Presentation to the ECA Committee of Experts

By Elene Makonnen
Principal Advisor, Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA)

May 2005

Economic Commission for Africa

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

In introducing the "Mutual Review of Development Effectiveness in the context of NEPD" to the Committee of Experts, I would like to start with a brief background of the origins and mandate of this work and then describe the structure of the report.

The document before you is a product of over three years of joint work by ECA and OECD/DAC, which attempts to give concrete expression to the principle of mutual accountability.

The political imperative for "mutual accountability" stems from the recognition that the policies and actions of both developed and developing countries have an impact on the effectiveness of development assistance and the outcomes of development efforts.

The origins of the principle of "mutual accountability" are enshrined in various international and regional mandates.

As is now well known, the most import of these include:

• at the international level, the Monterrey Consensus, which places emphasis on shared responsibilities for achieving the MDGs;
• at the regional level for Africa, NEPAD with its focus on country ownership and governance; and
• on the side of partners, OECD commitment to support NEPAD and to good governance of aid.

The above mandates share three distinguishing features: -

• a focus on results-oriented development partnerships;
• commitments on both sides of this partnerships; and
• an emphasis on systematic review and monitoring of mutuality of commitments.

The political mandate for the Mutual Review Report is derived from NEPAD and the OECD Council.

At the NEPAD level, the topic was an item on the agenda of the NEPAD Heads of State and Government Implementation Committee at their meeting in November 2002. In stressing the importance of accountability for development outcomes, the Heads of States mandated ECA to conclude the work on the framework for the mutual review work.

In response to this request, ECA prepared a paper entitled "Towards an Institutional Mechanism for Mutual Review"

Based on this paper and the joint work with OECD, the ECA Executive Secretary presented in March 2003, the proposed approach to the mutual review exercise to the NEPAD Heads of State and Government Implementation Committee.

In discussing this proposal, this Committee urged that the review be comprehensive and that the coverage go beyond the issues related to official development assistance, to cover issues of policy coherence including market access, subsidies, debt relief, etc.

The ECA Conference of Ministers of Finance and Planning and Economic Development at its meeting in June 2003 subsequently discussed the technical and practical details associated with the implementation of the review exercise.

Members of this Experts Committee may recall that it was in at this meeting in June 2003 that the ECA Ministers took the decision that this work be undertaken on a biennial basis and that the first report be submitted at the ECA Ministerial meeting in 2007. It is in respond to these decisions that we are having this session here today.

On the OECD side, this work has gone through a series of internal consultations, which culminated in the endorsement by the OECD Council of the Mutual Review process in January 2004.

Now let me touch upon briefly on the structure of the report.

The report is structured around two key issues: i) the policies and performance of African countries; and ii) the policies and performance of partner countries as these relates to their support to, and partnership with, Africa.

Seven chapters covering the following topics form the core of the report:-

i. progress of African countries towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs);

ii. achievements, constraints, and challenges in agriculture performance and trade;

iii. trends in political and economic governance in the region;

iv. capacity development;

v. aid flows;

vi. aid quality; and

vii. policy coherence.

Given its importance to African economies, agriculture was selected as a special theme for the first report.

On each of these seven topics, we have detailed analysis backed up by self-standing chapters. However, what we have presented for your consideration today in a summary format are the following four key highlights of each chapter:

• the commitments that have been undertaken
• the main and supporting messages emanating form the detailed analysis
• the key actions for Africa and OECD; and
• the performance benchmarks for monitoring progress in implementing these actions during the coming two years.

Mr.Chairman,

With this background, the presentations by my colleagues that will follow will be organized around three clusters covering the topics in six of the seven chapters:

• political and economic governance and capacity issues
• agriculture and the related trade issues
• aid quality and quantity, including policy coherence

But before their presentations, I would like to highlight that the work we have tabled before the Committee of Experts has gone through a series of reviews.

In February this year, we had technical reviews by two ad hoc experts groups - an African experts meeting convened by ECA, and the OECD experts meeting convened by our colleagues in OECD/DAC. The version before you takes into account fairly detailed and substantive comments by these two groups.

Last month, here in Abuja the NEPAD/OECD Africa Partnership Forum discussed this report, particularly focusing on how this review relates and complements other ongoing and planned monitoring and review processes.

What we have before you is therefore a living document.

We see this document as a well-informed consultation mechanism based on a biennial process of dialogue between Africa and its OECD partners.

The views and suggestions of this Committee of Experts will therefore be critical in fine-tuning this report as we take this exercise forward. The paper will be revised to reflect your suggestions and also that of the Ministers. The intention is then to submit this work to the OECD Council and the NEPAD Heads of State Implementation Committee.

During your discussion, we would in particular welcome your views on whether we are monitoring the right issues? Are the indictors we have identified appropriate? Is the analytical underpinning sufficiently robust?

Thank you