1.1.1 Review of PRSP 1: 2003-2005

The Gambia implemented its Second strategy for Poverty Alleviation (SPA II) or PRSP I for a three year period - 2003 and 2005. The Long Term Goal of PRSP I was to eradicate poverty by significantly increasing National Income through stable economic growth and reducing income and non-income inequalities through specific poverty reduction priority interventions. In order to achieve this, five main objectives were identified and pursued during the period. These were:

1. Create an enabling policy environment to promote economic growth and poverty reduction.

2. Enhance the productive capacity and social protection of the poor and vulnerable.

3. Improve coverage of the basic social service needs of the poor and vulnerable.

4. Build the capacity of local communities and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) to play an active role in the process of poverty reduction.

5. Mainstream poverty-related cross-cutting issues into SPA II.

Implementation was coordinated by the Strategy for Poverty Alleviation Coordination Office, SPACO, and a unit within the Department of State for Finance and Economic Affairs. At the start of the PRSP period in January 2003, macroeconomic stability was slowly returning, following the instability caused by the exchange rate depreciations in 2001-2, and more important, there was a realistic opportunity to introduce a single fund for donor finance of poverty reducing programmes based on budget support.

However, as PRSP implementation progressed, the situation took a turn for the worse, as slippages in financial governance, mainly the misreporting by the Central Bank on their operations, led to the suspension of the PRGF. Measures to check against the reoccurrence of this, including the conduct of regular independent audits of the Central Bank operations have since been instituted and are now operational. However, on the side of the agreed level of budgetary financing of priority PRSP sectors, this was less than satisfactory as government revenue contracted and The Gambia’s debt burden began to seriously undermine budgetary expenditure on these sectors. This was further worsened by the unsustainable domestic debt burden. Even though there was improved macroeconomic performance since 2003, the adverse effect of debt financing set the stage for a challenging medium-term follow-up period for macroeconomic management. Thus, it remains a huge challenge to ring fence spending earmarked for priority PSRP sectors in the budget in the face of dwindling budget resources.

Although a number of donors made pledges at the Roundtable resource mobilization conference (held in Geneva in September 2002) in support of SPAII/PRSP I, many of the pledges were not honoured due to suspension of the IMF programme with The Gambia. As a result, the bulk of programmes and projects under the first PRSP could not be implemented as planned. However, most of the policy objectives and programmes identified in that programme remain valid and relevant.

1.1.2 Focus of PRSP II: 2007-2011

Accordingly, this second PRSP builds on the previous one, but strengthens its focus on the MDGs. PRSP II incorporates well defined, costed, and time bound interventions for each MDG and proposed policies so as to avoid implementation delays that characterised the first PRSP.

The Gambia’s PRSP II national development strategy

The second PRSP is a strategy for the nation as a whole, aimed at improving the welfare of all Gambians as well as eradicating poverty. Poverty eradication will depend on economic growth and participation of all economic agents in the growth process. A special feature of the second PRSP is its focus on the MDGs. In September 2000, at the U.N. Millennium Summit, World leaders agreed to a set of time-bound and measurable goals and targets for combating poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation, and discrimination against women. Two years later, leaders from developed and developing countries reached agreement on their various roles towards implementation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). This agreement was reaffirmed at the World Summit for Sustainable Development in August 2002. In developing countries, the MDGs are proving their potential to bring together a wide range of decision and opinion-makers in support of a common development agenda.

In this regard, the Government of The Gambia renews its commitment, made at the September 2005 World Summit to prepare and implement national development strategies to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015. The MDGs, which set clear targets for reducing poverty, hunger, illiteracy, disease, discrimination against women and environmental degradation as well as requisite global partnerships in support of such efforts, are simply operationalising the objectives of sustainable human development

The second PRSP will be implemented through Sector Wide Approaches (SWAS) and the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) with strong focus on attaining MDG targets. The Gambia embarked on preparation of the MTEF in 2005 and will ensure that the MTEF translates PRSP priorities into concrete budget allocations. PRSP II gives highlights of planned sector interventions in pursuance of the MDGs. The majority of sectors have detailed plans that will guide interventions in their sectors for realisation of related MDG targets. Sectors that have not yet prepared detailed sector plans will develop them and ensure consistency with this PRSP.

The goals and targets of each column in Table 1 correspond approximately with the MDGs, although they do not match exactly. According to The Gambia’s first National Millennium Development Goals Report, produced in 2003, Goals 2 and 5 have already been met or are likely to be, while Goals 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8 are unlikely to be met (given the current trends). Goal 7 on environmental health has not been monitored closely due to data limitations and should be treated as off-track until the situation is known. These are the areas where The Gambia needs to catch up so as to achieve the aspirations of Vision 2020 in general and the PRSP II in particular. Improvements to maternal health and child nutrition, strengthening secondary education and eliminating gender disparities in school, general poverty reduction and environmental preservation are among the areas emphasized in this PRSP.

Table 1:

The Relation between Vision 2020, SPA II (PRSP I) and PRSP II

Table 1:

The Relation between Vision 2020, SPA II (PRSP I) and PRSP II

Vision 2020 Strategic Development Areas	SPA II (PRSP I) Pillars	PRSP II pillars
Accelerate private sector development	Create the enabling policy environment for economic growth and poverty reduction.	Create the enabling policy environment for economic growth and poverty reduction. Develop further an open rule based, predictable, non- discriminatory trading and financial system (MDGs 1 & 8).
Restructure economic management	Enhance the productive capacity and social protection of the poor and vulnerable.	Enhance the capacity and output of productive sectors; Agriculture, Fisheries, Industry, Trade and Tourism, with emphasis on productive capacities of the poor and vulnerable populations (MDG 1)
Develop the human capital base	Improve coverage of the basic social needs of the poor and vulnerable.	Improve coverage of the basic social service and social protection needs of the poor and vulnerable. MDG 2: Achieve Universal primary education by 2015. MDG 4, 5 and 6; reduce infant mortality by two thirds by 2015; improve maternal health and reduce maternal mortality by three quarters; reduce infection rates of communicable diseases such as Malaria and TB. MDG3: Eliminate gender disparity in education and economic participation by 2015.
Institutionalize decentralized and democratic participatory government structures, processes and systems.	Build the capacity of local communities and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) to play an active role in the process of poverty reduction	Enhance governance systems and build the capacity of local communities and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) to play an active role in economic growth and poverty reduction (MDG 8 on building partnerships). Ensure good and democratic governance. Ensure transparency and accountability in public finance management
	Mainstream poverty-related crosscutting issues, such as gender, environment, HIV/AIDS, nutrition, population, and governance into the PRSP.	Mainstreaming crosscutting issues; Gender, Youths, Population, HIV/AIDS, Nutrition and Environment into the development process. Halt and reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS (MDG 6); MDG7: Ensure environmental sustainability - incorporate environmental concerns in all economic activities; halve the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation by the year 2015; improve livelihoods of slum dwellers.

View Table

Table 1:

The Relation between Vision 2020, SPA II (PRSP I) and PRSP II

Vision 2020 Strategic Development Areas	SPA II (PRSP I) Pillars	PRSP II pillars
Accelerate private sector development	Create the enabling policy environment for economic growth and poverty reduction.	Create the enabling policy environment for economic growth and poverty reduction. Develop further an open rule based, predictable, non- discriminatory trading and financial system (MDGs 1 & 8).
Restructure economic management	Enhance the productive capacity and social protection of the poor and vulnerable.	Enhance the capacity and output of productive sectors; Agriculture, Fisheries, Industry, Trade and Tourism, with emphasis on productive capacities of the poor and vulnerable populations (MDG 1)
Develop the human capital base	Improve coverage of the basic social needs of the poor and vulnerable.	Improve coverage of the basic social service and social protection needs of the poor and vulnerable. MDG 2: Achieve Universal primary education by 2015. MDG 4, 5 and 6; reduce infant mortality by two thirds by 2015; improve maternal health and reduce maternal mortality by three quarters; reduce infection rates of communicable diseases such as Malaria and TB. MDG3: Eliminate gender disparity in education and economic participation by 2015.
Institutionalize decentralized and democratic participatory government structures, processes and systems.	Build the capacity of local communities and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) to play an active role in the process of poverty reduction	Enhance governance systems and build the capacity of local communities and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) to play an active role in economic growth and poverty reduction (MDG 8 on building partnerships). Ensure good and democratic governance. Ensure transparency and accountability in public finance management
	Mainstream poverty-related crosscutting issues, such as gender, environment, HIV/AIDS, nutrition, population, and governance into the PRSP.	Mainstreaming crosscutting issues; Gender, Youths, Population, HIV/AIDS, Nutrition and Environment into the development process. Halt and reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS (MDG 6); MDG7: Ensure environmental sustainability - incorporate environmental concerns in all economic activities; halve the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation by the year 2015; improve livelihoods of slum dwellers.

Attainment of PRSP II objectives will heavily depend on real GDP growth. Accordingly, The Gambia will pursue policies that will be supportive of private sector investment (both domestic and foreign direct investment). The following are key issues The Gambia will pay special attention to with a view to optimising economic growth:

• Macroeconomic stability and better implementation of PRSP II

• Increasing Government Revenue through enhanced revenue collection

• Significant reductions in the domestic public debt portfolio

• Attainment of the HIPC completion point by early 2007

• Successful privatization of the PE’s in Track I & II of the divestiture program

• Acceleration of tourism growth rate averaging 6% pa with parallel forward and backward linkages e.g. with the horticulture and livestock sub sectors

• Expansion of groundnut production and marketing

• Dynamic and favourable investment climate resulting from improved governance at all level of Government

• Substantial increase in FDI

• Successfully established Free Trade Zone (Business Park)

• Continuous political stability

Effective implementation of PRSP II would have a significant effect on poverty reduction, with the number of people living under US$ 1 a day falling from 61% today to less than 40% in 2011. At the end of this decade The Gambia would be on track to reach the MDG and Vision 2020 objectives of reducing poverty by half in 2015 and most of the other MDG goals as a result of improved delivery of basic services, including those located in rural areas.

2.1.1 Poverty Definition and Understanding in The Gambia

As a follow up to the Program for Sustained Development (PSD), which initiated a process of national reflection on poverty issues and participatory approaches, a number of household surveys were conducted in The Gambia. These included surveys undertaken by the ILO in 1992, by the CSD-SDA in 1993; by the CSD-SPACO 1998; and the 2003 Integrated Household Survey. In spite of this research, the understanding of poverty over time and space remains a problem. This is due to the fact that methodological approach of these instruments had not been factored in the different measurement and analytical approaches used in the design of these surveys.

However, the recent undertakings in the area of poverty measurement and analysis recognised this constraint, and addressed the shortcomings in addition to updating poverty indicators. Thus, the 2003/04 Integrated Household Survey (which is a two-pronged survey) updated Gambia’s poverty indicators as well as further addressing the problem in methodological differences. The survey, in addition to updating poverty indicators, also helped in:

• a) Updating CPI consumption basket, and re-constructed weights and re-base the base year.

• b) Updating the National Accounts benchmark data.

Within the framework of Poverty Monitoring System, there are plans to have in place a Permanent Household Survey programme that will help in the regular measurement and analysis of poverty as well as provide periodic updates of the key social indicators.

2.1.2 Quantitative Definition of Poverty

Poverty measurements in The Gambia generally collected information on expenditure, which serves as a proxy for income levels. Income information is derived from expenditure and consumption data. Own produce items imputed in the estimates of expenditure include rent for owner occupied dwelling and collected firewood for rural households. Poverty measurement uses the physiological deprivation model to assess lack of access to economic resources (income) to satisfy basic material needs. A person (or household) is considered poor if the person’s (or the household’s) income cannot acquire the basket of goods and services. The value of this basket is the poverty line. The population of poor households and individuals is then derived through the head count index.

There has previously been very little work to assess the evolution of poverty in The Gambia over time. However, the 2003/04 Integrated Household Survey addressed this aspect and the 1992 and 1998 datasets have been standardized, in terms of methodological differences.

The Integrated Household Survey analyses the poverty situation using three indices: the head count, poverty gap and poverty severity. The Head count corresponds to the percentage of the population that are poor, the poverty gap index shows the share in total value of the resources that could be equally distributed to bring the poor out of the poverty loop, whilst severity measures how far the poor are below the poverty line using weights. In other words this is a measure of extreme poverty. Thus the Head count corresponds to the percentage of the households or people that are poor, the Poverty gap index shows the share in total value of the living standards that could be perfectly reallocated to eliminate poverty, and the Poverty severity index, which provide less intuitive statistics accounts for the severity of poverty i.e. how far below the poverty line are the poor.

2.1.3 Participatory qualitative definitions of Poverty

As evidenced in SPACO-IDRC assisted Participatory Poverty Assessments (PPAs) conducted in the Gambia between 1999 and 2002 and the World Bank supported sector-specific and multi-sectoral PPAs conducted between 2003 and 2005; poverty is perceived by the poor as inadequacy of basic needs such as: shelter, food and clothing. Access to basic social services such as clean and safe drinking water, education and health care, as well as inability to work, and lack of productive resources was all identified as inhibiting factors responsible for the persistence and continuous prevalence of poverty.

