ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE DECEMBER 30, 2009 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by SEGURA/IP3 Partners, LLC. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Contract EEM-I-00-07-00001-00, TO 01 Knowledge Sharing and Analysis Project Submitted by the Knowledge Sharing and Analysis (KSA) Project SEGURA/IP3 Partners, LLC DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE ii CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................iii ACRONYMS.................................................................................................................................. iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ vi 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 AGCI..................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Purpose of the Assessment.................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Assessment Design................................................................................................................ 5 1.5 Methodology......................................................................................................................... 6 1.6 Organization of the Assessment Report................................................................................ 7 2. STRATEGIC ELEMENTS OF AGCI.................................................................................. 8 2.1 AGCI Strategy ...................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Interagency Group................................................................................................................ 9 2.3 AGOA and Regional and Other International Trade ........................................................... 9 3. MANAGEMENT, COORDINATION, AND COLLABORATION.................................. 12 3.1 USAID/Washington Management and Communication ..................................................... 12 3.2 Field Mission Communication and Coordination.............................................................. 18 4. IMPLEMENTATION......................................................................................................... 28 4.1 Component 1 – Enabling Environment .............................................................................. 28 4.2 Component 2 – Enterprise Development............................................................................ 33 4.3 Component 3 – Access to Finance...................................................................................... 36 4.4 Component 4 – Infrastructure ............................................................................................ 40 5. PERFORMANCE MONITORING, REPORTING, AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING........................................................................................................................... 46 5.1 Performance Monitoring and Reporting ............................................................................ 46 5.2 Knowledge Sharing and Dissemination ............................................................................. 51 6. LESSONS LEARNED: FUTURE REGIONAL ECONOMIC GROWTH AND INTEGRATION IN AFRICA............................................................................................. 55 ANNEXES..................................................................................................................................... 57 Annex A. List of Individuals Interviewed .................................................................................... A-1 Annex B. Bibliography................................................................................................................ B-1 Annex C. Scope of Work..............................................................................................................C-1 Annex D. AGCI Assessment Workplan .......................................................................................D-1 Annex E. Online Survey Questionnaire....................................................................................... E-1 Annex F. Interview Guides.......................................................................................................... F-1 Annex G. Recent Progress under AGCI in Enterprise Development..........................................G-1 Annex H. African Global Competitiveness Initiative Results Framework ..................................H-1 ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The AGCI assessment team wishes to thank Bruno Cornelio and Stafford Baker from the Africa Bureau Office of Sustainable Development’s Economic Growth, Environment and Agriculture Division for the support and guidance they provided. The background information and explanations that they offered in regard to the inner-workings of AGCI was instrumental in the team’s ability to rapidly absorb the Initiative’s complexities. Special appreciation goes to the USAID/West Africa Office of Trade and Investment team who provided detailed and thoughtful comments. We also wish to thank the staffs from Africa Bureau; Bureau for Economic Growth and Trade; USAID East and Central Africa’s Regional Economic Growth and Integration Office; USAID/Ethiopia’s Office of Business, Environment, Agriculture and Trade; USAID/Ghana’s Office of Economic Growth; USAID/Kenya’s Agriculture, Business and Environment Office; USAID/Nigeria’s Office of Economic Growth and Environment; USAID/Senegal’s Economic Growth Office; USAID/South Africa’s Economic Growth Office; USAID/West Africa’s Office of Trade and Investment; and USAID/Zambia’s Economic Growth Office for their support of our fieldwork in each of these countries and for their willingness to share their experiences with us in support of this assessment. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE iv ACRONYMS AGCI African Global Competitiveness Initiative AGOA African Growth and Opportunities Act AFR/SD Office of Sustainable Development, Africa Bureau AFR/SD/EGEA Economic Growth, Environment and Agriculture Division, Office of Sustainable Development, Africa Bureau AFR/DP Office of Development Planning, Africa Bureau AIP Africa Infrastructure Program ATRIP Africa Trade and Investment Policy Initiative CAADP Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Program CIDA Canadian International Development Agency COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa COMPETE Competitiveness and Trade Expansion Program DA development assistance DANIDA Danish International Development Agency DCA Development Credit Authority DFID Department for International Development ECA Economic Commission for Africa ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States EGAT Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture, and Trade, USAID EU European Union FSP financial sector program FY fiscal year GCC global climate change GFSR global food security response GOE Government of Ethiopia ICT information and communication technology IEHA Initiative to End Hunger in Africa IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IP3 Institute for Public-Private Partnerships IR intermediate result JICA Japanese International Cooperation Agency KSA Knowledge Sharing and Analysis Project LDC least developed countries MATEP Market Access, Trade and Enabling Policies Project MCA Millennium Challenge Account MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation NEPAD New Partnership for African