Nicaragua’s poverty reduction strategy in this highly charged political context was particularly challenging, although not unrepresentative of the PRSP process in a number of developing countries. The most salient conclusion drawn by the PNoWB delegation is that the poverty reduction strategy process in Nicaragua continues to suffer from this excessive politicization. Efforts made both by internal actors and by the donor community have been hampered by a lack of continuity in formulation and implementation of a coherent strategy to fight the poverty that affects a large proportion of the population. Nicaragua has essentially produced two comprehensive poverty reduction strategies in the past five years, one for each of the governments in power over the period. For a nation of five million people, this is largely overkill. The country’s principal institutions need to be strengthened to provide much needed stability and continuity to the poverty reduction process. In this respect, the PNoWB group finds that the PRSP Commission recently created in the National Assembly offers an opportunity for the legislative branch

Field visit to Nicaragua ( October 2004) during project presentation

Page 23 / 44

and parliamentarians to effectively partner with the government to ensure broader ownership of the poverty reduction strategy. The delegation also recommends that: the current constitutional mandate on higher education financing be circumscribed by law to free resources needed to address the country’s pressing needs in basic education; more attention be paid to gender specific aspects of poverty, not least domestic violence; the positive dialogue with donors be maintained while making greater efforts to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign aid; agricultural production for the domestic market be expressed more clearly as a priority in the PRSP.

The PNoWB group is particularly grateful to the many officials in Nicaragua who took the time to share their views and the challenges they face in their important work.

Page 24 / 44

Field Visit to Yemen (April 2004)

Kimmo Kiljunen, MP Finland, PNoWB Board member, Raquel Teixeira, MP Brazil, Joe Clark, MP Canada , Fionna O Malley, MP, Ireland and

Oras Sultan MP, Yemen

Yemen Field Visit

April 5-8, 2004

The seventh field visit organized by the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank brought seven members of parliament from both developed and developing countries to Yemen for three-days to learn from the country’s experience with the poverty reduction strategy process (PRSP). The PNoWB group had a chance to visit a health center and a small water project in Al Mahweet province. Both projects are funded by the Social Fund for Development, an effective government managed mechanism to deliver basic services to the poor.

The challenges facing Yemen are daunting. The country remains one of the poorest in the world. Access to water, a wide gender gap, rural poverty, poor access to water, high unemployment are some of the issues which the government and its partners in Parliament, civil society and among the donor community are tackling. The group of parliamentarians found that, in a difficult context, the Government of Yemen has set a clear poverty agenda and has articulated a realistic and achievable long term vision for Yemen. Given the efforts made by the government and the needs of the people and in light of current aid levels which are below the levels for comparable countries, the PNoWB delegation recommends that aid to Yemen be increased substantially. Despite laudable government efforts, the PNoWB group found that Parliament has not been consulted on the design of the PRSP. None of the consultations held in the context of the PRSP appeared to specifically involve parliamentarians although universities, civil society organizations and government ministries were specifically consulted. Generally, the strategy does not recognize parliament as a partner in the PRSP process. Moreover, the PNoWB group found little evidence that suggests that the PRSP is at the heart of the government's action against poverty. One reason for this is that the PRSP overlaps in timing and content with the Second Five Year Plan. A second reason for this might be that the PRSP appears to be mainly based within the Ministry of Planning

Page 25 / 44

and International Cooperation and most other ministries and government agencies have not been involved in the consultation, drafting and review of the document. Broader government ownership may ensure more effective implementation of the strategy. In future, PNoWB recommends that SFYP and PRSP should be combined.

Despite efforts being made by the government on gender issues, the gender gap remains one of the widest in the world. To address poverty effectively in Yemen means to target women – especially in the field of girls’ education. To do this requires a more accurate analysis of female poverty. A more detailed study of female poverty would provide a better basis for poverty reduction strategies aimed at women.

Finally, one area of concern is healthcare where spending levels are alarmingly low. The PNoWB delegation encourages parliamentarians, the government and the donor community to step up their concentration on health care delivery and increase health expenditure in the coming budget cycle.

Page 26 / 44

PNoWB Chairman Bert Koenders in Ethiopia

US Congresswoman Betty McCollum, Co-Chair

of the HIV/AIDS Committee

Ethiopia Field Visit

January 12-18, 2004

A delegation of fifteen parliamentarians from Burundi, Gabon, Gambia, India, Ireland, Philippines, Thailand, Tunisia, Uganda, US, and Netherlands visited Ethiopia from January 12-18, 2004.

The field visit focused on the development challenges and public policy problems posed by HIV/AIDS pandemic. During a two-day workshop in Addis Ababa, the delegation heard from government, NGOs and the donor community (including the World Bank, UNAIDS, USAID and DFID) working on all aspects of the fight against the disease, and visited a local HIV/AIDS project known as “MEKDEM”.

As part of the workshop, the delegation had the opportunity to share experiences with many Ethiopian parliamentarians. The

Addis Ababa meeting also served to strengthen the structure of the PNoWB HIV/AIDS committee.

