A broad consensus emerged revolving around the following points:
- There can be no single blueprint that can be prescribed to reduce poverty in heavily indebted countries. The tempo and policy instruments to be used to attain key targets within the PRSP framework, has to be determined by each countries specific peculiarities and not timelines insisted upon by donors prior to HIPIC debt relief.
- In order to enhance the participative/consultative dimension of the PRSP paradigm, it is imperative that Parliamentarians assume a more assertive and high profile role at both formulation and implementation levels. Not only will scaled-up involvement of Parliamentarians enhance genuine local/national ownership of the process, but it will also promote good governance, transparent policy management and accountability on the part of government bureaucracies.
- Whilst the PRSP process must be positively welcomed in that it signals a recognition on the part of the World Bank and IMF, that sustainable human development and poverty reduction should not be exclusively viewed in terms of economic growth statistics, the paradigm tends to overemphasize the significance of internal factors and processes, without addressing the negative impacts on least developing countries generated by globalization.