However, there are variations between the urban and the rural areas. The perception of poverty in the urban areas is more focused on unemployment, access to credit, unhygienic living conditions, security, energy and access to social services whilst rural poverty on the other hand, is more of production related; inadequate access to productive resources and information services. Poverty is perceived differently at the community, household and individual levels based on how they are affected in various ways.

2.1.4 Income Poverty

Income poverty, as the name implies, refers to those poor whose income or consumption falls below the poverty line i.e. access to economic resources is insufficient to acquire enough goods and services to meet basic material needs at any given point in time. The 2003 Integrated household Survey determined poverty lines that were subjected to the application of geographical and inter-temporal price differences. Using an approach where food has been the emphasis in determining the poverty line, lower and upper poverty lines were determined based on the lower and upper bounds of the non-food component. To arrive at the initial computation of the food poverty line ten food products were first determined to represent the major food groupings to obtain calorific energy intake (i.e. the minimum caloric requirement). The resultant lower and upper poverty lines were then computed in a model to obtain the Dalasis equivalent poverty lines.

Using the upper poverty line, based on per capita consumption, the head count index (i.e. the percentage of poor people) is calculated at 61.2%. The poverty gap is calculated at 25.9% whilst the poverty severity accounts for about 14.3%. As table 2 below shows, between 1992 and 2003, overall poverty has been on the increase in both rural and urban areas with the exception of Banjul, the capital.

Table 2:

Percentage of population below poverty lines 1989, 1992, 1998 and 2003

Source: Reports on the 1989 and 1993-94, 1998 & 2003/04 Household Surveys.

^*Estimated for comparative purposes using a CPI based inflation of the 1992 poverty lines

Table 2:

Percentage of population below poverty lines 1989, 1992, 1998 and 2003

	Food poverty line			Overall poverty line
	Banjul	Urban	Rural	Banjul	Urban	Rural
1989		33	44		64	76
1992	5	9	23	17	40	41
1998*	7	22	45	21	48	61
2003	n.a	n.a	n.a	10.6	57	63

Source: Reports on the 1989 and 1993-94, 1998 & 2003/04 Household Surveys.

^*Estimated for comparative purposes using a CPI based inflation of the 1992 poverty lines

View Table

Table 2:

Percentage of population below poverty lines 1989, 1992, 1998 and 2003

	Food poverty line			Overall poverty line
	Banjul	Urban	Rural	Banjul	Urban	Rural
1989		33	44		64	76
1992	5	9	23	17	40	41
1998*	7	22	45	21	48	61
2003	n.a	n.a	n.a	10.6	57	63

Source: Reports on the 1989 and 1993-94, 1998 & 2003/04 Household Surveys.

^*Estimated for comparative purposes using a CPI based inflation of the 1992 poverty lines

Income inequality as measured by the gini coefficient has worsened. The gini coefficient at the household level that was 0.466 in 1998 rose to 0.483 in 2003.

2.1.5 Demography

Population Growth and Distribution

The Gambia’s total population in 2003 stood at 1.3 million people compared to 1.03 million in 1993. This represents a growth rate of 2.8% between 1993 and 2003 compared to a growth rate of 4.2% in the previous decade. The decline in population growth rate could be on account of (i) the outward movement of refugees from neighbouring countries that have now attained peace and stability i.e. Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea Bissau and the Casamance region of Senegal; and (ii) the unfavourable economic climate in The Gambia resulting to the outward movement of economic migrants. Nonetheless, the population density continued to move up, from 97 persons per square kilometre in 1993 to 128 persons per square kilometre in 2003. This population density is one of the highest in Africa.

The age distribution of the population continued to skew towards the younger age bands. Those aged 0-15 years comprise about 44% of the total population and this has a lot of implications in the provision of social services and distribution of resources in the economy. The age sex distribution of the population according to the 2003 Population and Housing Census is shown in table 3 below

Table 3:

Population distribution by area, gender and sex

Source: CSD, 2003 Preliminary Census estimates

Table 3:

Population distribution by area, gender and sex

Age group	Gambia		Urban		Rural
	Both Sex	Female	Both Sex	Female	Both Sex	Female
0-4	193,921	96,341	88,910	44,061	105,011	52,280
5-9	206,204	102,108	89,274	44,913	116,930	57,195
10-19	329,505	167,091	162,668	84,661	166,837	82,430
20-39	403,454	213,284	235,605	114,890	167,849	98,394
40-59	146,578	71,440	74,522	32,984	72,056	38,456
60+	81,019	39,576	35,111	17,042	45,908	22,534
Total	1,360,681	689,840	686,090	338,551	674,591	351,289

Source: CSD, 2003 Preliminary Census estimates

View Table

Table 3:

Population distribution by area, gender and sex

Age group	Gambia		Urban		Rural
	Both Sex	Female	Both Sex	Female	Both Sex	Female
0-4	193,921	96,341	88,910	44,061	105,011	52,280
5-9	206,204	102,108	89,274	44,913	116,930	57,195
10-19	329,505	167,091	162,668	84,661	166,837	82,430
20-39	403,454	213,284	235,605	114,890	167,849	98,394
40-59	146,578	71,440	74,522	32,984	72,056	38,456
60+	81,019	39,576	35,111	17,042	45,908	22,534
Total	1,360,681	689,840	686,090	338,551	674,591	351,289

Source: CSD, 2003 Preliminary Census estimates

2.1.6 Youth Dimension of Poverty

Paucity of data notwithstanding, The Gambia has a problem of youth unemployment especially those that have limited skills. Consequently, a big proportion of the youth are part of the people categorised as poor in The Gambia. PRSP II will focus on the problem of youth unemployment through various approaches including supporting private sector investment that creates jobs for the youth, increasing access to productive assets particularly credit by the youth, and retooling and training the youth to increase their employability.

2.1.7 Household size and dependency ratios

Household size continues to be a determinant factor in the analysis of household poverty. Average household size dropped from 8.95 persons per household in 1993 to 8.61 persons in 2003 though with significant regional variations. The LGAs with large household size are URD, CRD North and South constituting 14.7, 11.05 and 10.43 respectively. These LGAs also happened to be the poorest regions in the country.

The 2003 poverty survey exhibits remarkable variation in poverty levels for different household sizes, with steep increases in poverty levels for households with 5 or more persons. More than 50% of households with sizes between 7 and 9 persons are poor whilst 73% of households with 10 persons and above are poor. Likewise the poverty gap and severity rapidly increase with household size.

Table 4:

Household size by Local Government Area

Source: CSD, 2003 Preliminary Census estimates

Table 4:

Household size by Local Government Area

LGA	1993	2003
Banjul	6.02	5.16
Kanifing	7.26	6.50
Brikama	9.16	8.66
Mansakonko	7.92	8.56
Kerewan	9.37	9.36
Kuntaur	10.05	11.05
Janjangbureh	9.99	10.43
Basse	13.61	14.70
The Gambia	8.95	8.61

Source: CSD, 2003 Preliminary Census estimates

View Table

Table 4:

Household size by Local Government Area

LGA	1993	2003
Banjul	6.02	5.16
Kanifing	7.26	6.50
Brikama	9.16	8.66
Mansakonko	7.92	8.56
Kerewan	9.37	9.36
Kuntaur	10.05	11.05
Janjangbureh	9.99	10.43
Basse	13.61	14.70
The Gambia	8.95	8.61

Source: CSD, 2003 Preliminary Census estimates

Table 5:

Poverty by household size.

Note: Based on the upper line, Source: 2003 Integrated Household Survey Results, CSD, The Gambia.

Table 5:

Poverty by household size.

Household size	Head count	Poverty	Poverty severity
1-3	18.9	6.1	3.0
4-6	39.9	13.3	6.1
7-9	53.9	20.1	10.0
10+	73.4	33.3	19.2

Note: Based on the upper line, Source: 2003 Integrated Household Survey Results, CSD, The Gambia.

View Table

Table 5:

Poverty by household size.

Household size	Head count	Poverty	Poverty severity
1-3	18.9	6.1	3.0
4-6	39.9	13.3	6.1
7-9	53.9	20.1	10.0
10+	73.4	33.3	19.2

Note: Based on the upper line, Source: 2003 Integrated Household Survey Results, CSD, The Gambia.

2.1.8 Urbanisation and poverty

The urban population in The Gambia stood at 53% of the total population in 2003. Increasing urbanisation is causing stress on social services provided in urban areas with consequences of rising urban poverty. The Greater Banjul Area has the worst-case scenario - Banjul and its surroundings, the Kombos, constitute about 51% of the total population of the country. This high concentration of the population in this area has implications on poverty particularly the growing incidence of urban poverty.

The distribution of poverty by area shows that poverty averaged 57.2% in urban areas and 63.3% in rural areas. The poverty picture becomes clearer when looked at from a regional perspective. Kuntaur LGA has the highest head-count poverty rate of 92.3% followed by Janjangbureh, 71.7%, and then Kerewan and Basse with 68.4% and 64.3% respectively. Mansakonko, Kanifing and Brikama have head-count poverty rates of 61.1%, 59.3% and 54.3% respectively. Banjul, the capital has the least proportion of poor people, about 10.6%.

Table 6:

Poverty, population growth rate and % change by Local Govt. Area

Source: 2003 Population and Housing Census Preliminary Estimates, CSD. Figures in brackets indicate a net loss of population due to migration.

Table 6:

Poverty, population growth rate and % change by Local Govt. Area

Local Government Area	Annual Growth		% Change		Density
	1983-1993	1993-2003	1983-1993	1993-2003	1983-1993	1993-2003
Banjul	(0.4)	(1.93)	(4.2)	(17.71)	3,461	2,848
Kanifing	8.4	3.52	124.0	41.28	3,021	4,268
Brikama	5.5	5.28	71.2	67.29	133	223
Mansakonko	1.7	1.08	17.9	11.36	40	45
Kerewan	3.4	1.00	39.4	10.45	69	77
Kuntaur	1.6	1.56	17.7	16.71	46	54
Janjanbureh	2.6	1.93	30.0	21.02	62	75
Basse	3.4	1.67	39.2	18.04	75	88

Source: 2003 Population and Housing Census Preliminary Estimates, CSD. Figures in brackets indicate a net loss of population due to migration.

View Table

Table 6:

Poverty, population growth rate and % change by Local Govt. Area

Local Government Area	Annual Growth		% Change		Density
	1983-1993	1993-2003	1983-1993	1993-2003	1983-1993	1993-2003
Banjul	(0.4)	(1.93)	(4.2)	(17.71)	3,461	2,848
Kanifing	8.4	3.52	124.0	41.28	3,021	4,268
Brikama	5.5	5.28	71.2	67.29	133	223
Mansakonko	1.7	1.08	17.9	11.36	40	45
Kerewan	3.4	1.00	39.4	10.45	69	77
Kuntaur	1.6	1.56	17.7	16.71	46	54
Janjanbureh	2.6	1.93	30.0	21.02	62	75
Basse	3.4	1.67	39.2	18.04	75	88

Source: 2003 Population and Housing Census Preliminary Estimates, CSD. Figures in brackets indicate a net loss of population due to migration.

Table 7:

Poverty and per capita living standard by LGA

Table 7:

Poverty and per capita living standard by LGA

	Poverty (Head count)		Poverty Gap (2003)	Poverty Severity (2003)	Mean/capita living standards (2003)
	1998	2003
Banjul		10.6	4.3	2.1	22,096
Kanifing		59.3	24.8	13.8	11,115
Brikama		54.3	22.4	12.5	8,075
Mansakonko		61.1	19.8	9.3	10,246
Kerewan		68.4	33.2	20.0	6,569
Kuntaur		92.3	47.3	27.1	3,623
Janjanbureh		71.7	25.6	12.3	5,589
Basse		64.3	25.9	13.1	6,924

View Table

Table 7:

Poverty and per capita living standard by LGA

	Poverty (Head count)		Poverty Gap (2003)	Poverty Severity (2003)	Mean/capita living standards (2003)
	1998	2003
Banjul		10.6	4.3	2.1	22,096
Kanifing		59.3	24.8	13.8	11,115
Brikama		54.3	22.4	12.5	8,075
Mansakonko		61.1	19.8	9.3	10,246
Kerewan		68.4	33.2	20.0	6,569
Kuntaur		92.3	47.3	27.1	3,623
Janjanbureh		71.7	25.6	12.3	5,589
Basse		64.3	25.9	13.1	6,924

2.1.9 Poverty and economic activity

Analysis on economic activity of the Gambian population in relation to the poverty head count shows that peasant agricultural workers and unskilled workers are the poorest whilst sales and service workers are the most better off. Similar trends are observed in poverty gap and severity in the various occupations. However mean per capita living standards are highest among highly qualified professionals followed by service and sales workers, and lowest among peasant agricultural workers.