On January 12-13, 2004, a workshop of the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank’s committee on HIV/AIDS was held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The workshop brought together eleven parliamentarians from ten countries to discuss ways in which parliamentarians at all levels, from the international to the local, can take on a greater role in the fight against HIV/AIDS in countries in which, like Ethiopia, the epidemic represents the single greatest threat to development.

Ethiopia is one of the poorest countries in the world. With a per capita income of around US$100 per year, the country was ranked 168 out of 173 in the United Nations Development Program’s 2002 Human Development Index. AIDS is the foremost threat to poverty reduction in Ethiopia. It is putting the brakes on economic growth by diverting investment, increasing public deficits and decimating the productive population. Currently, the government estimates infection rates at about 6.6 percent nationally and 15.5 percent in the capital. Life expectancy fell from 45 years in 1990 to 42 years in 2001 as a result of HIV/AIDS. UNAIDS points out that a further sharp drop of 10 years will take place by 2014 if current infection rates are not brought down.

Page 27 / 44

The World Bank’s main assistance tool in the field of HIV/AIDS in Africa is the Multi Country HIV/AIDS Program (MAP) launched in 2000. MAP was set up to support the national strategic HIV/AIDS plans developed by governments in Sub Saharan Africa. In Ethiopia, MAP supports the Ethiopian Multi-Sectoral HIV/AIDS Program (EMSAP) and the HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control Office (HAPCO), which was set up in 2002 to implement EMSAP. The World Bank supports EMSAP and HAPCO with around US$60 million of funding. Other donors (The Global Fund, Irish Aid, the UK’s DFID, UNICEF and UNDP) have supported HAPCO.

Recognizing that Ethiopia is still recovering from a long period of dictatorship, war and repeated famines and has extremely limited resources to fight the threat of AIDS, the PNoWB delegation supports the efforts made by Ethiopian parliamentarians to take on the leadership in the fight against HIV/AIDS. The PNoWB delegation finds that more needs to be done in coordination with the government to make the government-led (and donor supported) national response work more efficiently to get basic care and treatment services to populations affected by HIV/AIDS.

The PNoWB group also finds that there exists a significant gap in assessing the capacity of civil society groups to absorb more funding from donors to carry out their programs. On the one hand, policy makers in government and large donors – including the World Bank - speak of a lack of absorption capacity. On the other hand, smaller donors and NGOs themselves claim that the NGO sector in Ethiopia could absorb funding to scale up their programs effectively. PNoWB recommends that a joint donor/government/NGO assessment of absorption capacity be undertaken as a priority.

The PNoWB delegation was very impressed by the work being done by Ethiopian MPs as opinion leaders, legislators and resource mobilizers in the fight against the largest challenge facing their country. PNoWB welcomes further collaboration with Ethiopian parliamentary colleagues to be able to assist them as they take on a greater role in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Page 28 / 44

Main Recommendations Please find hereafter the main recommendations to the Government of Ethiopia, to the World Bank Country Director, to the Executive Director of HAPCO to the Board of the PNoWB and to the Members of the Ethiopian Parliament:

- The PNoWB delegation recommends the World Bank and the Government of Ethiopia to undertake an urgent a review of HAPCO’s disbursement procedures. The review should focus on providing NGOs with the support they need to implement the national strategy to fight the effects of AIDS. In particular, disbursement procedures should be simplified and delays shortened, in line with the access criteria specified in the World Bank Multi Country Assistance Program on AIDS;

- A joint donor/government/NGO assessment of the capacity of NGOs to absorb additional funding should be undertaken;

- The delegation recommends to the Government of Ethiopia and to the donor community to support capacity building for Parliamentarians’ work on HIV/AIDS;

- The delegation urges Ethiopian parliamentarians to engage in the debate on HIV/AIDS as a priority in their roles as political leaders, as legislators, as advocates and as resource mobilizers.

Page 29 / 44

Albania Field Visit

November 17 to November 20, 2003

A delegation of six parliamentarians from Burundi, France, Greece and United Kingdom, visited Albania from November 17 to November 20, 2003.

The delegation met with Ylli Bufi, Albanian Minister of Finance; Servet Pellumbi, speaker of the Parliament; NGO leaders; the World Bank country director and other World Bank staff. The group had also the opportunity to participate in a conference on the Albanian National Strategy for Social and Economic Development.

The PNoWB members visited the Durres Port Project, the Irrigation and Drainage Project in Kavaya and the Forestry and Microcredit projects in Petrola, as part of

their field trip to assess the World Bank activities which fell under the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper.

All the parliamentarians expressed how they found the field trip very interesting and useful both in terms of acquiring knowledge of the World Bank operations in Albania and bringing back that knowledge in their own work and in terms of raising awareness and creating attention to some of the impending problems in Albania (see appendix for a list of further comments made by the MPs).