Development NIV Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands PASA participating agency service agreement PROFIT Production, Finance and Technology Project RATES Regional Agricultural Trade Expansion Support Project REC regional economic community SABIL South African International Business Linkages SACU Southern African Customs Union SAD single administrative document SADC Southern African Development Community SAGCH Southern Africa Global Competitiveness Hub SAGIC Support for Accelerated Growth and Increased Competitiveness ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE v SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperative Agency SOW scope of work TCB trade capacity building TIPCEE Trade and Investment Program for a Competitive Export Economy TRADE Trade for African Development and Enterprise USAID United States Agency for International Development USAID/EA United States Agency for International Development/East Africa USAID/W United States Agency for International Development/Washington USDA United States Department for Agriculture USDH U.S. direct hire USG United States Government USTDA United States Trade and Development Agency WATH West Africa Trade Hub ZAMACE Zambia Agricultural Commodities Exchange ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Introduction The United States’ response to assist Sub-Saharan Africa increase economic growth, thus ultimately leading to improved livelihoods and poverty reduction, has been rooted in the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). The legislation represented a change in U.S. policy toward Africa where increased trade was emphasized to promote economic development and poverty reduction. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has played an important role in contributing to these policy objectives through a portfolio of trade-led economic growth programs in Sub-Saharan Africa. The African Global Competitiveness Initiative (AGCI) is a 5-year, $200-million Presidential Initiative that has four components – enabling environment, enterprise strengthening, access to finance, and infrastructure – targeting assistance to both USAID regional and bilateral missions to increase competitiveness and expand trade under AGOA and throughout the global marketplace. 2. Purpose of the Assessment The purpose of this assessment is to provide USAID with an evidence-based review of AGCI strengths and weakness in promoting trade and economic growth in Africa. The focus for this assessment is rooted in better understanding the managerial function that Africa Bureau’s Economic Growth, Environment, and Agriculture Division (AFR/SD/EGEA) has been mandated to fulfill, as well as understanding how the Bureau should focus its collective efforts to best support trade-led economic growth in the future. 3. AGCI Objectives AGCI has articulated four objectives to frame the Initiative’s efforts: 1. Fifteen countries enact significant policy, legal, or regulatory reforms that expand trade. 2. A $500,000,000-increase in the value of non-petroleum exports. 3. Access to finance by the private sector increases by 1% of gross domestic product across targeted countries. 4. Increase investments by more than $1 billion in electricity, information and communication technology (ICT), and transportation. 4. Primary Conclusions and Recommendations Based on a review of available data on performance indicators through fiscal year 2008, the assessment team estimates that AGCI is on track to meet its objectives. Nevertheless, two major shortcomings currently limit the reliability and availability of the data, making it difficult to accurately represent the impact of AGCI activities. First, these goals have not been defined adequately to allow for a uniform understanding across the participating missions, nor were explicit criteria developed to facilitate consistent applications of the performance indicators. Second, data collection requirements and standards were not established in Washington or across participating field missions to ensure that reliable and consistent data were being collected by the implementers and missions. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE vii As originally designed, AGCI was to be managed through an Interagency group. The Interagency’s1 role in developing the concept, objectives, and program description was instrumental in giving AGCI its modus operandi. Likewise, three years of results gave the assessment team a body of knowledge to draw conclusions from, and make recommendations. In doing so, four areas stood out that deserve particular discussion: 1. AGCI funding 2. Management and coordination 3. Communication and knowledge sharing 4. Support for AGOA. Although AGCI is not a funded initiative, it nonetheless was accompanied by overall spending targets for each year and for each component. AGCI missions attributed funds from the non-earmarked development assistance (DA) portion of their Economic Growth budget to AGCI. As such, the issue of AGCI funding was determined to be central to many of the challenges in harmonizing programming for the Initiative and reporting on results. Conclusions: 1. The fact that AGCI funding was not “new money,” and was identified only through an attribution process, hampered USAID’s ability to achieve the same level of technical, managerial, and strategic coordination that other funded initiatives and earmarks benefit from. 2. A lack of consistent AGCI funding levels from year to year fragmented the bilateral missions’ ability to design and implement projects that would have a sustained and integrated approach into their own strategic planning efforts. 3. Shifts in USAID policy have been contrary to the AGCI strategy and, as such, these incongruities challenge AGCI managers’ ability to preserve critical elements of the Initiative. 4. While the evidence from bilateral mission interviews and the online survey show that on the whole there is little to no discontent with the AGCI attribution process, there is dissatisfaction pertaining to the level of consistent and adequate funding available for components that are important to the continuance of missions’ AGCI programs from year to year. Recommendations: 1. In order to strengthen missions’ ability to plan their AGCI activities (or successor activities) over multiple years with the specific Initiative objectives in mind, it is recommended that the successor Initiative, if there is one, be funded with new monies. An allocation process at the outset of the Initiative and an annual funding review process must be established that will allow missions to understand the basis for their funding and bring them into the review process for annual adjustments. In addition, it would certainly be beneficial for the missions if planned funding were projected on a multiple-year basis. 2. Africa Bureau should review its allocation process to ensure that funding levels are consistent when developing the follow-on Initiative to AGCI. This will help ensure the missions’ ability to program strategically for AGCI objectives and better integrate AGCI objectives into their own long-term strategic plans. The assessment team was not able to determine the basis for these 1 The AGCI Interagency Group consisted of USAID, Department of State, U.S. Trade Representative, Department of Agriculture, U.S. Trade and Development Agency, National Security Council, Department of the Treasury, and Department of Commerce. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE viii funding irregularities under AGCI; however, Africa Bureau should aim to minimize them to the greatest extent possible. 3. USAID leadership should provide sufficient funds to Africa Bureau for program management and oversight and for regional and bilateral mission DA accounts in support of the future economic growth program. The current management structure for AGCI consists of one U.S. direct hire (USDH) staff who has the overall responsibility for management and oversight as the AGCI Activity Manager, and one program staff, under a Participating Agency Service Agreement (PASA), responsible for management and oversight of the AGCI Knowledge Sharing and Analysis (KSA) contract. Management of the four components is divided among technical experts in AFR/SD/EGEA and the Bureau for Economic Growth and Trade (EGAT). Three of the four experts are located in EGAT and all serve in an advisory capacity. Since June 2007, the KSA contract has provided additional support to Africa Bureau for AGCI. Conclusions: 1. Beyond the AGCI Program Manager and KSA Activity Manager, AGCI does not have a broader working group that supports the management of the Initiative. 2. Africa Bureau’s decision to use a unified management-decentralized contracting approach for AGCI has empowered participating missions to make programmatic choices with the flexibility to foster trade-led economic growth as appropriate to host country challenges and circumstances.2 3. Challenges to improved management of AGCI include a lack of operating expense funding for the AGCI Program Manager, constraints inhibiting coordination among USAID offices and missions, heavy staff workloads, no working group, and lack of appreciation to support formalizing management of AGCI. 4. The lack of regional-bilateral coordination for trade and economic growth is noticeable, as these field missions do not currently have incentives to link their activities. Communications and coordination between these missions could be significantly improved. Regional and bilateral missions echo these concerns. These actions, however, have major implications for mission staffing, work orientation, and the current incentive structure. 5. The overall conclusion is that with the Agency’s increased emphasis on promoting regional integration in Africa, more active coordination, planning, and strategy development is needed between regional and bilateral missions. Recommendations: 1. Investigate the extent to which current Africa Bureau staffing responsibilities provide the needed liaison functionality required of increased, systematic coordination. The USDH AGCI Manager should receive annual OE-travel budgets similar to those afforded to program-funded staff to travel to the field in support of the initiatives, mission, and donor partners. This would address some of the field/Washington balance issues from which AGCI has suffered. 2. Africa Bureau should incentivize regional and bilateral missions in Africa to systematically increase collaborative efforts and develop regionally based, integrated strategic plans and joint work plans in order to foster improved regional trade integration. 2 USAID Memorandum, AGCI: Concurrence in Approach to Unified Management of AGCI, 2006. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE ix Communication and Knowledge Sharing This section presents the main conclusions and recommendations regarding Africa Bureau communication efforts between Washington and the field, and between the regional and bilateral missions. Conclusions: 1. Communication in the field between USAID missions or between field missions and other federal agencies has occurred when collaboration was thought to be mutually beneficial. Collaboration has tended to center on specific project interventions. 2. Significant constraints inhibit increased levels of communication and coordination within and between USAID offices in Washington and in the field. This is due to: 1) heavy workloads of staff managing other core activities, and 2) limited staffing and lack of formal staff liaison roles necessary for more meaningful and systematic coordination. 3. Missions are satisfied with Washington’s communication and assistance, especially with AFR/SD/EGEA’s sharing of best practices and lessons learned, AGCI events, and materials on promoting economic growth. However, they would like improvements in mission involvement in strategy and initiative design and elevation of AGCI equal with other Presidential Initiatives. 4. Hubs are coordinating with bilateral missions and implementers on an as-requested basis where collaboration furthers both of their development goals. Deepened coordination between Hubs and bilateral missions would further regional integration efforts, but this needs to be managed through the regional missions. Recommendations: 1. Identify the incentives for more frequent and structured communication and cooperation between AGCI stakeholders and incorporate them into the design of an AGCI successor. 2. Africa Bureau should continue to support development of in-person and Web-based tools for communication and coordination to bridge the gap between Washington and the field. FOSTER is a step in this direction. 3. On an incremental basis, develop a formalized process for more efficient and effective communication and coordination mechanisms to advance AGCI objectives and those of its successor. It is recommended that Africa Bureau develop short-term goals concentrating on a core group of AGCI stakeholders as well as long-term goals reaching out to coordinate with other, complementary stakeholders (such as the Global Food Security Response (GFSR)). A prioritization of further organizational recommendations can be found in the main body of the assessment. One of the most visible aspects of AGCI is its support of AGOA, which has underpinned the Initiative’s strategy to expand African trade to the United States and to other global markets to spur economic growth and reduce poverty. Trade statistics from the United States International Trade Center show that Sub￾Saharan African exports under AGOA to the United States have continually increased since the program went into effect in 2001. Furthermore, annual growth of AGOA exports to the United States increased on average by nearly 35 percent from 2001 to 2008. For a table of the total AGOA exports to the United States by year, refer to the main report on page 10. While exports to the United States have been a focus of AGCI, the transformative element of inter- and intra- regional trade within Sub-Saharan Africa and trade to other international markets has become increasingly integrated into the Initiative as an important part of increasing Africa’s economic growth. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE x Conclusions: 1. Foreign policy priorities at the time of inception focused AGCI assistance to African enterprises on promoting exports to the United States under AGOA as the primary contribution to strengthened capacity and competitiveness. 