Table 8:

Poverty by occupation of the household head

Note: Based on the upper line, Source: 2003 Integrated Household Survey Results, CSD, The Gambia.

Table 8:

Poverty by occupation of the household head

Occupation	Head count	Poverty Gap	Poverty Severity	Mean/capita living standard
Highly qualified white collared	51.5	21.1	11.9	11,397
Median qualified white collared	55.4	22.5	13.1	9,546
Service and sales worker	47.5	16.8	8.5	10,873
Peasant agric. Worker	71.9	32.0	17.4	7,115
Craft & related trade worker	62.1	28.6	16.2	8,144
Unqualified worker	65.5	28.5	15.8	7,676
Unemployed	61.2	24.2	12.5	7,979
Inactive	57.0	23.0	13.1	9,660
Not stated	56.4	24.5	14.2	9,657

Note: Based on the upper line, Source: 2003 Integrated Household Survey Results, CSD, The Gambia.

View Table

Table 8:

Poverty by occupation of the household head

Occupation	Head count	Poverty Gap	Poverty Severity	Mean/capita living standard
Highly qualified white collared	51.5	21.1	11.9	11,397
Median qualified white collared	55.4	22.5	13.1	9,546
Service and sales worker	47.5	16.8	8.5	10,873
Peasant agric. Worker	71.9	32.0	17.4	7,115
Craft & related trade worker	62.1	28.6	16.2	8,144
Unqualified worker	65.5	28.5	15.8	7,676
Unemployed	61.2	24.2	12.5	7,979
Inactive	57.0	23.0	13.1	9,660
Not stated	56.4	24.5	14.2	9,657

Note: Based on the upper line, Source: 2003 Integrated Household Survey Results, CSD, The Gambia.

The distribution by industry shows a similar trend; poverty is highest among those in the agriculture and fishing industry and lowest among social and personal service workers, public and private financial services, and trade hotels and restaurants which group also has the highest mean per capita living standards. Details are shown in table 9 below

Table 9:

Poverty by working industry of the household head

Note: Based on the upper line; Source: 2003 Integrated Household Survey Results, CSD, The Gambia.

Table 9:

Poverty by working industry of the household head

Industry	Head count	Poverty Gap	Poverty Severity	Mean/capita living standard
Agriculture and fishing	73.4	31.4	17.0	6,369
Manufacturing and energy	54.4	26.9	16.7	8,843
Construction	67.5	33.7	20.0	6,723
Trade, hotels and restaurants	55.3	21.4	10.9	10,123
Transport and communication	60.3	27.9	16.7	7,959
Private and public financial administration	56.7	27.0	15.8	12,348
Social and personal service	52.5	21.5	12.7	9,749
Not stated	57.5	23.1	12.3	9,106

Note: Based on the upper line; Source: 2003 Integrated Household Survey Results, CSD, The Gambia.

View Table

Table 9:

Poverty by working industry of the household head

Industry	Head count	Poverty Gap	Poverty Severity	Mean/capita living standard
Agriculture and fishing	73.4	31.4	17.0	6,369
Manufacturing and energy	54.4	26.9	16.7	8,843
Construction	67.5	33.7	20.0	6,723
Trade, hotels and restaurants	55.3	21.4	10.9	10,123
Transport and communication	60.3	27.9	16.7	7,959
Private and public financial administration	56.7	27.0	15.8	12,348
Social and personal service	52.5	21.5	12.7	9,749
Not stated	57.5	23.1	12.3	9,106

Note: Based on the upper line; Source: 2003 Integrated Household Survey Results, CSD, The Gambia.

2.1.10 Gender Dimensions of Poverty in The Gambia

Gender is a cross cutting development concern and as such needs to be addressed using a cross-sectoral approach. The realization of gender equality and basic human rights requires all sectors and actors in development process to address this issue in their respective areas of mandate and capacities. There is sufficient evidence to show that due to systematic socio-cultural practices of discrimination against women, there is an intrinsic tendency for some sectoral development interventions to not promote gender equity in delivery of, or access to key services. However, experience from the previous PRSP interventions shows that despite the numerous efforts to mainstream gender into the national development process, the overall level of gender responsiveness still remains low.

This is largely due to inadequate capacity among sector and local government planners and implementers to apply gender analysis skills to the policy making process; limited gender awareness among the communities; bureaucratic resistance to gender mainstreaming among decision makers; and weak support, advocacy, sensitization, coordination and monitoring among other stakeholders.

Female-headed households

Poverty in The Gambia has a significant gender dimension. As can be seen from table 10 below, 63% of female-headed households fall below the poverty line compared to 48.2% for male-headed households. The higher incidence and severity of poverty among women as compared to men leads to a relationship between gender and poverty commonly referred to as the ‘feminisation of poverty’. Generally standards of living are lower in female-headed households compared to male-headed households.

Table 10:

Poverty by gender of the household head

Note: Based on the upper line; Source: 2003 Integrated Household Survey Results, CSD, The Gambia.

Table 10:

Poverty by gender of the household head

Occupation	Head count	Poverty Gap	Poverty Severity	Mean/capita living standard
Male	48.2	17.2	8.5	14,312
Female	63.0	27.1	15.1	11,303

Note: Based on the upper line; Source: 2003 Integrated Household Survey Results, CSD, The Gambia.

View Table

Table 10:

Poverty by gender of the household head

Occupation	Head count	Poverty Gap	Poverty Severity	Mean/capita living standard
Male	48.2	17.2	8.5	14,312
Female	63.0	27.1	15.1	11,303

Note: Based on the upper line; Source: 2003 Integrated Household Survey Results, CSD, The Gambia.

2.2.1 Causes at the level of households

From the foregoing and information from research in The Gambia, poverty is related to several household characteristics, type of economic activity, and low ownership of physical and human assets. Households are more likely to be poor if they:

• live in a rural area

• have little education

• are in a polygamous marriage relationship

• are female headed

• are headed by a widow

• have poor access to markets

• experience low and decreasing productivity in agriculture

• live outside Banjul and its immediate environs

• are large in size - 7+

• are headed by people of advanced age - 50+

• have sick family members

The PRSP II attempts to address each of these causes at the household level through improving the environment in which poor people live. Public action will include providing more rural infrastructure; focussing on education and health services; focussing on decentralisation to improve service delivery; paying special attention to rural feeder roads to improve market access; assisting households to increase productivity in agriculture; and taking measures to address special needs of marginalised groups including women the aged, and children. These issues, among others, are further elaborated upon under the five pillars of the PRSP and the sector strategies.

2.2.2 Causes of poverty at the level of society and public action

Public action usually cannot intervene directly within the household, but it can affect the environment in which the household operates. So, the analysis of actions to reduce poverty must start by examining the environment in which the household finds itself and the ways in which the environment affects poverty. The main findings of poverty analysis in The Gambia are as follows:

2.3.1 The Process

The participatory process is to build on the participatory tradition in The Gambia and in particular to bring the voice of the stakeholders especially the poor more meaningfully into the realms of policy and decision-making. This can only be effectively done in a number of ways; crucial among which, is institutionalising participation and participatory processes to be responsible for facilitating the national dialogue process on PRSP II. Secondly to develop the national communication strategy as a policy instrument to guide the national dialogue process in the implementation of the programme among others is also essential. The objectives of participation under PRSP II are underpinned by the following considerations:

• To promote consultation and debate between government, civil society, and donor community on PRSP issues;

• To improve transparency and accountability in planning, designing and implementation of the PRSP programme by facilitating citizen engagement in the process and public resource management;

• To promote a wider understanding of the links between decision-making and resource availability;

• To help manage and sequence a fair and just process for policy considerations by Cabinet and the National Assembly;

• To empower local communities and women to influence and share control over priority setting, resource allocation and implementation towards achieving the PRSP goals and objectives;

• To identify policy framework, institutional and other relevant issues that needs to be addressed to enhance the performance of the PRSP; and

• To ensure national dialogue process reflects on the most important activities undertaken or being undertaken by government decentralised institutions, development partners, NGOs and Community Based Organisations (CBOs), on the impact and weaknesses of the programme and actions required to improve the performance. This is expected to yield the following results

• Partnership between various stakeholders consolidated;

• Community mobilisation enhanced;

• Efficient public resources management strengthened and community institutions organised;

• Ownership of development programmes/projects established;

• Awareness on poverty and development related issues improved; and

• Sector targets, indicators and costing of priority programmes established.

• MDGs mainstreamed in sector priorities

2.3.2 Capacity needs for widened participation

To ensure effective implementation of participation and participatory processes, there is need to build the capacity of both the institutions and focal persons in advocacy skills, community and resource mobilisation, participatory planning, public expenditure reviews, participatory budgeting, public expenditure tracking, public expenditure management and participatory monitoring and evaluation

PRSP II went through a long consultative process at different tiers/levels with a committee constituted comprising Permanent Secretaries of the various line ministries to oversee the formulation of the programme. The document provides a framework upon which to build on the participatory tradition in The Gambia and to bring the perspectives of the stakeholders, in particular, the poor more meaningfully into the realms of policy making. In developing this document, a drafting team comprising consultants, Department of State for Finance and economic Affairs, and other relevant sectors worked with the Government of The Gambia (GOTG), Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), private sector and other stakeholders through a consultative, participatory, and inclusive processes to identify priority areas for PRSP II.

At the National level, stakeholder consultative workshops were held to identify key areas and the process to follow in the operation of programme formulation and implementation issues. Therefore, sectors, civil society organisations (CSOs), private sector, donors and other relevant stakeholders were consulted in addition to holding retreats with the objective of incorporating sector priorities emanated from the SPP and CSC processes. Further to the consultative processes, validation workshop on the document was conducted and was attended by Permanent secretaries, government technicians, policy makers, civil society organisations’ representatives, private sector, the Secretary General as the head of the Civil Service, some Secretaries of State and donor community to review and validate the document. The outcome of the validation was basically meant to build consensus on the key strategies and priorities outlined in the programme within a medium term framework from 2007 to 2011 to gauge how realistic the programme is and the feasibility of its implementation given the resource constraint.

The key areas identified were:

• General Overview – Macro and Sectoral Targets and implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

• Productive and services sectors cluster (Agriculture, Livestock and Food Security, Fishing and Marine Resources Development Industry, Trade and Tourism).

• Social Sector Cluster (Health, Population and Social Welfare Development, Education and Human Resource Development & Utilization)

• Crosscutting Issues/Enabling Environment cluster (Governance & Gender-in-Development, PRSP and PRGF; Physical infrastructure services and Environment and Natural Resources).

During the process consultants were recruited to assist the sectors in the identification of their strengths, weaknesses, gaps and plans for the way forward. Sector groups were then formed to monitor/guide the work of the consultants. The chairpersons of the sectors were the permanent secretaries, while those represented were key technical personnel in these sectors, the civil society and donors in that particular area.

Upon submission of initial draft reports by the consultants, a one-day retreat was held to critically review each paper in each cluster. The main objectives of the retreats were:

• to assess whether the papers had done justice in the areas of coverage

• to ensure that the sectoral reports produced by the consultants were thoroughly reviewed by a panel of technical experts in the government, donor community and the private sector as well as other relevant stakeholders of the civil society in order to

  • - Ensure conformance to the terms of reference of the various studies;

  • - Certify the contents of the reports as reflecting the true status of the Gambian Economy; and

  • - Arrive at a consensus on the validity of the reports.

Following the sectoral retreats, comments were again incorporated and validation sessions further organized for the documents. At the various validation sessions, the sectors again took the lead, with the participation of stakeholders from all works of life. At the end of the sessions, the consultants were further requested to submit comments, and submit their final reports to the Permanent Secretaries of the relevant sectors.

This led to eleven sectoral reports, which were used as inputs to produce the zero draft PRSP II. A stakeholder consultation was organized for this draft; following which comments were incorporated to produce the final draft. The final draft was again subjected to a two-day validation workshop to agree with all stakeholders on the contents prior to finalization.

Concurrently, Strategy Planning Process (SPP) was conducted nationwide as an initial step toward identifying the national priorities as the focus of consideration in the update of the programme document. At the LGA levels, the Local Government Area specific priorities were identified as well as national priorities to facilitate the programme development in addition to the results of the PPAs and community scorecard process conducted for the update of the PRSP. During these processes, information was collected through participatory approach involving cross section of the population in five communities each in all eight Local Government Areas in The Gambia.