As an overall assessment, the MPs were of the opinion that the World Bank plays a positive role in the country. It was interesting to note that there seemed to be a much more positive and less critical attitude towards the World Bank from the general public in Albania than can be detected in some developing countries. However, it was also obvious that much more work needs to be done, and requests for more funds were formulated repeatedly during the visit together with the plea to advocate for a prioritizing of Albania when discussing the contribution of aid in the future.

The MPs expressed how the visit to Albania gave them a better understanding of how the World Bank works and of its operations in the field. It also gave an insight in the PRSP initiative and the potentials as well as problems that this interesting initiative imply when being approached in the actual countries. Furthermore the trip gave the MPs a much more profound knowledge and understanding of Albania as a country with both severe problems and great potential. It was discussed how Albania for many has been more or less a blank spot on the European map and thus this was a precious opportunity to learn more about the country.

Field Visit to Albania (November 2002) PNoWB MPs during a discussion

Page 30 / 44

The following are some of the main lessons learnt from the trip and the main issues of concern and future scrutiny as expressed by the MPs:

- As should also be clear from the above discussions, the visit to Albania revealed a very low degree of parliamentary participation in the elaboration of the GPRS. All the MPs of the delegation agreed that it should be a top priority to try to involve the Albanian Parliament much more in the implementation and monitoring of the strategy.

- In order to involve the Albanian Parliament more in the implementation and monitoring of the strategy, it is clear that Parliament needs to build more capacity and expertise in the future. It seems that this task should be a priority in the future development work – and maybe more of the bilateral donors than of the World Bank because of the somewhat political nature of the task.

The MPs were concerned that the Government of Albania will not be able to live up to all the objectives and visions expressed in their GPRS. To some extent the MPs got the impression that the Government were merely paying lip service to the donors in some respects and were keener on securing funding than with actually complying with conditionalities. They expressed the need for a close follow up on the implementation process of the GPRS so it will develop into more than just a nice piece of paper.

The field trip left the MPs with the impression that much still needs to be done in terms of coordination between the different donors. Although the MPs generally agreed with the donors’ point that it should be in the hands of the government to coordinate the donor activities, the donors themselves also have a responsibility of more coordination and communication among themselves. However, it also seems that the donors are making an effort to improve the coordination though periodic sector donor meetings and informal contacts.

- In relation to the above point on donor coordination, a concern which was raised several times was the problem that every donor has its own methods, standards and objectives, which sometimes seem to be difficult to integrate. The MPs were especially concerned with the role of the Millennium Goals in relation to the PRSP as was not clear form the field trip what the relation between these two frameworks is and how, or if, they interact.

However, the World Bank expressed that much progress has been made in recent months concerning the link, and found that the PRSP is the medium-term vehicle for reaching the Millennium development goals in the long run. This, in theory, clear link did nevertheless not come out quite as strongly when talking to the domestic stakeholders in Albania.

- During the field visit a dilemma that was raised several times was the question of whether the World Bank should concentrate their efforts on governance or physical infrastructure (or both). Though it has been the general trend within the development work in the last years to move more into the field of governance and institutional strengthening, many of the Albanian politicians requested more infrastructure projects by the World Bank, giving this area first priority. However, many have argued that infrastructure projects are not very sustainable without the simultaneous strengthening of the governance

Page 31 / 44

structure. It seems that the World Bank needs to be clear on its future approach in terms of the question of governance vs. infrastructure.

- Several of the MPs also referred to the importance of involving the population directly in the development process and more specifically in the projects of the World Bank. If the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank projects do not reflect the needs of the population or if the population does not get a sense of ownership, then the projects are much less likely to be successful in the medium or long term. It was suggested to use the media, such as newspapers and radio more actively in the work with informing and involving the population more actively. Furthermore the MPs also underlined the need for all the World Bank projects to be targeted towards poverty reduction

- One of the biggest concerns raised by the MPs of the delegation was the Environmental issue. Although the delegation was told that the environment had been placed on the political agenda in Albania during the last years and a ministry of Environment has been established, it still seems that environmental issues are being neglected in the general development process with severe consequences for both Albania and its neighboring countries in store. The delegation learned that the Parliament did not have a commission dealing exclusively with environmental issues, as it was joined with the rather heavy field of health. Furthermore, the World Bank only has very limited activities dealing exclusively with environmental issues, but rather merely an environmental dimension attached to each project. The MPs expressed the wish for the World Bank to move more into the environmental area. However, the argument on part of the Bank is that it strives to operate as selectively as possible with the scarce resources in order not to dilute its effectiveness, and the environment is an area where there is normally rather substantial interest from other donors.

- Another concern raised by the delegation was the gender question. Out of approximately 140 members of the Albanian parliament, only 6 were women. It was interesting to note that several of the MPs found the few female politicians that the delegation met to be by far the most knowledgeable, trustworthy and engaged politicians. It seems that more could be done in the future development work to promote greater gender equality both in the political sphere and in the public administration.

Page 32 / 44

Kenya Field Visit I

July 25, 2003

As part of the launching meeting of the East Africa Chapter, in Nairobi, Kenya, twelve parliamentarians from nine countries participated in a one day field visit to two World Bank projects on July 25, 2003.