2. AGCI provides a diverse range of technical assistance for enterprise development, yet the Enterprise Development component’s success is only measured in terms of AGOA exports to the United States. This burdens AGCI managers to account for unrelated externalities, and does not give credit to results arising from assistance in other enterprise development activities, many of which are pre-requisites or inputs to AGOA export capacity. For example, while measuring trade under AGOA is a part of the story of USAID assistance under AGCI, other impacts of trade capacity building (TCB) should be considered as part of a performance measurement framework. These include, for firms and sectors assisted: a) the increased in volume of overall trade; b) the number of new products successfully exported; c) number of new jobs created as a result of technical assistance; d) and increases in export clients and markets. Recommendations: 1. AGCI should continue to help firms expand trade with the United States under AGOA. Yet, it is also important to continue to support and focus assistance on intra-African and international trade opportunities. 2. Develop adequate and appropriate measures of the effectiveness and efficiency of USAID support to enterprise development to capture the bigger picture of export competitiveness, such as using the value of total exports to all markets, in addition to AGOA exports. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE xi 5. Additional Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions Recommendations Interagency Process The Interagency Group’s focus on joint management in Washington served the purpose of developing the objectives of the Initiative, but there were no follow-on efforts by the group to coordinate whole-of-government efforts in developing mechanisms their Africa-based field offices could coordinate among each other Lack of interagency management increased USAID’s solitary burden to ensure AGCI activities achieved the results agreed to by the interagency group. The benefits of having an interagency management group were not realized under AGCI Interagency linkages should be re-examined to encourage information sharing, cooperation, and coordination between the partnering agencies throughout African regional and country offices where project implementation occurs Clearly define how each Interagency agency will contribute to the overarching objectives and demonstrate how individual agency mandates affect their roles within the initiative Technical Components As a result of a low level of resources and lack of field-based expertise, implementation of AGCI’s finance component has been managed through a fragmented approach, has had limited integration with the other AGCI components, and has lacked noticeable coordination with the field missions AGCI has identified key infrastructure constraints to greater competitiveness in Africa - which reflects the program’s limited resources and is in line with USAID comparative advantage Many AGCI activities do not have a sufficiently long-term and encompassing approach for sustainable impact AGCI’s success in the infrastructure component must be tempered by the limited integration with the other AGCI components implemented by the missions The Access to Finance component should be redefined to ensure that it is more directly linked to increasing trade and more thoroughly integrated into the missions’ programming An AGCI successor should focus attention on: 1) directly increasing enterprises’ (particularly SMEs) access to finance, 2) development of sector-specific strategies based on more comprehensive value chain research, and 3) aspects of the enabling environment that affect private sector competitiveness and ability to trade Invest in strategy and resources for a continuum of services and assistance for trade capacity building Re-examine whether AGCI components with little integration to other components should be part of the Initiative Performance Monitoring, Reporting and Knowledge Sharing Implementation of common indicators and reporting procedures occurred only at the half-life of AGCI AGCI high-level performance indicators were not well-defined and are not sufficient to capture results achieved Agency-wide systematic challenges exist in collecting data, and developing more comprehensive indicators Address the deficiencies of the current AGCI indicators by refining definitions and include performance indicators that capture higher￾level outcome results as well as the wide variety of work undertaken to promote trade-led economic growth The development of a performance monitoring system should be in coordination with the development of the future economic growth strategy for Africa ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE xii Conclusions Recommendations Regional and bilateral coordination AGCI’s bilateral and regional programs are not linked to support a common strategic outcome The three regional missions did not share their strategies or Trade Hub work plans until late in the implementation process (2008) Regional economic community (REC) policy and capacity constraints hinder more systematic impacts of regionally based assistance The network of Trade Hubs in Sub-Saharan Africa should be preserved beyond the life of AGCI and linked to address Pan African trade integration issues and more directly support USAID’s Economic Growth Strategy Explicitly define the objective of USAID’s assistance with the RECs and the African Union Ministers of Integration African Peer Review process Incorporate provisions for bilateral missions’ buy-in to Trade Hubs for co-funded TCB activities and country-level enabling environment and regional integration A USG exit strategy for the Trade Hubs should be developed so a third generation of Trade Hubs would become African institutions rather than USAID contractors AGCI Management No central point of contact for AGCI until the Knowledge Sharing and Analysis component started in mid-2007 AFR/SD/EGEA has no field-based staff and only one USDH FTE devoted to AGCI management Responsibility for AGCI’s success remained in Washington and was not transferred to the field beyond performance reporting The four components of AGCI were implemented separately and were not always mutually supportive Africa Bureau should program a DC-based activity to coordinate TCB best practices and results, provide technical assistance, and respond to pan-African trade issues AFR/SD/EGEA should request additional USDH staff, especially backstop 21 Private Sector Officer(s) to manage future economic growth activities AGCI Design AGCI experienced a noticeable imbalance between the high expectations of the initiative, and the inadequate management resources devoted to its operations Future initiatives should be aware of the tension between broad, diffuse impact (as under AGCI) and an approach that is narrower in countries and deeper in activities but can produce more successful targeted impact. The opportunity costs of managing a small amount of money spread across many countries means that the impacts may be negligible ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background For years, most African countries have struggled to realize widespread economic and social gains essential for improving living standards in comparison to growth experienced in other geographic regions of the world. Life expectancy trends demonstrate the hardships that Sub-Saharan Africa has faced in stark terms. For the past three decades, life expectancy rates across Africa have remained virtually flat: life expectancy was 48.6 years in 1980 compared to 50.8 years in 2007.3 Significant challenges in the realms of health, education, governance, and economic growth intersect and pose intensified pressure on Africa to improve the livelihoods of its people. African economies have an essential role in unlocking