Table 11:

Consultations with Stakeholders in the formulation of PRSP II

Table 11:

Consultations with Stakeholders in the formulation of PRSP II

Stakeholder Group	Form of Consultation	Outcomes
Ordinary Citizens	Extended focus group discussions, participatory poverty assessments and community scorecard.	Enhanced awareness on Poverty Programs, the HIPC process, and medium term plans for poverty reduction. Prioritized public actions.
Civil Society NGOs, CBOs, Unions, Religious leaders, Community leaders, Youths and Women Groups, Private Sector	Focus group discussions Workshops and seminars Sharing of draft documents and facilitating meetings with donor and government agencies.	Enhanced awareness of the PRSP process, prioritized public actions, set up of a Pro-poor Advocacy Group.
National Assembly Members	Policy sensitization seminar on role of Parliament in PRSP process. Working session on draft full PRSP, after the Stakeholder Validation Workshop	Enhanced awareness of role as an organ for good governance and accountability. Enhanced awareness of PRSP process and ranking of final priority actions.
Government Departments	Working sessions on sector contributions to achievement of priority targets.	Establishment of Sector Targets, Indicators and costing of priority programs.
Development Partners	Workshops, Seminars, Formal and Informal Discussions, Joint Reviews of successive drafts.	Tacit agreements on principles, procedures, roles and resource envelopes.

View Table

Table 11:

Consultations with Stakeholders in the formulation of PRSP II

Stakeholder Group	Form of Consultation	Outcomes
Ordinary Citizens	Extended focus group discussions, participatory poverty assessments and community scorecard.	Enhanced awareness on Poverty Programs, the HIPC process, and medium term plans for poverty reduction. Prioritized public actions.
Civil Society NGOs, CBOs, Unions, Religious leaders, Community leaders, Youths and Women Groups, Private Sector	Focus group discussions Workshops and seminars Sharing of draft documents and facilitating meetings with donor and government agencies.	Enhanced awareness of the PRSP process, prioritized public actions, set up of a Pro-poor Advocacy Group.
National Assembly Members	Policy sensitization seminar on role of Parliament in PRSP process. Working session on draft full PRSP, after the Stakeholder Validation Workshop	Enhanced awareness of role as an organ for good governance and accountability. Enhanced awareness of PRSP process and ranking of final priority actions.
Government Departments	Working sessions on sector contributions to achievement of priority targets.	Establishment of Sector Targets, Indicators and costing of priority programs.
Development Partners	Workshops, Seminars, Formal and Informal Discussions, Joint Reviews of successive drafts.	Tacit agreements on principles, procedures, roles and resource envelopes.

Rooted in the “national dialogue”, the participatory framework for the formulation of the PRSP II represents a substantial improvement over previous approaches. The programme has so far engaged a broader range of development stakeholders and gone beyond the level of mere information sharing to consensus building under the stewardship of a consultant and the Drafting team for the update of the PRSP II. The drafting team of the PRSP II comprised representatives from the public, NGOs and civil society organisations. The same stakeholders will play an active role in monitoring and evaluation of PRSP II implementation.

PRSP II preparation has harnessed much more dynamic partnerships among development stakeholders. The Drafting Team brought together NGOs, donors, government departments, the Chamber of Commerce, Private sector and representatives of other civil society organizations to guide the formulation of both the PRSP II. These stakeholders were also engaged independently and to varying levels of intensity. SPACO led the participatory assessment of needs identification for PRSP II. The assessment was effected countrywide through divisional focus group discussions on the outputs of PRSP II and the processes adopted for its implementation. In collaboration with other sectors conducted workshops in each of the country’s eight Local Government Administrative Areas in 2005. Using the PRA and CSC methodologies, focus group discussions were held in all the divisions, with participants drawn from neighbouring wards and villages. They focused on assessing the strengths and weaknesses of PRSP I, and discussed how PRSP II might better serve the needs of poor communities.

In addition to participation through the National PRSP II Drafting Team, participation of government departments and units included formal working sessions to discuss PRSP II objectives, priorities and programs within the context of the Millennium Development Goals and targets. In the course of successive meetings, and based on available data on poverty a Draft Final was prepared and served as an important starting point for continuous dialogue on poverty issues.

The multi-lateral and bilateral donors have made invaluable contributions to PRSP II through consultative meetings, working sessions with key sectoral ministries, closer discussions with SPACO and meetings at various local and international fora.

2.3.3 The Strategic Planning Process (SPP)

As part of the process of preparation of PSRP II, in 2005 Strategic Planning Process (SPP) and Community Scorecard processes were used to facilitate stakeholder participation in the formulation of the document with funding provided by the CBEMP and EMCBP projects of the World Bank and UNDP respectively. These processes used structured focus group discussions to engage citizens in dialogue about development priorities and strategies. Forty focus group discussions were conducted by 24 facilitators, largely from a cross section of agencies involved in development trained on both methodologies across the eight LGAs in The Gambia. These focus group discussions engaged citizens at all levels of the Gambian society, and generated feedback to inform and influence policy formulation. This activity brought together participants comprising of community leaders, religious leaders, the physically challenged, workers, representatives of civil society and community based organizations, local government authorities, civil servants and parliamentarians.

The SPP methodology follows a four-phase sequential process in a focus group discussion, where participants brainstormed on key questions: Where The Gambia is now in terms of development. This allowed participants to assess the current situation with regards to their poverty status; where do we want The Gambia to go in terms of development? This helped the participants to formulate a vision where they would want to see themselves in terms of reducing poverty; how will the Gambia get there? The participants brainstormed and came up with strategies and prioritized actions to address their poverty issues; and how do we know we are getting there? This involved identifying specific monitoring and evaluation indicators.

Similarly, the Community Scorecard process was done in a focus group discussion with different focus groups of the community to refine findings of the focus group discussions. The only difference between the two was the fact that the latter empowered the participants to assess the effectiveness of the policies and programmes designed on their behalf to address poverty and also help them to monitor the implementation process. Importantly, SPP and CSC processes will be applied in the monitoring and evaluation of PRSP II.

2.3.4 Analysis of SPP Budget Game Results

Results of the focus group discussions related to the main priority areas, (that is, representing analysis of the first round of the Budget Game - How do we get there?), are presented later in this Chapter. The results were aggregated for each LGA, with further aggregation for the national level. They portray diverse sectoral priority preference patterns across the country, with a clear difference between urban and rural constituencies.

At the national level, not surprisingly, agriculture received the most votes; about 31% as the main priority followed by Health with 29.3% and Education 17.2% of the votes. Employment and infrastructure accounted for 12.6% and 10.3% respectively. The top five main priority areas at the national level were: Agriculture, Health, Education, Employment and Infrastructure. Other issues discussed include Energy, high price of farm inputs, and adequate supply of drugs, provision of adequate qualified teachers, market outlets and communication network.

Looking at specific priorities to reduce poverty, reduction in price and access to farm inputs were the top issues in Agriculture. The need to address the frequent and acute shortage of drugs topped considerations for the Health Sector, whilst availability of adequate qualified teachers; skill training centres and functional Literacy were the main specific priorities in Education.

Rural and urban participants identified different priorities as follows: from Urban centres of Greater Banjul, they regarded Employment, health and energy as their main priorities, citing specific priorities relating to income generating activities, and provision of marketing outlets provides employment opportunities for the youths. Health and Education follow with the same considerations registered at the national level. The observed national pattern of Agriculture, Health and Education being the dominant main priorities is observed mainly in the rural areas, that is, excluding Banjul, Kanifing except for the Western Division.

These preferences (Agriculture, Health, Education, Infrastructure and Employment) have been carefully reflected in the PRSP II and priority actions of the programme. However, although agriculture tops the list of priorities in the judgment of the poor, there is recognition of the constraints imposed by energy. A content analysis of the discussions held with participants in Banjul and Kanifing Municipal Area raised concern for increase in energy supply and reduction in electricity tariff.

However, crosscutting issues scored very poorly, in general this trend should be attributed to inadequate comprehension of the impact of these issues in development. Inadequate understanding of issues such as Gender and the Environment imply a poor performance of the Information, Education and Communications processes adopted for these programs.

2.3.6 Institutionalizing Participation

One of the major targets of strategy is expanding and strengthening participation of stakeholders in all major dimensions of the poverty reduction programme. Participation in public resource management will be strengthened at both the national and local level in order to promote ownership, accountability and transparency of poverty reduction actions. This is described in greater detail in chapter 3 and in the log frame on Aid Coordination Policy in chapter 8. It will be implemented through reforms designed to enhance public sector good governance, whilst building the capacities of local communities to take part in the development process.

At the national level, there was a focus on developing processes and instruments for facilitating the participation of civil society in the identification of budgetary priorities, tracking of budget spending to the key sectors, and monitoring the quality of public services. The public expenditure reviews serve as a suitable entry point, and will be followed up by a series of training programs on budgetary analysis for CSOs. The Pro-Poor Advocacy Group (PROPAG) has conducted a number of trainings and will continue with the training and capacity building effort.

At the divisional level participation in public resource management will take place in the context of the processes of decentralization as encompassed in the Decentralization and Local Government Act. Within the Act provisions have been made for a gradual devolution of resources and responsibilities to Local Government Authorities (LGAs). In order to empower communities to play an active role in the implementation of development programs, SPACO will organise in-country training and capacity building programs to enhance the capacities of LGAs and local communities in participatory planning and monitoring, with specific focus on monitoring public expenditure. Community scorecard on service delivery monitoring was piloted in the health and education sectors in 2004 across all the LGAs in the country with assistance from the World Bank.

Another distinctive feature of PRSP II is the plan to operationalise participatory monitoring and evaluation. It is a critical aspect of the effort to institutionalize participation in poverty reduction. Participatory monitoring will be based on a set of indicators, and will be underpinned by: an institutional framework that provides for active ownership by stakeholders; effective coordination mechanisms; and capacity building of stakeholders including local communities.

Scaling up of stakeholder participation to encompass sector planning is regarded as necessary for the improvement of the programme outcomes. As sector planning evolves towards activity/program based planning, PER teams will introduce a participatory dimension to their work in order to draw more systematically from the perspectives of communities, and on intra-sectoral prioritising exercises. The SPP and CSC methodologies have the potential to contribute effectively to Expenditure Reviews, and enable these processes to deepen communities’ input at the sector level beyond general poverty consultations. Consistent with the principles of the document, government will need to establish mechanisms for institutionalised participation in the preparation of PERs.

Civil society organizations in The Gambia have highlighted the importance of institutionalized dialogue among stakeholders on poverty issues. The programme provides an important context in which this can be initiated. In this regard the NPC will collaborate with the Stakeholders Monitoring Committee in the creation of a “Poverty Reduction Dialogue Forum” (PRDF), which will consist of periodical multi-stakeholder discussions of key policy and program issues affecting poverty reduction in the country. Facilitators will be invited from both within and outside the country, to discuss and moderate thematic discussions on topical issues, which can then be compiled for consideration by Government institutions and Agencies.

Finally an enabling legal and policy environment is essential to the effectiveness of NGOs and other civil society organizations and their contribution to development policies, strategies and projects at all levels. The NPC will initiate discussions through the NGO Agency and civil society organizations to conduct a review and analysis of the existing legal and policy framework as it affects the non-profit sector. The objective is to identify constraints to the realization of the sector’s full potential in development, and to make recommendations to government for appropriate policy reforms and rules of engagement. This endeavour has already commenced through an on-going study on the historical relationship between Government and Civil Society in the Gambia.