The field visit was part of an effort to give parliamentarians the opportunities to see for themselves how Bank projects, and more broadly the Poverty Reduction Strategy process, work in practice. The ‘Parliamentarians in the Field’ program is funded by a trust fund from the Finnish government and managed by the Bank’s Paris office, which facilitates relations between the Bank and the PNoWB. The field trips, which have so far covered Uganda, Albania and Burundi, typically span three days to allow time for discussions with officials from the government, the Bank, and other international organizations, and NGOs, as well as the people the projects are aiming to benefit. The development issue explored on this July morning: power. Ninety-six percent of Kenyans are without reliable electricity supply, a situation not untypical to low-income countries. A two-hour bus ride through stunning scenery took the group to the Hells Gate National Park and the Olkaria Geothermal plants. Twenty-meter high steam clouds dot the horizon here. Pipelines snake up and down the hilly, shrubbery-covered landscape. The smell of sulphur and the humming of turbines fill the air. Since the early 1970s the World Bank, together with the European Investment Bank and the German development agency, has helped the Kenyan government turn steam into electricity at the Olkaria site. Exploiting the underground volcanic activity that blows steam to surface turbines is environmental-friendly and relatively inexpensive. And it works as a capacity buffer against occasional droughts that sap the region’s hydroelectric dams. Today, geothermal sources account for six percent of Kenya’s power production, with further expansions planned. When the Bank helped finance the first plant in the 1970s, it offered human resources training. Highly skilled Kenyans, many with master degrees and PhDs, now run the plants. “We’re grateful for the Bank’s support,” said Joseph Ng’an’ga, Deputy Managing Director of the Kenyan government’s power company, KenGen, during an early-morning presentation to the visiting parliamentarians. As part of the $125 million Energy Sector Investment Project approved by the World Bank’s Board in 1997, the Bank said it would support building another geothermal plant at Olkaria. In addition, it would help the government attract private companies to the power sector and to develop another two geothermal stations. Six years down the road, the private sector accounts for some 20 percent of Kenya’s power supply. Said Josphat O. Sasia, an operations officer in the Bank’s Nairobi office: “We’ve seen positive changes; we’ve

Page 33 / 44

had real structural reforms. Further public-private partnerships are being explored to develop geothermal resources.” The day-long field trip was shorter than usual as it came on the heels of the Parliamentary Network’s Nairobi launch of its East Africa chapter (see full story). With the East Africa chapter, PNoWB hopes to deepen understanding among parliamentarians in the region of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper process and the Millennium Development Goals. One MP asked why the private sector was not more eager to invest now that the plants had proven profitable. “Companies still perceive a certain political risk, which affects the whole region, and there is a geothermal resource development risk that has to be minimized,” said KenGen’s Wycliffe Temesi. “This is compounded by high commercial interest rates. So we still need cheap financing." “How do you interact with the local community and what do you do to protect the environment,” queried another MP. Samuel Maina, Olkaria Geothermal Project’s generation manager, said KenGen offered water, schooling and transport to people living nearby. “We interact a lot with the local community. We have a Memorandum of Understanding with the Kenyan Wildlife Services, and we have regular meetings to make sure we don’t damage the environment.” KenGen staff gave a tour of the 22-year-old Olkaria I Geothermal power station and the Olkaria II Geothermal power plant under construction and financed by the Energy Sector Investment Project. The first unit of this new plant had started operating two days earlier.

Page 34 / 44

Burundi Field Visit

April 24-28, 2002

A delegation of seven parliamentarians visited Burundi from April 24 to April 28, 2002. The group included members from Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bulgaria, India, Sweden and Uganda.

In addition to meetings with the World Bank, Parliament and government representatives, the delegation met with President Buyoya to discuss the country’s poverty reduction strategy. During two days, parliamentarians also visited projects addressing job creation, road construction and primary education.

All the people that the delegation met during its mission agreed that the situation in Burundi today is favorable to

effective aid programs and that they should be resumed without delay. In principle, there is a real willingness to move forward and rebuild the country. The World Bank plays a positive role in the country through its support, but also through its discussions with all the different players in society in formal or informal discussions, which should certainly be continued and extended. Changes in the World Bank's approach and its support do appear to be visible in the field, at least in the case of Burundi. But concrete achievements are still small compared with the country's needs. It is faced with the problem of financing its reconstruction. The volume of aid is very low. The allocation of aid funds discussed at the Geneva conference in December 2001 has not yet materialized, despite the fact that quick action is crucial if we are to avoid the complete deterioration of the situation that would make recovery even more difficult. The parliamentarians' mission to Burundi gave them a better understanding of how the World Bank operates and its actions in the field. It also helped the MPs become more familiar with the PRSP process that they appreciate as an extremely interesting approach. Finally, it was a precious opportunity for the members of the delegation to observe the country's achievements, constraints and needs. Certain MPs observed that there are similar problems in countries in the South although the contexts are different. South-South cooperation should be developed. A certain number of positive points should be particularly emphasized:

As preparation for the interim PRSP took place over a longer period (from July 2000 to April 2002) than in other countries (which prepared it in less than one year), the participatory process seems to have been more thorough. In principle, this observation argues in favor of the need for a longer, more in-depth process;

The country's authorities see the PRSP as a key document outlining the policies to be implemented;

MP delegation, Suresh Keswani, India, Agneta

Brendt, Sweden, visiting a local community project

Page 35 / 44

In Burundi, there appears to be a willingness to rebuild the country and stimulate its economy, but there is a lack of means;

The donors are in agreement and speak with one voice, particularly in their view that the PRSP is the core document for the country's strategy and should be used to coordinate aid in terms of support and allocation of funds;

Although it may be atypical and partly the result of the context (country affected by a conflict and reduction of aid), the current interaction between the World Bank and the NGOs should be encouraged still further (possibly by making it formal or institutionalized).

However, other remarks can also be made:

- Delegation members observed the low level of participation and marginal role played by the members of the Burundi parliament. There is a pressing need to offer support to the national assembly, which is of course still in its early days, and to encourage and support the MPs so that they can participate effectively in the discussions on economic development strategies. This support is all the more crucial in a country such as Burundi where there is no real tradition for consultations or for the role of the people's representatives to be taken into account in decision-making. Capacity-building is obviously a key factor in this country.

- A case-by-case approach should be used to cater for each country's specific situation. In the case

of Burundi, the position of some members of the international community (at decision-making levels in headquarters or country capitals) are blocking the resumption of aid programs for development (as regards humanitarian aid, it is still going on). But aid is crucial at this stage. The country's economy must recover quickly if the peace process is to be consolidated. If the population's living conditions improved this would favor a total ceasefire and dissuade people from rebelling out of sheer desperation. There is currently a major split between the very favorable position adopted by the donors' representatives in the field, in favor of a rapid resumption of aid, and the wait-and-see attitudes at decision-making levels, thereby limiting the number of activities that can be implemented.

Perhaps it would therefore be advisable to relax institutional constraints and/or find an innovative approach to get round the constraints (i.e. accept risks). The international institutions and donors should perhaps also be encouraged to respect the spirit of the PRSP process better. It might be a good idea to set up mechanisms that take more notice of the views of the institutions' or donors' representatives in the field, as they are in a better position to understand the needs and capacities of the countries receiving the aid.

- Coordination between donors in the field and NGOs should be strengthened, enhancing their

complementarity.

- It is essential to define and implement a real development policy and a long-term aid program (solving structural problems) that is not merely restricted to assistance (safety nets) or humanitarian aid in emergency situations. At the same time, thought must be given to arbitration

Page 36 / 44

between budgetary aid and project aid on the one hand, and between loans and donations on the other. As one of the mission's MPs so rightly said: "A PRSP is a road, not a destination". The process must be seen as an ongoing plan to be adjusted and improved as it moves forward.

Page 37 / 44

Uganda Field Visit

April 14 - 17, 2002

A delegation of seven parliamentarians visited Uganda from April 14 to April 17, 2002. The group included 7 members from Belgium, Ghana, European Parliament, India, Nigeria and Switzerland. The objectives of the mission, which was part of the program “Parliamentarians in the Field”, were mainly:

• To foster a better understanding among parliamentarians of the activities of the World Bank

in Uganda; • To review the PRSPS process and the role played by MPs; • To encourage networking, exchange of views and exchange of experience among MPs; • To look at the coordination and dialogue process among donors.

Out of the four days spent in the country, the first two days were dedicated to meetings with Parliament, government, NGOs and donors, the rest of the mission being spent on field visits. The delegation met with the World Bank Resident Representative, the President of Parliament, and the Deputy Minister of Finance and donor representatives.

A day and a half was spent visiting projects in the field, including visits to Saint Mary’s Jjanya Primary school, the Nakivubo Channel Rehabilitation Project, a local government development program, and a nutrition and early childhood development project.

Uganda has been chosen as one of the first missions because it is often considered internationally a model for African countries: it was the first to benefit from debt alleviation within the HIPC (Heavily Indebted Poor Countries) Initiative in April 1998 (completion point); it was the first developing country to put in place a Medium Term Expenditure Framework in 1992; its PRSP was presented to the Boards of the World Bank and the IMF as early as May 2000; it was the first to benefit from a Poverty Reduction Support Credit (PRSC) from the World Bank (June 2001), etc.

