HIGHLIGHTS

Rationalization of Regional Economic Communities: A Work in Progress

There are as many as 14 regional integration groupings in Africa.

The African Union (AU) recognizes eight of them as "Regional Economic Communities" (RECs), in line with decision No1 of the Banjul Summit in July 2006. Though not formally recognized as such, the other six groupings including The West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA) and the Central African Economic and Monetary Community (CEMAC) operate pretty much as "RECs" as they are all devoted to promoting economic cooperation and integration among their member countries. For the purposes of this article, we use the term "REC" to refer all the 14 regional integration groupings, because they all impact on the burning issue of multiple groupings and overlapping memberships.

Some RECs cut across "regions" as defined in the OAU (now AU) Treaty. The Treaty establishing the African Economic Community (Abuja Treaty) defines a "Region" according to Resolution CM/Res.464 (XXVI) of the OAU Council of Ministers. This resolution classifies Africa into five (5) main regions namely, North Africa, West Africa, Central Africa, East Africa and Southern Africa, but the configuration of none of the RECs tallies with the "regions" as defined.

Consequently, in West Africa, UEMOA and the Mano River Union (MRU) co-exist with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Central Africa has three groupings namely the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS), CEMAC and the Economic Community of Great Lakes countries (CEPGL). The Eastern and Southern African sub-regions share six groupings between them namely the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the East African Community (EAC), the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the Indian Ocean Commission (IOC), the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) and the Southern African Customs Union (SACU). North Africa used to host only the Arab Maghreb Union (UMA) until the Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-SAD) emerged, although the membership of CEN-SAD straddles countries from other RECs and sub-regions.

Overlapping memberships, a major source of concern

Besides the multiplicity of "RECs", a number of countries tend to belong to two or more "RECs" simultaneously. Of the 53 African countries, 27 are members of two regional groupings, 18 belong to three, and one country is a member of four. Only seven countries have maintained membership in one bloc.

14 Regional groupings in Africa

Why would the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) for instance belong simultaneously to Southern African Development Community (SADC), Central African Monetary and Economic and Community (CEMAC), Economic Community for Central African States (ECCAS), and Economic Community for the Great Lakes countries (CEPGL)?

There are apparent reasons for such an option. Some African countries have chosen to belong to several RECs to pursue their development and integration objectives based on a multiple track approach.

The underlying principle is to allow certain members of a larger bloc willing to proceed at a much faster speed in the integration process to do so in a separate smaller grouping. It can also be explained by a desire to create apparent strategic cells for embarking on a more manageable process of co-ordination and harmonization of national policies and strategies towards sub-regional, and eventually, regional convergence. Countries would also deliberately seek membership to several groupings with the hope of maximizing the benefits of integration and minimizing losses by spreading risks. Especially for economically weaker countries, this reason may be a strong incentive for clinging to several blocs at the same time. Thus, they can take advantage of gains from each bloc.

Notwithstanding, a number of studies on Africa's integration such as ARIA I by ECA, have pointed to difficulties posed by multiple RECs and their membership overlaps. It is observed that RECs operating within the same sub-regional space basically pursue identical mandates and objectives, though there are a few variations in the modalities and tempo of operations. The situation breeds wasteful duplication of efforts. Against a backdrop of capacities and resources in limited supply, RECs' overlaps are not considered to be germane for a rational and focused use of limited resources. REC overlaps also multiply the hurdles towards Africa's integration because they tend to dissipate the collective focus on the common goal of the African Union. Multiple arrangements and institutions, as well as overlapping membership in the same region, tend to confuse integration goals and lead to counter-productive competition between countries and institutions.

RECs overlaps also entail added burdens for member States. A country belonging to two or more RECs would have to cope with varying meetings, policy decisions, instruments, procedures and schedules in addition to its multiple financial obligations. In the area of trade liberalization for instance, customs officials would have to deal with different tariff reduction rates, rules of origin, trade documentation, statistical nomenclatures etc. applicable to different RECs. In the process, customs procedures and paper work could be amplified and, thus, run counter to liberalization in terms of trade facilitation and simplification. The imperative to give Africa's overall integration process a clear sense of purpose and direction will require that RECs' overlaps be rationalized.

Co-ordination and harmonization of the activities of the RECs has therefore been on Africa's integration agenda. The AEC Treaty devotes an entire chapter on the need for the RECs to march in unison towards the establishment of the African Economic Community. The Constitutive Act of the African Union (AU) reiterates its vital importance to ensure a harmonious approach to realizing the Union. There is therefore consensus on the need to forge unity of purpose and action in pursuit of the continent's integration agenda.

Commendable efforts to rationalize underway

It is encouraging to note that the "RECs" themselves have taken up this challenge and doing their level best to consult and concert regularly among themselves. For instance in West Africa, there is a growing rapport between ECOWAS and UEMOA which has borne fruits in the adoption of a common program of action on a number of issues including trade liberalization and macro-economic policy convergence. In Central Africa, ECCAS and CEMAC are increasingly working towards harmonizing their programs. In the Eastern and Southern Africa sub-region IGAD and IOC are already applying most of the integration instruments adopted within COMESA. The EAC and COMESA have a memorandum of understanding to foster the harmonization of their policies and programs, while COMESA and SADC have set up task forces to deal with common issues and invite each other to their policy and technical meetings.

These initiatives increase the prospect of narrowing discrepancies among the RECs, overcoming vexing problems associated with overlapping membership and consequently accelerating progress towards the goal of the African Union. Nonetheless, the RECs' self-motivated efforts will need to be supported by a strong political decision towards rationalization of the multiple groupings in Africa.

Currently, in light of various consultations and major reports including ECA ARIA II, an African Union team is conducting an exercise to enlighten the choice of African leaders on the best-case scenarios for the rationalization process. The exercise aims to present facts-driven proposals to quantify a rational number of RECs to do integration business in the context of the African Union.

This work is one of three studies mandated by African Heads of States in July 2006 in Banjul. The two other studies include revision of the Abuja Treaty to speed up the integration process and the elaboration of a minimum and a core program for integration by RECs. The teams conducting the three studies will report to the next Conference of African Ministers responsible for regional integration in May 2007 in Kigali.

The African Consortium for Economic Research based in Nairobi is leading study on the quantification of the scenarios for the rationalization of RECs.

The qualitative and quantitative assessment of various scenarios presented in the Banjul roadmap will be based on parameters including, the level of trade exchanges, investments at the border, infrastructure development, movement of people and goods, and education and training.

Four main approaches to rationalization are under consideration:

•  Maintaining the status quo: this approach confirms the existing order with eight recognized RECs and other intergovernmental bodies.

-The Abuja Treaty's approach, which advocates rationalization around the five regions.

-Rationalizing around core communities, with one REC per region and each country belonging to only one REC; and

-Rationalizing through harmonization of policies and cooperation instruments in such a way that current mandates and objectives, programmes and sectoral projects of intergovernmental bodies are standardized and harmonized.

As one can see, the quantification of scenarios is a challenging task. None of the above-mentioned approaches is self sufficient, each having its pros and cons. Besides,the rationalization process will not succeed, unless conservatism and apparent apprehensions in some RECs and member States can be overcome, says Dr. Kouassi, Head of the Economic Department at the AU

In any case, the quantification exercise is expected to provide African Heads of States and Government with appropriate recommendations to make an informed decision, possibly at the next AU Summit in July 2007 in Accra, on the best possible option to bring to a climax this protracted issue of rationalization of RECs.