African Perspectives on NEPAD
Talking points, M. Callisto Madavo, Vice-Président, Région Afrique, Banque Mondiale,
Vingt sixième conférence des Ministres africains des finances, de la planification et du développement economique, 19-12 octobre, Johannesbourg, Afrique du Sud, 19 octobre 2002
Mr. Chairman,
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,· I am delighted to participate in this conference today and discuss African Perspectives on NEPAD. The World Bank has been supportive in accompanying this process. We have maintained a close relationship with the Secretariat of the initiative and have been contributing to the technical work where requested. But today, I would like to speak from my personal perspective as an African, and to share some thoughts with you on this initiative.
· As we heard this morning from Prof. Nkuhlu and others, good progress has been made in the context of the initiative. It is also true that decisions so far have mostly focused on the design of the initiative. The challenge now is to move from design to implementation. In many ways, unless NEPAD can demonstrate concrete results within 12 to 14 months, its credibility could be eroded.
· In moving forward, NEPAD will need to focus on a few initiatives, in part because its capacity is still limited; initiatives which can be rapidly be developed and implemented and which have a demonstration effect
· Let me offer a suggestion of some four priority objectives for action. In thinking about these, I have found it very useful to draw on the experience of developing Poverty Reduction Strategies, which gives us several pointers to how one might move forward.
First objective: deepen ownership of NEPAD within Africa.
· African ownership is a central strength of the initiative. But, efforts are still needed to ensure that NEPAD is fully owned by Africans across the continent.
· Three years ago, when the Poverty Reduction Strategy process had just started, there was a lot of debate about how one could engender ownership by civil society and by the private sector through a participatory process. Today, it has become clear that participation has created space for dialogue around key issues allowing strategies, in a number of countries, to be widely debated and shared.
· Building on this very promising experience, a key priority for NEPAD in the months to come should be to reach out within Africa and engage all key stakeholders.
Second objective: strengthen NEPAD’s institutional setup
· In the context of the PRSP experience, tremendous progress has been achieved by clarifying the respective roles of multiple actors. After many early debates about the top-down nature of the process, the PRSP experience has shown that Governments can successfully lead the strategy process with inputs from civil society, from the private sector and from other stakeholders.· Another lesson has been that PRSP implementation is not the monopoly of Governments, but that other stakeholders have a significant role to play in the implementation of Poverty Reduction Strategies.
· Similarly, it would be useful for NEPAD to clarify the respective roles and accountabilities of the Steering Committee, the Implementation Committee, the Secretariat, and the sponsors of the initiative.
· It would also be helpful to clarify the links between NEPAD and sub-regional organizations (such as ECOWAS, EAC, SADC for instance), Africa-wide institutions (such as ECA and the AU), and international organizations (such as the UN and the IFIs). As synergies and partnerships with these institutions can play a major role in the implementation of Africa’s development agenda.
Third objective: building NEPAD’s capacity for action.
· One of the lessons of the PRSP process is that capacity building is most successful when the use of both local capacity and external capacity are maximized, although local capacity building remains the overarching goal. A tremendous amount of analytical work with regard to growth strategies, poverty analysis, statistical strengthening and data collection, is being carried out by a variety of actors. It is on the basis of this work that benchmarking is made possible as well as monitoring and evaluating of implementation.
· NEPAD objectives are broad but the locus of implementation remains at the country or sub-regional level, where the initiative has limited institutional capacity to act. Working closely with sub-regional institutions such as ECOWAS, ECA, and SADC for instance and tapping into their capacity on the ground will therefore be critical in moving forward.
Fourth objective: NEPAD should identify some issues, sub-regional programs and projects which, with quick action, could yield “quick wins” on the ground .
· We have learned from the PRSP process that participation makes the delivery of results imperative. When a Government has consulted and is planning to involve all stakeholders in the implementation of its strategy, it must show progress. Absent delivery of concrete results, the credibility of the PRSP process would be eroded.