Because of these characteristics, this executive summary tries to check whether it is possible to draw lessons from Uganda’s experience for other low -income countries engaged in the PRSP process. Doing so is made difficult by the fact that this is an on-going process: since Uganda is a pioneer in the PRSP

Field Visit to Uganda (April 2002) MP Delegation visits a waste management project

Page 38 / 44

process as mentioned before, many of the main innovations have not been implemented (Leadership Code, Plan for the Modernization of Agriculture, etc.) or are just being implemented (Budget Act) and therefore cannot be reviewed. In any case, it should be pointed out that it was clear to all the members of the delegation that the objective of the mission was definitely not to make an evaluation of Ugandan policies. As this was the first mission of the program, it suffered from various “teething problems”: the absence of meetings with line ministries was regretted; some MPs felt that too much time was devoted to discussing budget issues; the author of this report also feels there was sometimes a lack of focus on the main issues, which was partly due to a lack of leadership during the meetings, etc. In spite of these problems, which should be corrected during subsequent missions, it is felt that the above mentioned objectives have been broadly met. One of the main objectives of the mission was to encourage exchange of experience between MPs, to assess the role of Parliament within the participatory process and to make suggestions concerning possible improvements. To discuss these issues, three meetings took place with the Speaker of Parliament, the Chairman of the Budget Committee and with various Parliamentarians. According to the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Parliament was used to purely “rubber stamping” the Budget, neither having any possibility nor any time to vote any modification to the text proposed by the President Generally speaking, the different meetings suggested that the Parliament’s implication in the PRSP process has apparently been rather weak. Although some MPs took part in participation workshops individually, no formal debate took place in Parliament on the PEAP/PRSP. More generally, the delegation got a mixed impression of the extent of the participatory process in Uganda, although they fully realized that the short length of the mission did not allow collecting more in-depth information. Asked about the participation of civil society in decision-making, the speaker of Parliament answered that “they participate because they can say anything they want”. Unfortunately, only one meeting was held with the NGO (the planned meeting with another one, the NGO Forum, having been cancelled by its director): the Uganda Debt Network, which is mainly funded by foreign donors. In spite of the documentation distributed during the meeting, the MPs felt that the presentation of their activities by the Uganda Debt Network was rather vague, and that their contribution to the political debate mainly focused on management issues (especially fighting corruption), rather than on discussing global strategies. They were not able to conclude whether this was due to a lack of capacity or to constraints limiting political freedom in the country. In spite of the fact that 5 MPs were listed among its members, the Uganda Debt Network representatives’ affirmation that they did not deal with Parliament (but only with government) is probably another indicator of the latter’s limited influence on decision-making. On the whole, the best way to increase Parliament’s influence is undoubtedly to make it more representative of the public opinion; but the authorization of the political parties, which is included in the PEAP, is not expected before 2006 at the earliest. As it was noted by the delegation, it is quite paradoxical that the role of Ugandan Parliament in the budget and the participatory process is somehow presented as a

Page 39 / 44

model while it can hardly be considered as democratically elected (at least according to the widely accepted rules of representative democracy). More specifically, the meetings held suggested three urgent needs:

- Providing information (e.g. a new budget information system is being put in place with USAID funding, to provide Parliament with information from the Ministry of Finance, the Uganda Revenue Authority and the Bureau of Statistics);

- Capacity building; Parliament can only become truly effective if it has the capacity to analyze the

budget, the economic environment and to make a sound contribution to the decision making process; e.g. providing support and training to the Budget office is obviously a priority;

- Exchanging experiences; the meetings held in Parliament during the mission confirmed the

interest of exchanging experiences between MPs; as the PRSP process is “a work in progress”, progress will be quicker if MPs from different countries can exchange experiences, as it is done through the PNoWB.

It is much more difficult to draw lessons from these visits than it is from the previous aspects. This is partly because these projects have a technical content which most MPs are not familiar with. In order to get a better insight in the rationale of these projects, it would probably have been useful to discuss them with the relevant specialists at the World Bank office, before or after the visits, which unfortunately has not been done. This would have helped understanding why and how these projects were conceived, to what priorities they correspond and what problems are encountered. As it was remarked by the delegation, it would also have been interesting to discuss failures: according to the World Bank, the water borehole program (because of maintenance) and the vaccination program (mainly because of decentralization) are among these failures. A general question was also asked concerning the possibility for the World Bank to directly assist the poor, without any mediation.

Page 40 / 44

Nigeria Field Visit

October 16-19, 2001

A delegation of parliamentarians visited Nigeria from October 16 to October 19, 2001.

Parliamentarians visited the Parliament and met with members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. They also had the opportunity to meet with the staff of the World Bank Office as well as NGOs.

The delegation visited World-Bank supported projects in Lagos, including the Badiah Slum Upgrading Project. The trip gave also the opportunity to the delegation to attend the Annual Conference of African Parliamentary Union and to present PNoWB during plenary session.