these barriers to broad and meaningful development by spurring economic growth that will lead to reduced poverty and improved living standards. Long-term, broad-based economic growth is essential for Africa to increase incomes and reach its potential to become a significant trade and investment partner in the world economy. Although Africa has historically had the slowest growth of the world’s regions, its performance has improved in recent years lending hope for the future. African economies have continued to sustain the growth momentum of the 1990s, recording an overall GDP growth rate of 4.82 percent from 2000 to 2007.4 In addition, more than 30 African countries recorded higher economic growth rates in 2007 than in 2006. More recent data from the World Bank’s Doing Business 2010 report reflects continued economic reform in Africa with Rwanda becoming the top reformer of the year globally. These growth rates must be sustained and accelerated in order to have a significant impact on poverty and to increase living standards, as there are a number of burgeoning threats to the recently expanding economic growth in Africa. Namely, the incidence of HIV/AIDS in Africa combined with the global economic crisis of 2008 present considerable challenges to maintaining African growth. The increase in HIV/AIDS infection rates is taking its toll on Africa's workforce. The International Labour Organization estimates that HIV/AIDS could contribute to as high as a 35-percent reduction in Africa’s workforce by 2020.5 The recent global economic crisis has also resulted in a serious downturn worldwide whose impacts should not be underestimated. In a recent report by the African Development Bank, one of the conclusions drawn is that revised forecasts imply “that for the first time since 1994, per capita income will contract in 2009 in several [African] countries and for the continent as a whole.”6 The United States’ response to assist Africa in meeting these challenges and increasing economic growth in the region, thus ultimately leading to improved livelihoods, has been rooted in the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). The legislation represented a change in U.S. policy toward Africa where increased trade was emphasized to promote economic development. AGOA was signed into law in 2000 3 According to data from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators Online database. This can be accessed at http://go.worldbank.org/6HAYAHG8H0. 4 Ibid. 5 http://www.ilo.org/global/What_we_do/Statistics/ 6 African Development Bank. Africa and the Global Economic Crisis: Strategies for Preserving the Foundations of Long-term Growth, May 12, 2009. Paper prepared for the 2009 Annual Meetings of the African Development Bank, May 13-14 2009 – Dakar, Senegal. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 2 and provided qualifying Sub-Saharan African countries7 trade preferences to export certain goods quota and duty-free into the United States. A major annual event designed to foster increased Africa-U.S. trade was the AGOA Forum, which continues to bring together government officials and private sector stakeholders from the United States and AGOA-eligible countries. The legislation was initially due to expire in 2008, but through the passage of the AGOA Acceleration Act of 2004 the trade preferences have been extended through 2015. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has played an important role in contributing to the overarching USG policy in assisting Africa. The Agency encourages formulation of appropriate trade policies that offer opportunities for African countries to build free markets and increase foreign investments, and thereby promote economic growth, job creation, and increased living standards. USAID assistance in helping African governments implement good policies has supported African efforts to reduce poverty through sustained, private sector-led economic growth. The African Trade and Investment Policy (ATRIP) Initiative, implemented by USAID, was a five-year, $75-million Presidential Initiative that began in 1997. Its objectives centered on two areas: reforming African policy to promote trade and investment, and expanding U.S. linkages to African enterprises and business associations. These objectives formed part of the framework resulting in the 2000 AGOA legislation. Then in 2002, USAID continued the efforts of ATRIP through a second Presidential Initiative called the Trade for African Development and Enterprise (TRADE) Initiative. TRADE was a four-year, $70-million effort with the aim of assisting African countries improve their competitiveness and gain greater access to global markets. During this Initiative, USAID established regional Trade Hubs (now referred to as Global Competiveness Hubs) managed by the respective USAID regional missions located in: Ghana and Senegal for West Africa, Botswana for Southern Africa, and Kenya for East and Central Africa. They provided resources and technical assistance designed to help African enterprises become increasingly competitive in the global marketplace and take better advantage of AGOA preferences. 1.2 AGCI The African Global Competitiveness Initiative (AGCI), a $200-million, five-year Presidential Initiative (signed and authorized by George W. Bush in 2005), continues USAID’s longstanding support of AGOA and is the successor to TRADE. The objective of the Initiative is to increase the export competitiveness of Sub-Saharan African enterprises in order to expand African trade with the United States and other international trading partners. The overarching rationale for AGCI is to reduce poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa through a strategy that increases competitiveness of firms and creates new job opportunities. AGCI works with other donor initiatives, including the World Bank's Making Finance Work for Africa and the multilateral Infrastructure Consortium for Africa. AGCI assistance helps African nations become increasingly competitive in the global marketplace by concentrating efforts in these four areas: 1. Improving the business and regulatory environment for private sector-led trade and investment 2. Strengthening the knowledge and skills of African private sector enterprises to take advantage of market opportunities 3. Increasing access to financial services for trade and investment 4. Facilitating investments in infrastructure 7 The legislation allows the President of the United States to determine which African countries are eligible to participate in AGOA on an annual basis. Eligibility to qualify for AGOA benefits focuses on improving the rule of law, labor standards, and human rights. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 3 AGCI Objective Statements As originally designed, AGCI was to be managed through an interagency group. The concept being that AGCI would have been implemented through a variety of USG agencies, each contributing their own expertise. This diversity would have allowed the Initiative to be more efficient in the allocation of resources and responsive to the actual needs of African stakeholders. This interagency process was to be led by the Department of State, whereas USAID was to serve as the lead AGCI implementing and coordinating agency responsible for managing the interagency executive committee, working groups, and technical committees. Specifically, the Economic Growth, Environment and Agriculture Department within Africa Bureau’s Office of Sustainable Development (AFR/SD/EGEA) was the unit within the Agency with the mandate to oversee the Presidential Initiative. While the original management plan included the interagency group, implementation of the Initiative largely resided within USAID. Africa Bureau is in charge of the overall strategic management of the Initiative, including managing a number of regional activities, allocating resources to regional and bilateral missions, and reporting the results achieved under AGCI. It should be noted that although AGCI is an unfunded Presidential Initiative, Africa Bureau has set aside funds for certain activities. While AGCI can support all of the AGOA-eligible countries, direct bilateral assistance will have gone to 15 countries by the time the Initiative is completed. Bilateral efforts tend to concentrate the bulk of its efforts on issues related to policy and enterprise strengthening. The Global Competitiveness Hubs, in contrast work across all four of AGCI’s components: policy, enterprise strengthening, access to finance, and infrastructure. Managed by the respective USAID regional missions, Global Competitiveness Hubs are the regional focal points of AGCI. As described above, they are located in Ghana and Senegal for West Africa, Botswana for Southern Africa, and Kenya for East and Central Africa. They provide information and technical assistance to African organizations, USG agencies, donor and civil society organizations, and the private sector on trade, investment, and business activities in the region, including training opportunities. Primary Goal: Increased regional and international trade of selected Sub-Saharan African countries. Intermediate Goal: Increased competitiveness of selected African countries. IR 3: Increased access to financial services for trade and investment. IR 4: Facilitated investment in infrastructure. IR 2: Improved market knowledge, skills and abilities of private sector enterprises to trade. IR 1: Improved policy, regulatory, and enforcement environment for private sector-led trade and investment. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 4 AGCI Control Figures by Operating Unit, Africa Bureau’s Office of Development Planning* Operating Units FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Actual Actual Actual Planned Planned Angola 0 500 0 0 0 Burundi 0 250 500 500 0 Democratic Republic of Congo 500 0 500 0 500 Eastern and Central Africa Region 6,280 5,090 3,519 5000 7,750 Ethiopia 0 1,000 2,600 4,000 2,000 Ghana 0 1,000 1,500 1,000 1,500 Kenya 0 700 1,000 1,000 1,000 Liberia 0 0 2,000 5,000 1,000 Malawi 0 0 500 500 500 Mali 0 500 0 0 0 Mozambique 750 1,500 2,000 1,000 1,500 Namibia 100 0 0 0 0 Nigeria 0 1,000 2,500 1,500 2,000 Rwanda 300 500 0 0 0 Senegal 1,250 1,500 1,500 500 1,000 South Africa 0 1,000 500 500 750 Southern Africa Region 6,480 3,328 1,655 3,500 5,000 Tanzania 0 0 500 0 500 Uganda 0 0 1,000 500 1,000 Western Africa Region 8,430 8,450 5,781 7,000 8,000 Zambia 350 1,447 1,000 500 1,000 Subtotal, Field Missions 24,440 27,765 28,555 32,000 35,000 Africa Bureau – Washington, DC 5,560 7,235 11,445 13,000 15,000 Total AGCI Funding 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 *Funding levels are in millions of U.S. dollars. 1.3 Purpose of the Assessment The purpose of the AGCI assessment is to assist the USAID Africa Bureau to better understand how the Agency should organize and apply its Washington- and Africa-based operating units to strategically concentrate its future efforts in promoting trade and economic growth in Africa. The focus for this assessment, defined by Africa Bureau, is rooted in better understanding the managerial function that AFR/SD/EGEA has been mandated to fulfill, as well as understanding how operating units in Africa should focus their collective efforts to best support trade-led economic growth. The assessment identified improvements that Africa Bureau can incorporate into the management of its trade and competitiveness portfolio that will bring an increased strategic focus to programming, and lead to improved communication and efficiency with partnering USAID operating units’ implementing interventions that support rapid and long-term increases in trade-led economic growth for African countries. The five primary assessment questions listed originally in the statement of work (SOW) were revised as follows as a result of Phase I activities detailed under Section 1.5 Methodology of the report: ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 5 What are the main strengths and weaknesses of AFR/SD’s management of AGCI? Has AGCI assistance reflected the priorities of host country governments and the major regional economic communities (RECs)? What has AGCI achieved to date as an Initiative when compared to its goals? What has worked, what has not, and why in terms of the four focus areas that can be addressed for future programming? Are the achievements sustainable? What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the AGCI performance monitoring and reporting system? In what ways have AGCI bilateral and regional efforts been able to link national and REC approaches to build more effective regional economic and trade outcomes? Based on learning from the questions above, what are the implications for Africa Bureau’s Office of Sustainable Development (AFR/SD) programming for economic growth and trade? What lessons can be learned in terms of: a. How do the AGCI interagency design and AGCI implementation structures inform the new “whole-of-government” approach to U.S. Foreign Assistance? b. How can AGCI bilateral activities assist African countries to integrate an increasingly regional approach to economic growth and trade? How have these efforts supported and been supported by AGCI regional activities? c. How can AGCI inform the increasing emphasis on regional approaches to development in Africa? For a complete description of the assessment purpose and assessment tasks, please refer to the scope of work in Annex C. 1.4 Assessment Design This undertaking was purposefully designed as an internal assessment to take advantage of the Knowledge Sharing and Analysis (KSA) Project’s extensive knowledge of AGCI and monitoring and evaluation expertise. The KSA Project, implemented by a partnership between Segura Consulting and the Institute for Public-Private Partnerships (IP3), supports AFR/SD/EGEA in the collection, analysis, and dissemination of performance data and best practices related to the AGCI portfolio. KSA’s priority focus areas include: a) improving AGCI’s knowledge sharing strategy and practices; b) strengthening Africa Bureau’s performance monitoring and reporting system pertaining to AGCI activities; c) analyzing and disseminating best practices through brief technical papers and best practice events; and d) improving the management and content of USAID’s portion of the annual AGOA Forums. The assessment’s four-phase design focused on providing the team with a flexible design within a structured schedule that allowed for real-time learning to be absorbed and integrated into the assessment on a rolling basis. This not only allowed the assessment team to examine unanticipated issues and incorporate analysis from each of the phases into upcoming tasks, but also allowed the team to work cooperatively and responsively with Africa Bureau. Phase I tasks included a preliminary team planning meeting, key respondent interviews with USAID staff