Table 12:

National-Level Budget Game Results - SPP, 2005

Table 12:

National-Level Budget Game Results - SPP, 2005

Rank	Main Priority Area	National Aggregate Priority Patterns1	Top-Scoring Specific Priority Areas
1	Agriculture2	30.6	Lack/inadequate farm implements Lack/inadequate of farm inputs High cost of farm inputs Poor access to rice fields Inadequate water supply (vegetable garden/livestock)
2	Health	29.3	Inadequate supply of essential drugs Lack of health facility Inadequate qualified nurses / doctors Lack of basic services in health facility
3	Education	17.2	High cost of education / fees Low quality education Inadequate skill training centres Lack of schools
4	Employment3	12.6	Lack of employment opportunities Low income levels of workers Poor marketing for agricultural products Lack of credit facilities High/increase cost of basic commodities/consumer goods Poverty on the increase
5	Infrastructure	10.3	Poor road network Inadequate dwelling houses Lack/Inadequate storage facilities

View Table

Table 12:

National-Level Budget Game Results - SPP, 2005

Rank	Main Priority Area	National Aggregate Priority Patterns1	Top-Scoring Specific Priority Areas
1	Agriculture2	30.6	Lack/inadequate farm implements Lack/inadequate of farm inputs High cost of farm inputs Poor access to rice fields Inadequate water supply (vegetable garden/livestock)
2	Health	29.3	Inadequate supply of essential drugs Lack of health facility Inadequate qualified nurses / doctors Lack of basic services in health facility
3	Education	17.2	High cost of education / fees Low quality education Inadequate skill training centres Lack of schools
4	Employment3	12.6	Lack of employment opportunities Low income levels of workers Poor marketing for agricultural products Lack of credit facilities High/increase cost of basic commodities/consumer goods Poverty on the increase
5	Infrastructure	10.3	Poor road network Inadequate dwelling houses Lack/Inadequate storage facilities

From the foregoing and from the division level budget game results (table 13) priority areas of focus for poverty eradication in The Gambia include the following:

Table 13:

Divisional Level Budget Game Results

Table 13:

Divisional Level Budget Game Results

LGA	Main Priority Area	Aggregate Priorities	Top Scoring Specific Priority Areas
Banjul	Employment	43.1%	• Provide income generating activities, increase salaries and wages
	Health	18.7%	• Adequate supply of drugs, provide trained personnel in health facility
	Energy	16.7%	• Increase energy supply and reduce electricity tariff
	Education	15.7%	• Provide qualified teachers, provide basic cycle school
	Infrastructure	5.7%	• Ensure road maintenance, construction/rehabilitation of road culverts
Kanifing	Health	27.2%	• Provide adequate supply of drugs, and trained personnel in health facilities
	Employment	23.6%	• Provide market outlets
	Energy	17.8%	• Increase new generators and provide adequate fuel/lubricants
	Infrastructure	16.1%	• Construction of tarmac road network
	Education	15.3%	• Provide qualified teachers and skills training centres
Brikama	Agriculture	41.4%	• Increase rice fields, advocate for the use of farm manure, provide adequate drinking water, provide pump for vegetable garden and good drainage system
	Health	28.2%	• Adequate supply of drugs, provide trained personnel in health facility, upgrade/expand health facility
	Education	13.5%	• Provide Arabic school, provide functional literacy programmes
	Infrastructure	10.0%	•
	Employment	6.9%	•
Mansakonko	Agriculture	41.9%	• Provide labour saving devices, increase fields, establish sheep fattening
	Health	25.4%	• Adequate supply of drugs, reduce the cost of drugs, provide trained personnel in health facility, provide better ambulance services
	Education	18.3%	• Provide qualified teachers, provide basic cycle school
	Infrastructure	7.3%	• Construction of tarmac road network
	Employment	7.1%	• Reduce price of basic commodities, provide microfinance institutions
Kerewan	Agriculture	28.5%	• Increase rice fields, provide adequate drinking water, provide hand pump wells
	Health	24.3%	• Adequate supply of drugs, provide trained personnel in health facility
	Employment	20.8%	• Provide market outlets
	Education	17.1%	• Provide qualified teachers, introduce civic education
	Infrastructure	9.3%	• Ensure road maintenance
Kuntaur	Health	43.5%	• Adequate supply of drugs, reduce cost of drugs, provide trained personnel in health facility
	Agriculture	41.2%	• Increase rice fields, provide adequate drinking water, control of Hippos
	Education	15.3%	• Provide qualified teachers, provide skills training centres
Janjanbureh	Agriculture	45.0%	• Provide good bridge and cause ways to rice fields
	Health	26.4%	• Adequate supply of drugs, improve health services
	Education	14.3%	• Construction of extra classrooms
	Employment	8.2%	•
	Infrastructure	6.1%	• Solicit donor support for funding to improve the status
Basse	Health	34.0%	• Adequate supply of drugs, reduce the cost of drugs, provide more health staff
	Agriculture	22.8%	• Provide labour saving devices, provide adequate drinking water
	Education	18.3%	• Construction of extra classrooms, provide skills training centres
	Infrastructure	13.6%	• Solicit donor support for funding to improve the status, construction of tarmac road network
	Employment	11.2%	• Provide income generating activities, increase salaries and wages, reduce the price of basic commodities, provide ready market for groundnut produce

View Table

Table 13:

Divisional Level Budget Game Results

LGA	Main Priority Area	Aggregate Priorities	Top Scoring Specific Priority Areas
Banjul	Employment	43.1%	• Provide income generating activities, increase salaries and wages
	Health	18.7%	• Adequate supply of drugs, provide trained personnel in health facility
	Energy	16.7%	• Increase energy supply and reduce electricity tariff
	Education	15.7%	• Provide qualified teachers, provide basic cycle school
	Infrastructure	5.7%	• Ensure road maintenance, construction/rehabilitation of road culverts
Kanifing	Health	27.2%	• Provide adequate supply of drugs, and trained personnel in health facilities
	Employment	23.6%	• Provide market outlets
	Energy	17.8%	• Increase new generators and provide adequate fuel/lubricants
	Infrastructure	16.1%	• Construction of tarmac road network
	Education	15.3%	• Provide qualified teachers and skills training centres
Brikama	Agriculture	41.4%	• Increase rice fields, advocate for the use of farm manure, provide adequate drinking water, provide pump for vegetable garden and good drainage system
	Health	28.2%	• Adequate supply of drugs, provide trained personnel in health facility, upgrade/expand health facility
	Education	13.5%	• Provide Arabic school, provide functional literacy programmes
	Infrastructure	10.0%	•
	Employment	6.9%	•
Mansakonko	Agriculture	41.9%	• Provide labour saving devices, increase fields, establish sheep fattening
	Health	25.4%	• Adequate supply of drugs, reduce the cost of drugs, provide trained personnel in health facility, provide better ambulance services
	Education	18.3%	• Provide qualified teachers, provide basic cycle school
	Infrastructure	7.3%	• Construction of tarmac road network
	Employment	7.1%	• Reduce price of basic commodities, provide microfinance institutions
Kerewan	Agriculture	28.5%	• Increase rice fields, provide adequate drinking water, provide hand pump wells
	Health	24.3%	• Adequate supply of drugs, provide trained personnel in health facility
	Employment	20.8%	• Provide market outlets
	Education	17.1%	• Provide qualified teachers, introduce civic education
	Infrastructure	9.3%	• Ensure road maintenance
Kuntaur	Health	43.5%	• Adequate supply of drugs, reduce cost of drugs, provide trained personnel in health facility
	Agriculture	41.2%	• Increase rice fields, provide adequate drinking water, control of Hippos
	Education	15.3%	• Provide qualified teachers, provide skills training centres
Janjanbureh	Agriculture	45.0%	• Provide good bridge and cause ways to rice fields
	Health	26.4%	• Adequate supply of drugs, improve health services
	Education	14.3%	• Construction of extra classrooms
	Employment	8.2%	•
	Infrastructure	6.1%	• Solicit donor support for funding to improve the status
Basse	Health	34.0%	• Adequate supply of drugs, reduce the cost of drugs, provide more health staff
	Agriculture	22.8%	• Provide labour saving devices, provide adequate drinking water
	Education	18.3%	• Construction of extra classrooms, provide skills training centres
	Infrastructure	13.6%	• Solicit donor support for funding to improve the status, construction of tarmac road network
	Employment	11.2%	• Provide income generating activities, increase salaries and wages, reduce the price of basic commodities, provide ready market for groundnut produce

• Enabling environment for sustainable growth and poverty reduction

• Agriculture

• Health

• Education

• Employment

• Infrastructure

Clearly, these priorities are in line with those identified in section 1.1.2

3.2.1 Fiscal Policy Performance

After a relatively strong macroeconomic performance in the late 1990s through 2000 characterised by steady real GDP growth averaging 3% per annum and a low inflation macroeconomic environment, a large (and unbudgeted) fiscal expansion in 2001 destabilised the macro economy. Subsequently, central government fiscal deficit, including grants, widened by 13% to 14.4% of GDP, driven by both lower domestic revenues (lower by 3.4% of GDP) mainly because of weaknesses in the collection of customs duties and a very large increase in expenditures (higher by 9.5% of GDP), including extra budgetary expenditures funded by the Central Bank and on-lending to a parastatal utility for the purchase of capital equipment. The drought in the following year 2002, which led to a 23% fall in agricultural output and a 3.2% fall in real GDP, further exacerbated macroeconomic instability.

The fiscal expansion and exchange rate crisis that followed the drought was eventually brought under control in the fourth quarter of 2003, as the monthly inflation rate and the exchange rate both stabilized. The stability was further enhanced by a bumper harvest in the groundnut season for the 2003/2004 season, thereby boosting gross domestic product (GDP).

Overall, the economic performance in 2004 was very positive as tight fiscal and monetary policies prevailed throughout the year, helped by a remarkable revenue mobilization effort. The overall fiscal deficit as a percent of GDP (including grants) was 4.5% in 2004 from 4.7% in 2003. Annual inflation (end period) rate fell sharply to 8% in December 2004 from 18% a year earlier, mainly as a result of the tight monetary policy implemented, which also led to a substantial fall in interest rates.

Average inflation remained slightly high at 14.2% compared to 17.0 % in 2003. The primary balance as a percentage of GDP rose by 5.9% from its 2003 level to a 9.5% surplus in 2004 aided by the combined effect of a tight fiscal stance and an improvement in revenue collection.

The impressive fiscal performance in 2004 however could not be repeated during 2005, as revenue receipts fell significantly below target by D70m, mainly due to border closure problems during the third quarter, which adversely affected international trade tax revenue. Hence domestic revenue as a percentage of GDP dropped to 19.7% in 2005 from 20.2% in the previous year. The high level of extra-budgetary expenditure of close to D200m in the first half of 2005 largely contributed to the sharp rise in annual current expenditure, to 18.4% of GDP from the16.2% during 2004. Thus the overall fiscal deficit (including grants) worsened to5.7% of GDP in 2005 from 4.7 %.

The improved coordination between fiscal and monetary during 2005, as evidenced by the creation of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) that is composed of DoSFEA and CBG staff, helped to ensure that an appropriately tighter monetary policy stance curbed the inflationary pressures of the increased public expenditure in the first half of 2005. By the end of 2005, the average annual inflation further declined from 8% in 2004 to 4% in 2005, while the treasury bill rate significantly fell to 12% from 27% a year earlier, as a more accommodating monetary policy objective was pursued with a bid to boost private sector credit.

It is evident, therefore, that after the instability of 2001-2003, fiscal and monetary policies have been very effective in stabilizing the macro economy. Output from the non-traded goods sector of the economy recorded contractions in their growth, whilst manufacturing and hotels and restaurants, coupled with Agriculture, boosted overall GDP with strong real growth that culminated in successive annual real GDP growth of 5% in both 2004 and 2005.

Table 14:

Macroeconomic Indicators 2000-2005

^*– Projection; Sources: DOSFEA, CBG

Table 14:

Macroeconomic Indicators 2000-2005

	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005*
Real GDP growth (market prices)	5.5%	5.8%	-3.2%	6.7%	5.1%	5.0%
Inflation (period average)	0.2%	8.1%	13%	17.6%	8.0%	4.0%
Overall Fiscal Deficit (% of GDP)	1.4%	14.4%	4.8%	4.7%	4.1%	5.7%
Government NDF (% of GDP)	2.7%	15.3%	2.5%	3.1%	0.4%	3.1
Broad Money Growth	34.8%	19.5%	35.2%	43.4%	18.3%	9.4
Gross Official Reserves (months of import cover)	5.8	2.9	3.1	4.0	5.0	4.5
Debt Stock (% of GDP)	31.5	38.6	37.1	27.3	32.0	34.0

^*– Projection; Sources: DOSFEA, CBG

View Table

Table 14:

Macroeconomic Indicators 2000-2005

	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005*
Real GDP growth (market prices)	5.5%	5.8%	-3.2%	6.7%	5.1%	5.0%
Inflation (period average)	0.2%	8.1%	13%	17.6%	8.0%	4.0%
Overall Fiscal Deficit (% of GDP)	1.4%	14.4%	4.8%	4.7%	4.1%	5.7%
Government NDF (% of GDP)	2.7%	15.3%	2.5%	3.1%	0.4%	3.1
Broad Money Growth	34.8%	19.5%	35.2%	43.4%	18.3%	9.4
Gross Official Reserves (months of import cover)	5.8	2.9	3.1	4.0	5.0	4.5
Debt Stock (% of GDP)	31.5	38.6	37.1	27.3	32.0	34.0

^*– Projection; Sources: DOSFEA, CBG

3.2.2 Monetary Policy Performance

Monetary policy over the 2001 to 2003 period has been accommodating. Almost all the increase in the fiscal deficit was financed with domestic borrowing, which as a percentage of GDP rose from 2.5% in 2002 to 5.5% in 2003. Of this more than 75% was funded from the Central Bank by drawing down its external reserves which stood at US$ 107 million in 2000 to US$ 39 million by the end of 2003. This resulted in very high broad money growth of 35% in 2002 and 43% in 2003, triggering a sharp exchange rate depreciation and rapid inflation, over the period.

The recovery started to take hold by the end of 2003, as revenue collections increased significantly. By end 2004, the inflation rate was on a downward trend towards single digit, reaching 8% at the beginning of 2005 and decreasing further to around 2% at end 2005 as the macroeconomic stability continued. To maintain the macroeconomic recovery that started at end 2003, monetary policy was much tighter in 2004 than in 2003. Year on year broad money growth slowed to 18% in 2004 from 43% in the previous year. The deceleration in broad money growth was driven by a sharp reduction in growth of reserve money, the CBG’s operating target, which fell from 63% in 2003 to 11% in 2004. During 2005, the monetary policy stance was gradually “ease”, reflecting the sustained stability, and it lead to a 15% increase in reserve money from 2004.

