Knowledge as capacity for action – Capacity development, a Regional Outlook

1. Knowledge as capacity for action – Capacity development, a Regional Outlook Stephen Karangizi Assistant Secretary General – Programmes 27th March 2011, UN Conference Centre, Addis Ababa COMESA

2. Outline • Context • COMESA Experiences • Brief Challenges at regional level • Proposed inclusions for AE • Proposed was forward and discussions point for view and input

3. Context • The Aid Effectiveness Agenda has so far been focus on the development partners and at the national level • The Regional level has been largely left out • However, with the characteristic of small economy’s whose answer in the Global context has been accepted to be the regional angle, it is important to look at the regional dimension

4. Context cont’d • In the Eastern and Southern African region, the Inter-Regional Coordinating Committee (IRCC) brings together, Five Organizations – COMESA, EAC, IGAD, IOC and SADC • Three of these are among the 8 RECs recognised as the building block of the AU • IRCC recognizing the importance of Aid Effectiveness and its role in contributing to effective development through regional integration, has put Aid Effectiveness high on the Agenda • Role of RECs – Institutional and Direct Interventions related to Aid Effectiveness

5. Institutional COMESA role is at several levels • Set up of institutions focusing on CD for regional integration (RMCE) • Working with existing regional institutions to develop relevant curricula – ESAMI and National institutions • Working with regional CD associations/institutions eg. IDEP/higher learning • Knowledge Platforms –Climate Change • VSAT Closed User Group

6. COMESA Experiences • In line with AE principles COMESA is : • Building its institutional capacity to handle donor funds using its own procedures eg the CA, CAF, CIF • Demanding that funding provided is aligned to the regional objectives as stated on strategic plans • Allocating increased resources for implementation of programmes at national level. Covering country specific CB, technical assistance and adjustment support through the COMESA Adjustment Facility • Mechanisms for improved integration of regional programmes in nat. development plans (eg RIIP, developing National frameworks for Monitoring RI)

7. Challenges complimentary to those in the 4th Round table • One of the largest constraints to the region, both in terms of quality, coverage and required investment, is infrastructure. However, individual national efforts are not sufficient and regional mechanisms are not developed for pooling fund from within and from donors • Level of national/regional linkages and rate of transposition is weak as national level focused on national interest in line with donor objectives and funding • This leads to low national/donor allocation of resources to regional objectives and a larger dependency on REC allocation of resources

8. Proposed Indicators being proposed under IRCC for Busan, Korea • A formal recognition of the specificities of the regional integration dimension of aid effectiveness • Opening possibilities for RECs to become signatories to the Aid Effectiveness process ( with agreement of its MS but becoming itself a signatory would strengthen their commitments to aid effectiveness); • Integrating the regional dimension in the indicators agreed for monitoring AE. Such indicators should be relevant to development cooperation and not address the RECs/MS relationship,

9. Indicators could include: Under Ownership • Increase the private sector’s involvement in designing regional initiatives to ensure they are relevant and well targeted • Invest in building RECs’ leadership capacity at the policy, technical and implementation levels

10. Under Alignment • Support programmes that align regional and national development strategies and which are complementary • Develop prioritised and where possible, costed strategies for regional development that are pro – poor and to which donors can align. • Develop new and innovative funding modalities to support regional initiatives • Investigate establishing flexible funds that RECs and their member states can tap for regional initiatives • Better align regional integration policies (“soft” infrastructure) and capital investments (“hard” infrastructure)

11. Harmonisation • standardise project funding and implementation modalities, to make it easier to partner with ROs and MS and mobilise donor support • customise existing aid delivery instruments to make them more RO specific and adapted to the specificities of support to RO • broker agreement on simplifying and harmonising country systems for managing major investment projects—e.g., through a harmonised rule book for regional investments • work on a joint funding mechanism for large regional investment projects

12. Managing For Results • Invest more in monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems for regional projects — for example, to monitor the implementation of integration commitments by member states Accountability • RECs could peer review each other, to help exchange lessons and experiences

13. CONCLUSION • The proposed indicators are important for defining the regional position and leadership role in the development aspect of Aid Effectiveness • Therefore, it is important that the discussion leads to a conclusion that provides for a clear solution for integrating regional dimension in the aid effectiveness agenda Thank you

14. Thank you for your attention