· This suggests that, similarly, NEPAD would benefit substantially from supporting existing, sound, sub-regional programs and projects whose realization would bring credibility. In turn, these projects would benefit substantially from the support and attention of NEPAD’s leadership.
I would like to add a general observation, lack of adequate funding is not in my view the major obstacle to action.
· Indeed, if countries follow through on the NEPAD agenda, they will meet the criteria of both bilateral and multilateral donors for increased funding. And as NEPAD gets implemented and more countries meet these criteria, Africa will be well positioned to benefit from the additional resources pledged in Monterrey, to attract private sector investments, and to seize the opportunities that can come with the gradual opening of developed countries’ markets for African products.
· Also, the PRSP experience has shown us that the modalities of available support (ie: programmatic budget support rather that project specific financing) have a considerable impact on successful implementation. This experience is relevant to the way NEPAD will need to be supported going forward.
Mr. Chairman, allow me here to exceed my terms of reference and make some very specific suggestions, for what they may be worth, with regard to the implementation of the peer review mechanism.
· Like the PRSP the APR is conceived as a learning process, not an event; based on progress reports, not score cards; constantly evolving, and built on lessons from experience drawn from sound monitoring and evaluation.
· What has also been very encouraging is that the PRSP learning process has taken place not only in-country, but also across countries. This is best illustrated by the PRSP learning group run by ECA, with countries sharing experiences, drawing lessons and trying to improve through action/learning.
· We are therefore delighted that NEPAD will give strong emphasis to implementing the Peer Review mechanism in the identified areas of political and economic governance. We hope the exercise will be based on learning and on exchanging rather than grading and judging. I would therefore encourage NEPAD to rapidly implement the recommendations made by the experts’ conference which has just been concluded and quickly:
o Confirm who is going to conduct the peer reviews in the identified areas (ECA for economic management, and institutions selected by the Independent Panel of Eminent Persons for political governance),
o Identify a few countries who will launch the process
o Open the process of learning by doing which will allow for the mechanism itself to be refined as the process is gradually broadened.
o Consider applying the mechanism to a review of national programs to combat HIV/AIDS.
To conclude, I would like to make some specific proposals of practical and selected actions that could contribute to moving ahead towards the objectives I have mentioned:
· Task functioning technical or sub-regional institutions with the mandate to develop and implement specific initiatives on behalf of NEPAD. A number of institutions could serve as NEPAD’s operational arm on issues of critical importance to their members and of importance to the continent as a whole.
o To move the trade agenda forward, UEMOA could be tasked with acting on behalf of NEPAD on cotton sector reform and cotton trade issues;
o ECOWAS could be charged with implementing the West Africa Regional Power Pool;
o SADC could be a partner in implementing the Southern Africa Power Pool, and
o EAC and SADC to promote the realization of a number of transport corridors critical to the regional economy of Southern and Eastern Africa.
This would strengthen NEPAD’s institutional setup, promote internalization of the NEPAD agenda at many levels throughout the continent, and associate NEPAD with some “quick wins” by providing political support at the highest level to effective initiatives already underway.
· Use NEPAD’s political leverage to move forward a number of multi-country projects for which funding is already available. This was already done in the case of the Manatali Project for instance and could be replicated with the Southern African Power Pool and the West Africa Gas Pipeline.
· Foster the strong involvement of African Leaders in the resolution of conflicts on the continent. Despite some encouraging recent developments, what is happening in West Africa today runs the risk of undermining the very principles of NEPAD. And, as we all know, the situation in the Great Lakes region also remains fragile.
Allow me to end on this note:
· NEPAD holds tremendous promise, but if that promise is to make a difference for poor people in Africa, we need to decisively move from design and talk to implementation and action. A failure to do so would put in question the credibility of the NEPAD initiative.
· We at the Bank are prepared to work with Africa and its other partners to ensure NEPAD’s success.
Thank you.