The CBG’s net foreign assets (NFA) increased by D 1,286 million in 2004 with usable foreign reserves rising to $ 81 million by the end of December 2004. The BOP data indicate that the c.i.f. value of merchandise imports, including imports for re-export, was $ 197 million in 2004 and the NFA of the Monetary Authorities exceeded the D2 billion mark by end 2005: hence usable foreign reserves amounted to 4.5 months of imports by the end of 2005.

The total net issuance of TBs during 2004 amounted to D 1,103 million, of which D 570 million were purchased by commercial banks and D 640 million by the non bank sector (the CBG’s holdings of TBs fell by D 107 million). However the issuance rate fell slightly in 2005, amounting to D 804million.

Although outstanding government domestic debt rose sharply in 2004, (mainly comprising of TBs), as total cost value rose from D 2807 million at the end of 2003 to D 3990 million at the end of 2004, a slight reduction in the domestic debt was programmed for in the 2005 fiscal budget with a government domestic borrowing requirement set at D271m. The unprogrammed expansion in expenditure meant that the domestic borrowing requirement level was exceeded by D150 million, thereby causing further unplanned increase in the domestic debt burden. As a share of GDP, government domestic debt rose from 27.3% at the end of 2003 to 32% at the end of 2004 and stands at 34% at end 2005. The net issuance of TBs was larger than Government’s domestic borrowing requirement in 2005 because of the need to sterilise monetary impact of foreign reserves accumulation and the redemption of maturing development stocks and discount notes. Interest rates remained very high during 2004 with the tightened policy stance, but have gradually declined during 2005 as monetary policy was eased, thereby boosting private sector credit.

Table 15:

Performance on PRSP key macroeconomic objectives

Source: DOSFEA & Fund Staff Estimates, October 2005

Table 15:

Performance on PRSP key macroeconomic objectives

	2003		2004		2005
Indicator	PRSP Targets	Outturn	PRSP Targets	Outturn	PRSP Targets	Outturn
Real GDP growth (%)	6	6.9	6	5.1	6.2	5.0
Fiscal Deficit (excluding grants) as % of GDP	2.7	-7.2	2.3	-10.2	1.9	-5.1
Export Growth (SDR, assuming exchange rate of D21.3)	8.2	-	5.3	-	3.5	-
Current Account Deficit (excluding grants) as % of GDP	12.3	-13.6	11.6	-21.6	10.3	-25.3
Current Account Deficit (including grants) as % of GDP	5	-5.1	5.8	-11.8	2.7	-20.2
Gross Official reserves as months of imports, c.i.f	5.2	4.6	5.4	4.3	5.5	4.5
Broad Money Growth	9.9	43.4	9.6	18.3	9.6	13.1
Inflation	4	17.6	3	8	3	3.2

Source: DOSFEA & Fund Staff Estimates, October 2005

View Table

Table 15:

Performance on PRSP key macroeconomic objectives

	2003		2004		2005
Indicator	PRSP Targets	Outturn	PRSP Targets	Outturn	PRSP Targets	Outturn
Real GDP growth (%)	6	6.9	6	5.1	6.2	5.0
Fiscal Deficit (excluding grants) as % of GDP	2.7	-7.2	2.3	-10.2	1.9	-5.1
Export Growth (SDR, assuming exchange rate of D21.3)	8.2	-	5.3	-	3.5	-
Current Account Deficit (excluding grants) as % of GDP	12.3	-13.6	11.6	-21.6	10.3	-25.3
Current Account Deficit (including grants) as % of GDP	5	-5.1	5.8	-11.8	2.7	-20.2
Gross Official reserves as months of imports, c.i.f	5.2	4.6	5.4	4.3	5.5	4.5
Broad Money Growth	9.9	43.4	9.6	18.3	9.6	13.1
Inflation	4	17.6	3	8	3	3.2

Source: DOSFEA & Fund Staff Estimates, October 2005

The macroeconomic performance in 2005 was not enough to overturn the dismal performance in terms of achieving PRSP targets. None of the key indicators targets were met during the 3-year period. In fact, the only target that has been met is the 6% real GDP growth projected for 2003. Even that performance only resulted because The Gambia was coming from a low growth base in 2002. The single biggest contributor to the poor macroeconomic performance relative to the 2003-2005 PRSP objectives can be attributed to the high public expenditure outturn from 2002. This translated into the drastic increase in money growth and its resulting inflationary effects. It brought a new constraint for public expenditure management in the sense that the heavy domestic debt burden seriously eroded needed poverty reducing expenditure whilst at the same time further subjecting the budget to increased domestic borrowing requirement.

3.2.3 Poverty Focus of Public Expenditure

The government of The Gambia made a commitment to spend at least 30% of the government budget on PRSP programmes. Budget allocation to PRSP programmes for 2003, 2004 and 2005 excluding debt service payments were 22.6%, 29.1% and 28.1% respectively of total Gambia Local Fund (GLF). Performance in this regard was accordingly less than satisfactory. However, when all funds are considered, there is significant improvement with respect to the target. With all funds and still excluding debt service payment, 40.8%, 44.1% and 34.0% were allocated to PRSP programmes in 2003, 2004 and 2005 respectively. See table 16 below:

Table 16:

Spending on PRSP initiatives 2003-05

Table 16:

Spending on PRSP initiatives 2003-05

Excluding Debt Service	(Dalasi ‘000s)
	2003 Prov		2004 Bud		2005 Bud
Government (GLF Only)	885,917		1,303,934		1,688,950
Statutory	30,199	3.41%	42,763	3.28%	43,033	2.55%
PRSP	200,480	22.63%	379,711	29.12%	474,617	28.10%
Discretionary	655,238	73.96%	881,460	67.60%	1,171,300	69.35%
All Funds	1,782,739		2,891,276		2,803,312
Statutory	30,1991.69%		42,763 1.48%		43,033 1.54%
PRSP	726,727	40.76%	1,275,508	44.12%	952,721	33.99%
Discretionary	1,025,813	57.54%	1,573,005	54.41%	1,807,558	64.48%
Including Debt Service	(Dalasi ‘000s)
	2003 Prov		2004 Bud		2005 Bud
Government (GLF Only)	1,948,304		2,876,960		3,155,167
Statutory	1,092,586	56.08%	1,615,789	56.16%	1,509,250	47.83%
PRSP	200,480	10.29%	379,711	13.20%	474,617	15.04%
Discretionary	655,238	33.63%	881,460	30.64%	1,171,300	37.12%
All Funds	2,845,126		4,464,302		4,269,529
Statutory	1,092,586	38.40%	1,615,789	36.19%	1,509,250	35.35%
PRSP	726,727	25.54%	1,275,508	28.57%	952,721	22.31%
Discretionary	1,025,813	36.06%	1,573,005	35.24%	1,807,558	42.34%

View Table

Table 16:

Spending on PRSP initiatives 2003-05

Excluding Debt Service	(Dalasi ‘000s)
	2003 Prov		2004 Bud		2005 Bud
Government (GLF Only)	885,917		1,303,934		1,688,950
Statutory	30,199	3.41%	42,763	3.28%	43,033	2.55%
PRSP	200,480	22.63%	379,711	29.12%	474,617	28.10%
Discretionary	655,238	73.96%	881,460	67.60%	1,171,300	69.35%
All Funds	1,782,739		2,891,276		2,803,312
Statutory	30,1991.69%		42,763 1.48%		43,033 1.54%
PRSP	726,727	40.76%	1,275,508	44.12%	952,721	33.99%
Discretionary	1,025,813	57.54%	1,573,005	54.41%	1,807,558	64.48%
Including Debt Service	(Dalasi ‘000s)
	2003 Prov		2004 Bud		2005 Bud
Government (GLF Only)	1,948,304		2,876,960		3,155,167
Statutory	1,092,586	56.08%	1,615,789	56.16%	1,509,250	47.83%
PRSP	200,480	10.29%	379,711	13.20%	474,617	15.04%
Discretionary	655,238	33.63%	881,460	30.64%	1,171,300	37.12%
All Funds	2,845,126		4,464,302		4,269,529
Statutory	1,092,586	38.40%	1,615,789	36.19%	1,509,250	35.35%
PRSP	726,727	25.54%	1,275,508	28.57%	952,721	22.31%
Discretionary	1,025,813	36.06%	1,573,005	35.24%	1,807,558	42.34%

The public undertaking to fight poverty through the budget is strong; it is however constrained by the challenge of debt service. Considering debt service obligations, the share of PRSP allocations dropped to 13% in both years. The decline in allocations was sharper in 2004 (i.e. from 29% to 13%) than in 2003 (i.e. from 22% to 13%) due to the huge debt obligations of 2004. Improved fiscal management will be critical for the attainment of PRSP II objectives to avoid debt service reducing resources for PRSP programmes.

3.3.1 The Fiscal Framework

Although a lot of improvement has been made on the fiscal side, there were some extra-budgetary expenditure that destabilized quarterly allocations; the structural issues revolving around financial management and governance remain the biggest obstacle to negotiating a new PRGF and the final goal of qualifying for HIPC grants. In this regard, the medium term objective of fiscal policy is as much about a stable macroeconomic environment as about encouraging participation in those other sectors of the economy that are essential for supporting first the attainment of a stable fiscal position and, sustaining it thereafter.

The Government has formulated a medium term macroeconomic framework that has as key objective, market-based incentives that are conducive to robust private sector activity and poverty alleviation. To this end, the focus will be on:

1. The achievement of macroeconomic stability by effective fiscal and monetary policy coordination built on the pillars of consistent fiscal discipline and well-informed, timely monetary policy decision-making. The ultimate objectives are to:

   • Further improve revenue collection by strengthening the institutional capacity and procedures at the revenue departments.

   • Make the public expenditure process more transparent and reflective of government priorities.

   • Gradually reduce the domestic debt burden (by maintaining a minimum primary balance surplus of 3%) to sustainable levels eventually releasing funds for priority PRS sectors

   • Slow down and reduce external indebtedness by rationalising borrowing; and

   • Enhance the availability of credit in the financial system by reducing government’s domestic borrowing requirements and promoting deepening of the financial system.

2. The achievement of a growth rate that is sufficient to support the objectives outlined in PRSP II; identify the sectors that will drive the growth process; and the implementation of appropriate public policies measures that are necessary to ensure this drive.

3. Reaching HIPC completion-point through implementation of the HIPC triggers. As pointed out already, The Gambia had a six-month IMF Staff Monitored Program (SMP) from October 2005 to March 2006 with satisfactory performance. Successful implementation of the SMP laid the ground for a new PRGF program by end 2006.

4. Reform the system of taxation, tax administration and business regulation to remove distortions in the markets and enhance private sector led growth. This has to be tied with structural reforms in key sectors such as agriculture, infrastructure (energy, transport, ICTs, etc) including a fast-tracked divestiture program that will create the enabling environment for investment.

5. Meaningful civil service reform to ensure the availability of the necessary manpower for the effective implementation of the policies outlined in PRSP II. Although it commands high priority, insufficient funding has been a major constraint.

3.3.2 Monetary Policy

The priority of fiscal policy to curtail government’s domestic borrowing requirement ties in well with the monetary policy objective of controlling money supply growth. This is because with reduced government’s domestic borrowing requirement, the Central Bank would control the growth of the money supply without having to resort to very high interest rates and the crowding out of private sector from the credit markets. Controlling the growth of the money supply is essential to achieve low inflation rates. In addition, strong growth in private sector borrowing from the banking system is needed to boost private sector led economic growth which is the only sustainable way to boost incomes and create employment.

Curbing government’s domestic borrowing requirement will also enable government’s domestic debt stock to fall as a share of GDP. A reduction of the domestic debt to GDP ratio will stimulate a fall in domestic interest rates, because there will be less competition for resources in the domestic financial system.

The Central Bank of The Gambia will continue to pursue its objective of maintaining a low inflation macroeconomic environment, improved money market operations and a sound and flexible financial system. The objectives will be pursued in line with the right exchange rate policy that will accommodate the holding of foreign reserves consistent with the needs of the external sector.

The macroeconomic targets that will guide fiscal and monetary policy over the period 2007 - 2011, are as summarised in tables 17, a and b, below. Table 17a represents the baseline scenario, which guided the revenue projections and other policy objectives for PRSP II. Table 17b, an alternative scenario is more optimistic in nature and it underlines the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) for 2007-2009.