Page 41 / 44

This document draws heavily on the reports of the various field visits (available on the PNoWB website at www.pnowb.org). These reports were prepared by:

Report Name Drafted by Kenya Field Visit II Zuleikha Salim Said, PNoWB Lao PDR Field Visit Zuleikha Salim Said, PNoWB Rwanda Field Visit Zuleikha Salim Said, PNoWB Yemen Field Visit Mathieu Lefèvre, PNoWB Vietnam Field Visit Melissa Wells Ghana Field Visit Zuleikha Salim Said, PNoWB Madagascar Field Visit Mathieu Lefèvre, PNoWB Nicaragua Field Visit Mathieu Lefèvre, PNoWB Serbia and Montenegro Field Visit Mathieu Lefèvre, PNoWB Ethiopia Field Visit Mathieu Lefèvre, PNoWB Albania Field Visit Mette Frost Bertelsen, Rapporteur on the PNoWB

mission to Albania Kenya Field Visit I Mathieu Lefèvre, PNoWB Burundi Field Visit Razafindrakoto Mireille, Economist, researcher at

DIAL, Rapporteur of the PNoWB mission in Burundi

Uganda Field Visit Jean-Pierre CLING, Director of DIAL Nigeria Field Visit PNoWB

List of MPs who attended field visits

COUNTRY

NAME AND TITLE PARLIAMENT

Austria Igne Jaeger Parliament of Austria Member of Parliament

Australia Victor Perton Parliament of Victoria Shadow Minister for Education

Australia Patricia Croissin Senator

Bangladesh Abdul Khan

Belgium Alain Destexhe Senate of Belgium Senator

Belgium Bob Van den Bos European Parliament

Belgium Inga Verhaert Parliament of Belgium

Belgium Josy Dudie Parliament of Belgium Senator

Belgium Joëlle Kapompolé Parliament of Belgium

Belguim Lydia Maximus Parliament of Belgium Senator

Brazil Raquel Teixeira Parliament of Brazil Vice-President Commission on Education

Bulgaria Atanas Paparizov Parliament of Bulgaria Vice-Chairman of the Economic Policy / Foreign Policy and Security Committees

Burkina Faso Fatoumata Dienderé National Assembly of Burkina Faso Member of Parliament

Burkina Faso Joséphine Drabo Parliamentary Assembly of Burkina Faso Member of Parliament

Burundi Frederic Ngenzebuhoro Assembly of Burundi Vice-President de l' Assemblee Nationale de Transition

Cambodia Saumura Tioulong Assembly of Cambodia, Sam Rainsy Party. Member of Parliament

Cambodia Nhem Thavy Parliament of Cambodia

Cameroon Marie Rose Nguini Effa Parliament of Cameroon Member of Parliament

Cameroon Fréderic Ekandé Assemblée nationale du Cameroun

Canada Joe Clark House of Commons of Canada

Canada Peter Stollery Senate of Canada Senator

Colombia Santiago Gomez Representante a la Càmara

Czech Republic Jaromir Stetina Parliament of the Czech Republic Senator

Egypt Farkhonda Hassan Parliament of Egypt

Finland Kimmo Kiljunen Parliament of Finland Member of Parliament

Finland Arto Bryggare Parliament of Finland Member of Parliament

Finland Kimmo Sasi Parliament of Finland Member of Parliament - Chairman of Constitutional committee

Finland Anni Sinnemaki Parliament of Finland Member of Parliament

France Yves Coussain Assemblée de France President du Groupe France-Albanie

France Hélène Mignon Assemblée de France Députée - Vice-Présidente de l'Assemblée nationale

France Michel Guerry French Senate Senator

France Loic Bouvard Assemblée de France Member of Parliament

France Jean-Yves Hugon Parliament of France

France Paul Blanc Senat of France Senator

Gabon Paul Lemba Ngoye Assembly of Gabon Member of Parliament

Gambia Belinda Bidwell Assembly of Gambia Deputy Speaker

Germany Johannes Pflug Parliament of Germany

Germany Wolfgang Wodarg Parliament of Germany

Ghana Alban Bagbin Parliament of Ghana Member of Parliament- Chair Public Accounts Committee

Ghana Cecilia Amoah Parliament of Ghana Member of Parliament- Minority Leader

Greece Nikolaos Christodoulakis Parliament of Greece Member of Parliament

Greece Athineos Florinis Parliament of Greece Member of Parliament

Guatemala Ana Lucrecia Marroquín de Palomo Congress of Guatemala

List of MPs who attended field visits

COUNTRY

NAME AND TITLE PARLIAMENT

Iceland Drifa Hjartardottir Member of Althingi

India Krisha Murthy Parliament of India Member of Parliament

India Rashid Alvi Parliament of India Member of Parliament

India Suresh Prabhu Parliament of India

India Akhlesh Das Parliament of India Member of Parliament

India Nasib Pathan Parliament of India Member of Parliament

India Ramachandraiah Parliament of India Member of Parliament

India Suresh Prabhu Parliament of India Member of Parliament

India Hooda Deepender

India Abdul Shaheen Parliament of India Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) from Jammu & Kashmir -Executive Committee

India Dinesh Trivedi Parliament of India

India Rajubhai Parmar Parliament of India

India Esuardo Faleiro Parliament of India

India Bikram Deo Parliament of India

Ireland Michael Woods Parliament of Ireland Member of Parliament; Chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs

Ireland Mary Henry Senate of Ireland Senator

Ireland Fiona O'Malley Parliament of Ireland Senator

Jordan Ra'Ed K. Qaqish Parliament of Jordan Reformist Group Spokesman

Kenya Katoo Ole Metito Parliament of Kenya Member of Parliament

Kenya Mutahi Kagwe Palriament of Kenya

Kenya Hon Justin Muturi Parliament of Kenya

Korea Myoung-Ock Ahn Parliament of Korea

Liberia Kuku Y. Dorbor National Assembly of Liberia Member of Parliament

Lithuania Kestutis Glaveckas Parliament of Lithuania Member of Parliament

Luxembourg Nancy Kemp-Arendt Parlement du Luxembourg

Luxembourg Marc Angel Parliament of Luxembourg

Macedonia Agron Buxhaku Parliament of Macedonia

Malaysia Komala Devi Parliament of Malaysia

Mali Siaka Batouta Bagayoko National Assembly of Mali

Mauritania Dié Bah Parliament of Mauritania

Mexico Lidia Madero Garcia Senate of Mexico Senator (PAN)

Morocco Mohamed Oudor Parliament of Morocco Membre du Comité Central

Morocco Ouadia Benabdellah Parliament of Maroc Member of Parliament

Morocco Ouadia Benabdellah Parliament of Maroc

Nepal Dilli Raj Khanal Parliament of Nepal Member of Parliament

Netherlands Albert Koenders Ministry for Development Cooperation

New Zealand Martin Gallagher Parliament of New Zealand

Niger Gado Boureïma Parliament of Niger

Niger Mohamed Bazoum National Assembly of Niger

Nigeria Habeeb Fasinro Parliament of Nigeria Member of Parliament

Nigeria Wale Okediran Assembly of Nigeria Member of Parliament

Nigeria Mohamed Daggash Assembly of Nigeria

Pakistan Syed Naveed Qamar Parliament of Pakistan

List of MPs who attended field visits

COUNTRY

NAME AND TITLE PARLIAMENT

Pakistan Nawab Talpur Parliament of Pakistan

Poland Wieslaw Kuc Parliament of Poland MEP

Rwanda Faith Mukakalisa Parliament of Rwanda

Rwanda Faith Mukakalisa Parliament of Rwanda Member of Parliament

Rwanda Faith Mukakalisa Parliament of Rwanda

Senegal Wagane Faye Assembly of Senegal Member of Parliament

Senegal Khalifa Ababacar Sall National Assembly of Senegal MP

Senegal Etienne Sarr Parliament of Senegal

South Africa Ben Turok Parliament of South Africa Member of Parliament

South Africa Yunus Carrim Parliament of South Africa

Sweden Lotta Hedström Parliament of Sweden Member of Parliament

Sweden Agneta Brendt Parliament of Sweden

Switzerland Roland Wiederkerh Parliament of Switzerland Member of Parliament

Switzerland Michel Guilbert Parliament of Switzerland Member of Parliament

Tanzania Raphael Chegeni Parliament of Tanzania Vice-Chair

Thailand John Ungphakorn Senate of Thailand

Uganda Norbert Mao Parliament of Uganda Chair of Gulu District Uganda

Uganda Beatrice Kiraso Parliament of Uganda Member of Parliament-Chairperson Budget Committee

Uganda Dorothy Hyuha Samali Parliament of Uganda Chairperson of Social Services Committee

Uganda Martin Wandera Parliament of Uganda

Uganda Nathan Nabeta Igeme Parliament of Uganda Member of Parliament

Ukraine Sergiy Soboliev Parliament of Ukraine

United Kingdom Tony Colman Parliament of United Kingdom Member of Parliament

United Kingdom Hugh Bayley Parliament of United Kingdom Member of Parliament

United Kingdom John McFall House of Commons

United Kingdom Ian Lucas Parliament of United Kingdom

United States Betty McCollum US Congress Member of the United States Congress

Vietnam Nguyen Ngoc Tran Assembly of Vietnam Vice-Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee

Yemen Ali Ahmed Al-Emrani Parliament of Yemen

Yemen Yasser Al-Awadi Paliament of Yemen

Yemen Ahmed M. Sofan Parliament of Yemen Deputy Prime Minister

Zambia Edith Nawakwi Parliament of Zambia

Parliamentary Networkon the World Bank

www.pnowb.org

The World Bank

www.worldbank.org/parliamentarians

The “Parliamentarians in the Field” Program is one of the key activities of the Parliamen-tary Network on the World Bank (PNoWB). It is organized jointly with the World Bank and is supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland.

The aims of the program are to:

i) assess and encourage the participation of parliamentarians in poverty reduction strategy (PRSP) processes, ii) look at donor coordination in development projects, and iii) increase parliamentarians’ awareness of the World Bank’s mission and role at the country level.

To date, field visits have taken place in Kenya, Albania, Uganda, Burundi, Serbia and Montenegro, Ethiopia, Yemen, Nicara-gua, Vietnam, Ghana, Madagascar, Nigeria, India, Rwanda and Lao PDR.

The "Parliamentarians in the Field“Program is implemented jointly by the

PNoWB and the World Bank

Supported by the Ministry ofForeign Affairs of Finland

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland

The “Parliamentarians in the Field”Program

Executive Summaries and Main Findingsof Field Visits 2001 - 2007