Will NEPAD and APRM work?

What cannot be gainsaid, however, is that NEPAD’s underlying philosophy stems from the premise that improved economic and political governance would boost investor confidence and attract donor inflows, leading to poverty alleviation and better standards of living. An essential virtue of both NEPAD and APRM is that they provide a reason for discussions about many governance questions that were previously never openly debated.

But NEPAD’s major handicap has been lack of a clear, common definition by both the continental secretariat in South Africa and African leaders. Instead, various definitions have cropped up thus: a plan, a framework, a philosophy – all which do not offer a clear meaning.

For some African leaders, it is a programme of the African Union designed to meet its development objectives. Yet others define it as Africa’s Marshall Plan.
Still, these definitions do not clearly shed light on NEPAD’s intended objectives and how they are going to be achieved. For instance, it is considered a reform but how it is going to reform Africa is not elucidated. And if it is a Marshall Plan for Africa, the NEPAD document has not clearly stated what the plan envisages.

Similarly, the NEPAD text falls short of any common sense definition of a plan or a strategy. It says nothing about how – given the many priorities competing for scarce resources - governments should choose strategically.

Visit NEPAD site: http://www.aprmkenya.org
For instance, while noting the need to bridge the so-called digital or Information and Communication Technology [ICT] divide between Africa and the rest of the world, NEPAD’s plan says nothing about how high import taxes and restrictive government monopolies are principal obstacles to the uptake of ICT. Instead, the plan simply calls for businesses to “partner” Africa by donating personal computers to schools. One wonders how this is going to solve the problem of digital divide.

Needless to say, the failure to have a clear definition has led to the loss of goodwill among academics, aid agencies and businesses, which hoped to contribute positively. Without a clear definition of what was to be done and by who, NEPAD has turned its potential supporters into passive bystanders.

The NEPAD secretariat’s declaration that it is not a development agency and does not administer grants or act as a project funder raises more questions than answers. If the African Development Bank, World Bank, United Nations and national governments remain responsible for development projects on the ground, what is NEPAD for?

Already, NEPAD has created a list of 20 top infrastructure projects, most of which make good sense but have been in the pipeline prior to its inception. To simply rebrand such ongoing projects as NEPAD ones smacks of intellectual dishonesty since it fails to answer NEPAD’s role in such projects.

Whereas NEPAD sets out to alleviate poverty in Africa, the issue has never been granted its due attention. In a recently released report, the British aid organization, Oxfam, argues that Africa would generate $70bn – approximately five times what the continent receives in aid – if it could just increase its exports by 1 per cent. However, this achievement may not be possible due to unfair trade barriers that western countries have erected.

The crux of the matter is that while this issue has been raised at the WTO, it has never been given due prominence to warrant prompt action. Equally not being substantially addressed is the issue of debt relief, even as a number of African countries are weighed down by debt.

The NEPAD’s continental secretariat has a major staffing problem. In attempting to co-ordinate, the secretariat is interacting with at least a dozen types of international entities including the World Bank, International Monetary Fund [IMF], Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], African Union, European Union and various UN agencies. But with a staff of only 50, most of whom are always away attending seminars and conferences, co-ordination becomes a Herculean task, and trying to obtain information has always proved difficult.

NEPAD’s major undoing has been lack of its accountability for the funds it receives. Though its text contains dozens of demands for outside funding and assistance to solve specific sectoral problems, the funds are always used for conferences and seminars but the gains made from such gatherings have never been clearly stated.

The APRM – undoubtedly a key component of NEPAD designed to track the progress and performance of member states in their quest for democracy, human rights and good governance – deserves mention. It draws its strength from the provision that allows the peer review report to be released publicly, giving members of the public a chance to suggest on areas that need correction.

But like NEPAD, APRM has shortcomings. Under the planned process, peer review is a misnomer. The review envisioned is by technical experts, governed by an independent panel of seven eminent persons and the African Peer Review secretariat. The peers or fellow heads of state receive the report prepared by the experts and make recommendations. But that is as far as they can go, as they have no mandate to punish wayward member states.

A critical question is the nature of the civil society input. There is nothing to stop the government from naming only its cronies to the civil society panel. A clear illustration comes from Ghana, one of the first countries to submit to the peer review. Despite an outcry from civil society organizations, the government appointed a civil society panel without public consultation or the involvement of the two major confederations of NGOs.

And like NEPAD, the APRM secretariat also suffers staff shortages. With a staff of only 10, the exercise, which was to kick off in the first quarter of 2004, is already running several months behind schedule even as 17 countries have signed up.

Despite its grandiose schemes, NEPAD risks becoming a hard sell, if its architects do not make clear its vision.