Table 17A:

Projection of key Macroeconomic indicators - 2006-2011

Table 17A:

Projection of key Macroeconomic indicators - 2006-2011

Indicator	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	Aver.
Real GDP growth (%)	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.5
Fiscal deficit (including grants) as % GDP	3.2	2.5	3.1	3.1	3.1	3.1	3.0
Export growth (%)	6.3	5.3	4.8	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.9
Current Account deficit (excluding grants) as % GDP	17.9	18.4	17.5	15.0	15.0	15.0	16.5
Current Account deficit (including grants) as % GDP	11.8	6.8	6.7	5.0	5.0	5.0	6.7
Gross official reserves as months of imports (including transit trade) c.i.f.	4.5	4.6	4.7	4.8	4.9	5.0	4.8
Broad money growth	10.0	12.0	10.6	10.0	10.0	10.0	12.5
Inflation (period average)	4.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	4.8
Domestic Debt Stock (% of GDP)	30.5	28.5	26.5	24.5	22.5	20.5	22.2

View Table

Table 17A:

Projection of key Macroeconomic indicators - 2006-2011

Indicator	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	Aver.
Real GDP growth (%)	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.5
Fiscal deficit (including grants) as % GDP	3.2	2.5	3.1	3.1	3.1	3.1	3.0
Export growth (%)	6.3	5.3	4.8	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.9
Current Account deficit (excluding grants) as % GDP	17.9	18.4	17.5	15.0	15.0	15.0	16.5
Current Account deficit (including grants) as % GDP	11.8	6.8	6.7	5.0	5.0	5.0	6.7
Gross official reserves as months of imports (including transit trade) c.i.f.	4.5	4.6	4.7	4.8	4.9	5.0	4.8
Broad money growth	10.0	12.0	10.6	10.0	10.0	10.0	12.5
Inflation (period average)	4.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0	4.8
Domestic Debt Stock (% of GDP)	30.5	28.5	26.5	24.5	22.5	20.5	22.2

Table 17B:

Projection of key Macroeconomic indicators - 2006-2011

(Alternative Scenario)

Table 17B:

Projection of key Macroeconomic indicators - 2006-2011

(Alternative Scenario)

Indicator	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	Aver.
Real GDP growth (%)	6.5	7.0	6.0	6.0	6.0	6.0	6.3
Fiscal deficit (including grants) as % GDP	4.7	0.2	0.1	0.0	+0.4	+1.2	0.6
Export growth (%)	17.1	5.6	5.6	3.3	4.3	4.9	5.1
Current Account deficit (excluding grants) as % GDP	18.0	22.9	21.4	18.4	16.1	15.1	18.7
Current Account deficit (including grants) as % GDP	14.1	12.3	9.5	9.0	8.8	8.6	10.4
Gross official reserves as months of imports (including transit trade) c.i.f.	4.2	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0
Broad money growth	15.6	11.4	10.0	9.7	9.7	9.7	11.0
Inflation (period average)	1.5	1.7	2.7	3.0	3.0	3.0	2.5
Domestic Debt Stock (% of GDP) (Post HIPC & MDRI relief)	32.1	30.2	26.1	23.6	20.9	17.8	25.1

View Table

Table 17B:

Projection of key Macroeconomic indicators - 2006-2011

(Alternative Scenario)

Indicator	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	Aver.
Real GDP growth (%)	6.5	7.0	6.0	6.0	6.0	6.0	6.3
Fiscal deficit (including grants) as % GDP	4.7	0.2	0.1	0.0	+0.4	+1.2	0.6
Export growth (%)	17.1	5.6	5.6	3.3	4.3	4.9	5.1
Current Account deficit (excluding grants) as % GDP	18.0	22.9	21.4	18.4	16.1	15.1	18.7
Current Account deficit (including grants) as % GDP	14.1	12.3	9.5	9.0	8.8	8.6	10.4
Gross official reserves as months of imports (including transit trade) c.i.f.	4.2	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0
Broad money growth	15.6	11.4	10.0	9.7	9.7	9.7	11.0
Inflation (period average)	1.5	1.7	2.7	3.0	3.0	3.0	2.5
Domestic Debt Stock (% of GDP) (Post HIPC & MDRI relief)	32.1	30.2	26.1	23.6	20.9	17.8	25.1

3.3.3 The Real sector

The problem of marketing of the main cash crop – groundnuts, must be resolved. There is need to put in place investment incentives with a view to creating employment in the private sector. Evidence shows that granting of waivers based on the GIPFZA act has not resulted in positive gains for the industrial sector; rather, the net impact has been a comparatively substantial decline in international trade not match by growth in the industrial sector.

To guard against the repeat of the woes of the last three years in terms of real sector policies, a review mechanism must be put in place during policy implementation in the important sectors of agriculture, tourism, trade and agro industries sub-sectors. Thus when policy implementation is deviating from the desired objective, a timely remedy can be effected to enable the achievement of the set GDP growth rate that is spurred by growth in the key sectors. There is also an urgent need to provide the resources that are essential for the desired performance of these sectors. These should include measures to induce the financial sector to lend towards productive investment.

3.3.4 The External Sector

The current account deficit is expected to drop gradually, as private sector export activity improves. The development of Free Economic Zones under the Trade Gateway project could also generate new exports, while transit trade stands to benefit from the streamlined tariff regime and improvement in intra-regional trade. Tourism should also generate more important amounts of foreign exchange, especially through supplier agreements with the local economy.

The prospects for important private investment flows are limited in the near term, but can only improve with the credibility that The Gambia gains as it maintains a stable and attractive private sector environment, along with better contract enforcement mechanisms.

Transit trade has rebounded from past impediments, although it is still straddled with border closure threats. A reform in the tariff regime has allowed for a streamlining in the number of tariff bands (3 bands), and a lower maximum rate (20%). Banjul remains one of the more rapid import processing points in West Africa, despite competition from neighbouring countries. However in the light of ECOWAS Common External Tariff competition will be stiffer and will require that The Gambia strengthens the other areas where she has competitive advantages.

Exchange rate movements are an important dimension of the traders’ business environment, thus emphasizing the need for monetary and price stability. It is envisaged that export and re-export competitiveness are likely to benefit substantially from the Trade Gateway Initiative, once it becomes fully operational. The new challenge for the Agency (GIPFZA) charged with developing free export zones and the facilitation of transport services through the main modes such as the Sea and Airports would be to attract relevant investors to make use of the established infrastructure.

3.4.1 Public Financial Management Reforms (IFMIS, MTEF,)

Phase I of the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMIS) implementation, involving training of users of IFMIS started on the 6^th of February 2006 and will continue for 12 months. Pilot Departments included in Phase I implementation are: DOSFEA, Directorate of National Treasury, Central Revenue Department, Customs and Excise Department and Department of State for Education.

In a bid to further improve public expenditure management, Department of State for Finance and Economic Affairs (DOSFEA) in collaboration with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has, as a first step, developed a comprehensive framework for budget execution through a Commitment Control System (CCS). The Government will institute a program to estimate cash inflows and outflows to enable it to formulate its borrowing and expenditure plans. The objects of CCS are:

• To contain expenditure within limits in a systematic fashion and on regular basis.

• To replace the existing cash rationing with cash planning based on expenditure plans drawn up by departments subject to cash availability

• To set realistic periodic cash ceilings

• To avoid excessive build-up of arrears and sustainable domestic debt management

• To instil fiscal discipline, ensure strategic resource allocation and use, efficiency and effectiveness of programs and service delivery.

3.4.2 Gambia Bureau of Statistics (GBOS)

The Central Statistics Bill was enacted in December 2005. This was preceded by the development and completion of the “Central Statistics Master Plan”, and Communication and Dissemination Policy. Government renews its commitment to CSD by increasing budgetary allocation to the Agency and operationalisation of the national statistical strategy will commence in 2007.

3.4.3 Privatization and Divestiture

The divestiture program has stalled largely due to a number of set backs ranging from lack of adequate funding to differences in opinion between the World Bank and the Government during the 2005 mid-term review the aforementioned reasons. The potential risks the divestiture programme faces need to be addressed. The major long-standing issue in the structural benchmark for reaching HIPC completion point is to bring Gambia Groundnut Corporation (GGC) to the point of sale. The Gambia Divestiture Agency (GDA) is now working on the divestiture of GGC. Invitations for Expressions of Interest to be pre-qualified as a strategic investor for 51% shareholding, and as institutional investors for 29 per cent shareholding, were announced, and Expressions of Interest received. The completion of privatisation of GGC is now slated for June 2006.

Notwithstanding the moderate progress registered on the divestiture front, a multi-sector utility regulatory agency (PURA) has recently been set up to regulate tariffs, competition issues and other related matters in the in the electricity and telecommunications sub –sector. The activities of the Agency will be extended to other sectors in due course. The pace of implementation has suffered serious delays due to frequent sackings of the Director General.

3.4.4 GLF Budget Resource Envelope

Adding together projections of tax and non-tax revenues, repayments of debt by public enterprises, domestic borrowing and budget support grants, gives projections of GLF budget resource envelope. Scheduled external amortisation payments have been deducted from the resource envelope. In addition, domestic and external interest payments have been projected and deducted from the budget resource envelope – this leaves the amount of resources, which can be allocated, to GLF non-interest expenditure. Table 18 below sets out the components of the budget resource envelope:

Table 18:

GLF Budget Resource Envelope: Dalasi Millions

Table 18:

GLF Budget Resource Envelope: Dalasi Millions

Dalasi (millions)	Outturn 2004	Budget 2005	Outturn 2005	Projections
				2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Tax Revenue	2245	2409	2263	2769	2906	3352	3676	4032	3949
Non Tax Revenue	273	369	340	367	416	434	422	447	474
Capital Revenue	0	41		40	20	0	0	0	0
Loan Repayment by PEs	24	66	30	18	18	17	-	-	-
Budget Support Grants	0	0	0	0	0	150	150	150	150
Budget Support Loans	0	0	0	0	0	150	150	150	150
Net Domestic Financing	58	271	420	200	200	100	100	100	100
External Amortisation	-431	-517	-410	-647	-588	-667	-700	-697	-669
Revenue Contingency	0	0	0	-30	-46	-50	-50	-50	-50
Total GLF Resources	2169	2639	2643	2717	2926	3486	3748	4132	4104
(sum of all above)
Interest Payments	868	650	1131	955	846	798	700	691	686
Resources available for non interest expenditure	1301	1989	1512	1762	2080	2688	3048	3441	3418
Potential HIPC Debt Relief	150	0	0	0	340	382	382	378	346

View Table

Table 18:

GLF Budget Resource Envelope: Dalasi Millions

Dalasi (millions)	Outturn 2004	Budget 2005	Outturn 2005	Projections
				2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Tax Revenue	2245	2409	2263	2769	2906	3352	3676	4032	3949
Non Tax Revenue	273	369	340	367	416	434	422	447	474
Capital Revenue	0	41		40	20	0	0	0	0
Loan Repayment by PEs	24	66	30	18	18	17	-	-	-
Budget Support Grants	0	0	0	0	0	150	150	150	150
Budget Support Loans	0	0	0	0	0	150	150	150	150
Net Domestic Financing	58	271	420	200	200	100	100	100	100
External Amortisation	-431	-517	-410	-647	-588	-667	-700	-697	-669
Revenue Contingency	0	0	0	-30	-46	-50	-50	-50	-50
Total GLF Resources	2169	2639	2643	2717	2926	3486	3748	4132	4104
(sum of all above)
Interest Payments	868	650	1131	955	846	798	700	691	686
Resources available for non interest expenditure	1301	1989	1512	1762	2080	2688	3048	3441	3418
Potential HIPC Debt Relief	150	0	0	0	340	382	382	378	346

Tax revenues comprise the largest single component of domestic resources. However The Gambian tax system lacks buoyancy and so without new tax policy measures tax revenue will grow more slowly than GDP, which will squeeze the budgetary resources available to fund GLF expenditures. If government is to maintain sound public finances, at a minimum it is essential to prevent any decline in the tax/GDP ratio below 20%. Government will as in the previous PRSP commit 25% of the estimated GLF resources to financing poverty-reducing activities.

3.6.1 Constraints/Challenges

The 1997 Constitution outlines the framework for the administration of the courts of which provides that the Judicature shall be self-accounting and monies appropriated to the Judicature shall be paid to the accounting officer for the Judicature. The financial and administrative autonomy granted to the Judiciary to strengthen its independence has not yet been implemented. This has undermined judicial independence and has contributed to the inability of the Judiciary to address its problems effectively, and is also a major source of its weaknesses.

The management structure for the courts is over-centralized in Banjul. There is no administrative structure under the Judicial Secretary (JS). The JS relies on the registry staff for the discharge of administrative functions in addition to their technical functions. The financial resources continue to be under the control of the Accountant General who provides the accounting staff. Secretarial support is also under the control of the Personnel Management Office. All support services - execution, process servers, registry, and court clerks - are managed by the JS or Master of the High Court in Banjul. There are no structures for these services. The necessary legal framework for establishing financial and administrative autonomy for the Judicature with attendant operational tools and instruments has to be put in place and the capacity to manage its financial and human resources effectively and efficiently developed. It is also essential that internal structures are developed and properly aligned for improved productivity, and management is decentralised.

3.6.2 Legal Sector Policy Goals

For the legal sector to contribute effectively to the attainment of Vision 2020 requires an effective legal system that is very clear in its overall strategic intent. Consequently, the legal sector’s major policy goals are predicated as follows:

• To create a free, fair and speedy legal/justice system and to stimulate a positive change in the attitude of all stakeholders;

• To provide required infrastructure, technological and material resources to support the delivery of an efficient justice system;

• To create an enabling regulatory environment for good governance;

• To ensure access to justice for the poor and disadvantaged;

• To develop, grow, and motivate a well trained cadre of judicial/legal officers and support staff that are committed to delivering quality services;

• To enhance the status of the judiciary and improve the understanding of the role of the judiciary in society;

• To support the development of national proficient learning institutions in the area of law;

• To deliver value and satisfaction to all litigants;

• To develop non adversarial mechanisms for dispute resolution; and

• To promote the growth of a vibrant, capable, and developed civil society.

3.6.3 Strategic Objectives

The emergence of a “middle income country” as envisaged by Vision 2020 must be underpinned by an efficient and effective legal service and justice-delivery system. This is also a prerequisite to a vibrant private sector that is liberalized and market oriented. This strategy is being formulated in response to the identified need for reform and to make administration of justice more responsive to a continuous change in the environment. The key success factors towards the attainment of the vision lie in the following strategic objective:

• Strengthen Judicial independence, financial and administrative autonomy

• Improve financial capacity and sustainability of all departments.

• Restructure the court system to deliver justice expeditiously and efficiently and respond more effectively to the needs of the people

• Integrate adjudicatory authorities into the administration of justice system

• Establish legal aid to improve access to justice by the poor and under privileged

• Continuous professional development of Judges

• Retention of young and qualified persons within the public legal service

3.6.4 Priority interventions

• Develop and enact legislative framework for Judicial autonomy

• Design structures and systems to manage financial resources; establish department of finance with revenue unit and monitoring mechanisms for financial systems

• Establish decentralised administrative structures and systems and create a management and administration cadre

• Increase budgetary allocation to the Judiciary

• Appraise revenue generation capacity of the Judiciary and establish system for revenue retention

• Review and revise qualification of presiding judges, venue of criminal divisions of the High court, and structure of the ADR mechanism

• Review and reorganise magistrate courts to implement action plans and create specialised divisions

• Develop and standardize rules of procedures and develop manuals for tribunals

• Develop training programmes and provide training to all judicial personnel and tribunals

3.7. 1 Constraints

The major problems faced by the civil service in serving as a catalyst for economic development and growth are the following:

• - Insufficient political will to institute wholesale reform.

• - High attrition in the Civil Service.

• - Poor remuneration

• - Inability to motivate and retain skilled personnel to allow for career development and security of tenure.

• - Lack of an effective and comprehensive training policy and plan.

• - Ineffective utilization of expatriate staff to ensure skills transfer and continuity through effective counterpart arrangements.

• - Inadequate capacity to formulate, implement and evaluate public policies.

• - Inadequate human and material resources for effective service delivery.

• - Obsolete rules and regulations governing performance and conduct in the Civil Service.

3.7.2 Priority strategies and actions

The following strategies will be implemented to forge ahead with the implementation of the well thought out plan for reform as articulated in the national governance programme.

1. To garner political will and support for civil service reforms.

2. To improve the civil service remuneration package so as to retain highly trained and professional staff within the civil service.

3. To enhance the Capacity of PMO in human resource management, strategic management and coordination.

4. To design and formulate an overall training policy and plan for the civil service.

5. To develop and implement a training master plan for civil service employees.

6. To promote Strategic management in training programmes of civil servants.

7. To review and disseminate, public service regulations, code of conduct and other civil service rule books.

3.7.3 Human Resource Development and Utilisation

There is the need to upgrade the status of the National Training Authority not only to monitor training at the vocational and technical education level but actually to advise and determine investment levels in vocational and technical education and training. In this regard there is a large scope for private/public sector partnership and private sector participation in the delivery of vocational and technical education. Current schemes to improve quality such as teacher hardship allowances, school library initiatives and other reading materials supply measures will be continued through the plan period.

Human Resource Utilisation in the Public Service

The development issues faced by the Gambia must be seen within the context of a variety of human resources and other resource constraints affecting the public sector. A recent study on Civil Service attrition in the Gambia found out that there is need for a retention strategy to ensure that the Civil Service does not lose quality personnel. Other problems affecting the Civil Service include:

• Poor working conditions and conditions of service

• Lack of specific training plans for the sector

• Security of tenure

• No clear Human Resource Policy

• Brain drain

Priorities of Human Resources Development in the Public Service

The main priorities for Human Resource Development and Utilisation are the launching of a major public sector reform with a view to enhancing service delivery by public sector institutions. Such reforms should amongst others address the issues of:

• H R Policy and Plan of Action

• Comprehensive training plan for sector

• Attractive working conditions and conditions of service

• Security of tenure

• Generally creating an environment of a highly motivated public service personnel

4.1.1 Policy Objectives for the Agriculture Sector

The agriculture sector has potential to become a pathway to achieve long-term development goals, especially reducing poverty for a large segment of the population, Gambian farmers in rural and Peri-urban areas. Public and private investment in farming can bring about significantly higher returns.

The priority objectives for the agriculture sector under Vision 2020 are to:

• increase Agriculture and Natural Resource (ANR) output to ensure food security and generate earnings of foreign exchange;

• reduce disparities between rural and urban incomes and between men and women, curb rural-urban drift and accelerate the pace of development of the rural sector;

• provide effective linkages between ANR and other sectors of the economy;

• create a sustainable and balanced mix between rain-fed and irrigated agriculture, thus ensuring optimal use of natural resources of surface and groundwater, animal, aqua-culture and crop production as well as between chemical and organic inputs and the use of agricultural by-products.

4.1.2 Priorities and Strategies for the Agricultural Sector

1. Undertake Institutional Reform in Agriculture to ensure that limited resources are utilized with maximum impact.

2. improve mobility, organization and program management of the extension system to be able to provide and sustain a flow of technological and technical information relevant to the production problems of the farmers;

3. Strengthen research on farmer – extension linkages through intensive training of extension agents and farmers to improve skills and the technical content of extension messages and increase the capacity of farmers to participate effectively in the management of agricultural institutions and on-farm research; based on the NARI Medium Term Research Plan.

4. Establish a seed policy to ensure that high quality, tolerant and virile seeds are available for the main crops.

5. Integrate Water Resources Management to increase agricultural productivity.

6. Improve soil fertility maintenance and soil conservation.

7. Improve input supply, mainly through increased credit availability, possibly including the establishment of an Agricultural Credit Bank for Agricultural Investment Financing.

8. Encourage private sector participation in all aspects of agriculture particularly in the area of investment and commercial support service for finance and marketing.

9. Improve the agriculture information system so that farmers know, among other things, prices of product and inputs on a timely basis.

10. Conduct a feasibility study for the establishment of a Food Technology Institute based on Public – Private Partnership.

11. Increase government support to post-harvest and storage facilities with a focus on value added on local products.

12. Strengthen regional cooperation in agricultural services

13. Begin sensitisation process to ensure equality of land tenure for women who comprise the majority of the agricultural labour force.

4.1.3 Public Expenditure on agriculture

The shares of budget allocations for the Department of State for Agriculture (DOSA) have been substantially smaller than the other two priority sectors, education and health. In recent years, DOSA received on average 2.7 percent of the total budget allocations for recurrent expenditures, compared to 11.0 percent for Education and 9.4 percent for Health. Although, the country’s agricultural expenditure shares are reasonably close to the SSA average, with considerable variation among these countries, the country compares more unfavourably with its neighbouring countries in West Africa where the average share is 3.5 percent.

Recurrent expenditures of DOSA by line departments indicate that the share of expenditures for extension services decreased from 73.8 percent in 2001 to 30.3 percent in the 2006 budget, while the share for general administration increased from 16.2 percent to 57.7 percent. Traditionally, the share of expenditures for the Department of Agricultural Services, responsible for crop extensions, was by far the largest and at times more than half of DOSA’s expenditures. Now it appears that the share for the Department of Administration is the largest. These trends raise concerns that extension services are under-funded. A more detailed analysis of extension services corroborates these concerns.

Personnel costs are the largest component of DOSA’s recurrent expenditures. However, its share sharply declined from 62.2 percent in 2001 to 30.0 percent in the 2006 budget. By contrast, the share of subventions to local and international organizations increased from 6.3 percent in 2001 to 28.8 percent in 2005, making it the second largest component in DOSA recurrent expenditures. The share of inputs, including fertilizers, reached 31.1 percent in the 2006 budget, the largest share in the budget. It indicates government’s increasing involvement in the supply of inputs. Responsibilities for such activities could be transferred to the private sector, thus allowing DOSA to concentrate on providing public goods and services.

Development expenditures have been on a downward slide in the very recent years. As a percentage of total expenditures, preliminary data on budget outturn indicate that development expenditures in agriculture declined from 2.1 percent in 2001 to 0.7 percent of total expenditures in 2005. One reason the development expenditures are small is the low budget execution rate. In the previous five years, the execution rate averaged only 43.2 percent. In addition, it has fluctuated considerably, reaching as low as 10.6 percent in 2002.

The 2006 development budget allocates approximately half of the total to projects on extension services, particularly livestock, horticulture, and rice related projects. The composition indicates the dual nature of the sector’s strategy. The heavy emphasis on horticulture supports a sector, which has long been touted for its export potential. By contrast, the emphasis on rice cultivation and livestock supports policies to strengthen food security through import substitution.

4.1.4 Sector Strategy

In 2001 government made a Public Expenditure Review (PER) of agriculture, which it reviewed in 2006. At present, government is in the process of preparing a new sector strategy. Inputs into the PRSP II are therefore built around the PER as government awaits completion of a new sector strategy.

In its current form, overall objective of agriculture is to promote pro-poor growth and employment in the rural sector through private sector development. Specific policies and initiatives will be broadly based on a mixture of import substitution to ensure food security, and export promotion through private sector development. The authorities will promote domestic production of rice and other key food crops in order to reduce reliance on imports. At the same time, it will promote cash crops, such as cotton and horticulture, deemed to have potential to diversity agricultural exports. Promotion of groundnuts, the country’s main agricultural export, will remain an important part of the government’s support to the sector. The specific initiatives will support the expansion of both large-scale commercial producers as well as smaller producers through farmer cooperatives and associations.

4.1.5 The crop sub-sector

The performance of the field crop sector during the review period 1992/93 to 2002/2003 has been mixed, with cultivated area, production and productivity (yields) fluctuating. Out of a total arable area in The Gambia of 558,000 ha, an average of 200,000 ha are cultivated annually, thus accounting for some 37 percent of total area. Cereals as a group constitute the largest area and account for some 56 percent of total area followed by groundnuts. However, groundnuts command the largest area under production.

Given the low yields obtained, most increases in output can be largely attributed to area expansion, with variable rainfall, changes in the crop mix, a rise in the cost of production (particularly for fertilizers) accounting for fluctuations. Other important structural changes include the wider adoption of animal traction, the diversification into sesame production, and the availability of short-cycled varieties of rice New Rice Initiative for Africa (NERICA), groundnut and millet. Clearly, agriculture policy needs to target the problem of low yields, which calls for improved inputs and extension.

TABLE 19:

Yields of Major Crops

(MT/ha)

Source: National Agricultural Sample Survey/Department of Planning/Department of State for Agriculture (NASS/DOP/DOSA)

TABLE 19:

Yields of Major Crops

(MT/ha)

Year	Groundnuts	Early Millet	Late Millet	Maize	Sorghum	Rice Swamp
1999/00	1.75	1.15	0.95	1.60	1.11	1.75
2000/01	1.96	1.09	1.15	1.61	1.26	1.77
2001/02	1.52	1.10	0.92	1.69	1.28	1.34
2003/2004	0.920	1.121	0.917	1.585	1.221	1.235
2004/2005	1.166	1.072	1.104	1.207	1.113	1.098
2005/2006	0.990	0.993	0.935	1.005	1.240	1.055

Source: National Agricultural Sample Survey/Department of Planning/Department of State for Agriculture (NASS/DOP/DOSA)

View Table

TABLE 19:

Yields of Major Crops

(MT/ha)

Year	Groundnuts	Early Millet	Late Millet	Maize	Sorghum	Rice Swamp
1999/00	1.75	1.15	0.95	1.60	1.11	1.75
2000/01	1.96	1.09	1.15	1.61	1.26	1.77
2001/02	1.52	1.10	0.92	1.69	1.28	1.34
2003/2004	0.920	1.121	0.917	1.585	1.221	1.235
2004/2005	1.166	1.072	1.104	1.207	1.113	1.098
2005/2006	0.990	0.993	0.935	1.005	1.240	1.055

Source: National Agricultural Sample Survey/Department of Planning/Department of State for Agriculture (NASS/DOP/DOSA)