primarily responsible for the management of AGCI, a background document review, and the development and submission of a detailed work plan. Phase II tasks included additional interviews with USAID staff and other AGCI partners and developing a Web-based survey for bilateral missions. Phase III tasks included designing a set of interview protocols (for the following stakeholder groups: regional missions, bilateral missions, Trade Hubs, USG partnering ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 6 agencies, host country governments, RECs, trade associations, and private sector) and conducting fieldwork in eight Sub-Saharan countries. Phase IV tasks included conducting data analysis and writing the assessment report. KSA’s core assessment team included the following staff and consultants assigned by SEGURA/IP3 and subcontractor Management Systems International: Dennis Marotta, as the technical director; Patricia Vondal, as the team leader; and Bechir Rassas and Keith Sherper as senior trade capacity building experts. In addition, David Fischer and Jerry Striplin joined the team to conduct fieldwork in Africa during Phase III of the assessment. The assessment team was supported by Gulzada Nurumbetova, Nazrawit Medhanie, and Thibaut Muzart as research assistants/project managers. Keith Brown served as a senior monitoring and evaluation advisor. 1.5 Methodology The assessment officially began on April 20, 2009. On April 28, 2009, the first team planning meeting was held to: a) gain clarity on assessment purpose, questions, priorities, and intended use to ensure that the assessment was as valuable and useful to the client as possible; b) facilitate greater consensus among client staff on assessment purpose, questions, and priorities by developing the basis for an AGCI assessment working group; and c) introduce the assessment team to a deeper understanding of AGCI and the various units within the Agency involved with the Initiative. The team took considerable effort to ensure that the assessment purpose, questions, and priorities were well defined, agreed upon (to the greatest extent possible) by those within USAID, and that the client and assessment team shared this mutual understanding. On May 14, 2009, the first of three AGCI assessment working group workshops took place where the objective was to hear from the working group members (i.e., USAID staff) with the aim of reaching consensus on the assessment purpose. Then on May 19-20, 2009, the assessment team initiated two conference calls with USAID missions in Africa with the same purpose of receiving the field’s perspective on how the purpose and priorities would be most useful. All of the USAID regional and bilateral missions receiving AGCI funds were invited to attend the conference calls. Participants able to join the conference calls included staff from Botswana, Burundi, Ghana, Mali, Nigeria, and West Africa. These efforts culminated with the submission of a detailed assessment work plan on May 29, 2009 that revised the five primary assessment questions from the scope of work to bring increasing focus on forward looking issues, such as regional integration and inter-/intra-regional trade, to the assessment. The revised assessment questions are presented above in this chapter under Section 1.3 Purpose of the Assessment. In concert with a review of pertinent documents and interviews with AGCI key respondents from USAID, these activities led the assessment team to the design of a Web-based survey of USAID bilateral missions in Africa that have received AGCI funding. They also formed the basis for the criteria used to select in which African countries fieldwork would be conducted. Based on a synthesis of this input from USAID and the assessment team’s own analysis, the criteria for country selection included: a) geographic coverage across USAID’s three African sub-regions, b) sectoral coverage across all four AGCI components, and c) missions that have had significant and sustained involvement in AGCI. For a complete listing of the criteria, refer to the AGCI Assessment Work plan, which is annexed to this report. Fieldwork in Africa was conducted from July 8, 2009 to July 31, 2009. The assessment team broke into three sub-teams as follows: Pat Vondal and Jerry Striplin travelled in East Africa to Kenya and Ethiopia; Dennis Marotta and Keith Sherper conducted fieldwork in southern Africa in Botswana, South Africa, and Zambia; and Bechir Rassas and David Fischer travelled in West Africa to Ghana, Nigeria, and Senegal. Each sub-team was in Africa for approximately three weeks. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 7 The assessment utilized a mixed-methods approach taking advantage of numerous data collection methods: document reviews, key respondent interviews, stakeholder meetings, group interviews, a Web￾based survey administered to USAID bilateral missions that have received AGCI funding, and site visits to eight African countries. Two methodological points of focus of this assessment were the mixed-methods approach and the adherence to a rigorous, evidence-based link between findings, conclusions and recommendations. The mixed-methods approach utilized in this assessment was at the center of the data analysis strategy – triangulating evidence across the various data sources was an essential technique bringing greater body of evidence. One of the main principles adhered to for this assessment is the standard structure of findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Findings are facts and evidence collected during the evaluation. Conclusions are interpretations and judgments based on the findings. Recommendations are proposed actions, in this case designed to guide AFR/SD/EGEA as it considers modifications to its trade and economic growth portfolio, based on conclusions. For a more in-depth discussion of the assessment team’s methods and data collection instruments, refer to the AGCI Assessment Work Plan in Annex. 1.6 Organization of the Assessment Report Findings, conclusions, and recommendations have been arranged under four chapters. The first of these chapters, entitled Strategic Elements of AGCI, focuses on the design of the Initiative and approaches and tactics employed by USAID that brought form to the Initiative. The second chapter, called Management, Coordination, and Collaboration, discusses evidence for how the management of AGCI has affected the implementation of the Initiative. The third chapter, called Implementation, looks at the effect that AGCI has had on the activities implemented in Africa. The fourth chapter, called Performance Monitoring, Reporting, and Knowledge Sharing, examines how performance data was utilized to increase the Agency’s body of knowledge and the extent to which best practices, approaches, and techniques were shared and discussed among USAID staff managing the Initiative and implementing its activities. In addition, there is a final chapter outlining lessons learned. The report is arranged into topical chapters to make the report easier to read and understand allowing for a wider readership. At the outset of these chapters mentioned above, there are reference notes stating which assessment questions are addressed under each chapter since the alternative format of arranging the report by assessment question was not followed. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 8 2. STRATEGIC ELEMENTS OF AGCI This chapter presents findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding strategic elements of AGCI and is arranged by the following sections: 1) AGCI strategy, 2) Interagency group, and 3) AGOA. 2.1 AGCI Strategy The AGCI Strategic Statement (as appended to the USAID Action Memorandum titled “African Global Competitiveness Initiative Strategic Statement, Operational Plan, Trade Hub Budgets and Summary Results,” drafted November 1, 2005) cites the following “principles of program design” that will provide the basis for and inform the allocation of AGCI’s five-year resources: Policy objectives of the USG Expected impact on the trading sector Findings and recommendations of the AGOA Competitiveness Report Priorities established in integrated frameworks prepared by donors, African governments, the private sector, and civil society under the WTO process Priorities identified by African governments, regional institutions, and the private sector; e.g., the African Union Complementarities with the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) under the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) Past performance or use of the AGOA process Synergies among current and future USG activities. For example, technical assistance combined with resources from the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA), Export-Import Bank, and/or Overseas Private Investment Corporation to promote specific developmental investments The ability to achieve measurable, strategically focused, and sustainable results Consideration of regional issues, solutions, organizations, or bilateral country programming Congressional and Office of Management and Budget directives and USG procurement rules Finding 1: While the Information Memorandum titled “Status of the African Global Competitiveness Initiative” lists “key points” and criteria for mission consideration when identifying or developing projects appropriate for AGCI (including basing approaches in competitiveness and value chain analyses, close partnerships with and support of the major RECs, and encouraging projects to engage in two or more AGCI components), the assessment team was not able to locate an overarching AGCI strategy document that discusses the interrelations and synergies between the four components. In addition, there is no guidance that instructs missions on how to design a project under the Initiative that would encompass multiple components or base the approach in a competitiveness or value chain analysis. Conclusion: USAID Washington could have been more instructive by further refining the AGCI overarching strategy and by providing clear guidance to field missions on how best to develop activities that capture AGCI objectives and how to integrate these activities into their larger portfolios. The missions would have then been in a better position to apply AGCI principles and field guidance to design and implement AGCI activities in their countries or regions. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 9 2.2 Interagency Group Finding 1: The Interagency Group – which was led by USAID and included the Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of State, Department of Treasury, National Security Council, and the U.S. Trade Representative – was charged with the joint management of AGCI. However, the Interagency Group convened meetings only at the outset of the Initiative and did not carry out regularly scheduled meetings as originally designed. Finding 2: The Interagency management structure addressed only coordination at the headquarters of the partnering USG agencies and did not detail a plan for coordinated activity in the field. All of the Interagency groups and teams8 focused on the Initiative’s initial design. The meetings took place in Washington, DC and did not include Africa-based staff that were responsible for implementing AGCI￾funded activities. Conclusion: The Interagency Group’s focus on joint management exclusively in Washington served the purpose of developing the objectives of the Initiative, but there were no follow-on activities by the group to coordinate USG efforts in developing mechanisms for the Africa-based field offices to coordinate among each other. At the same time, it is important to recognize that USAID is an agency that is largely field-based and responsibility for program implementation is with the field missions. Recommendation: If an Interagency management structure is continued for the successor to AGCI, the assessment team has the following recommendations: 1. Interagency structures should be expanded to encourage information sharing, cooperation, and coordination between the partnering agencies throughout African regional and country offices where project implementation occurs. 2. Clearly define how each USG agency will contribute to the overarching objectives and demonstrate how individual agency mandates affect their roles within the Interagency initiative. 3. Recognizing the impediments to joint oversight of AGCI, resources and personnel must be adjusted for the successor initiative to ensure that the agencies have the ability and staffing necessary to meet their objectives. 2.3 AGOA and Regional and Other International Trade Finding 1: USAID/Washington and Africa-based field staff have stated that AGCI enterprise development activities, emphasized by the Global Competitiveness Hubs, have focused their efforts on promoting exports specifically to the U.S. market under AGOA. In addition, the design of AGCI had an explicit focus to support many of the AGOA objectives, particularly increasing trade between Africa and the United States. Finding 2: Trade statistics from the United States International Trade Center show that Sub-Saharan African exports under AGOA to the United States have continually increased since the program went into 8 The Interagency Group identified the following functional groups: an Executive Group, Working Group, Technical Groups, and Design Teams. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 10 effect in 2001. Furthermore annual growth of AGOA exports to the U.S. has increased by nearly 35 percent from 2001 to 2008. Refer to the table below. Total AGOA Exports to the United States by Country, 2001 – 2008* Country 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Angola 0 0 0 1,249,211 4,216,469 4,532,941 4,767,934 9,794,965 Botswana 0 3,707 6,324 20,138 30,044 28,225 31,331 15,803 Burkina Faso 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 Cameroon 36,731 115,542 146,746 242,725 100,910 152,394 169,173 441,316 Cape Verde 0 0 2,452 2,902 2,115 85 0 0 Chad 0 0 14,438 293,801 1,028,954 1,531,433 1,487,552 2,309,230 Congo (DROC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 39,478 65,234 Congo (ROC) 128,746 103,808 337,899 342,248 571,419 774,536 1,604,868 2,639,141 Ethiopia 215 1,319 1,772 3,532 3,646 5,000 4,741 9,392 Gabon 938,695 1,145,478 1,177,431 1,919,407 2,487,326 1,290,031 1,673,605 2,143,355 Gambia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ghana 33,092 23,001 29,156 63,170 49,927 34,874 56,151 31,494 Guinea 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 1 Guinea￾Bissau 0 0 0 26,131 0 0 0 0 Kenya 55,090 124,337 180,599 279,898 272,131 265,051 250,352 252,243 Lesotho 129,523 317,803 372,544 447,622 388,344 384,452 379,592 338,797 Madagascar 92,145 75,838 186,187 314,842 273,193 229,541 281,443 277,051 Malawi 12,057 41,320 35,837 35,052 32,375 29,901 27,568 26,680 Mali 0 1 0 3 0 3 9 4 Mauritius 38,899 106,528 135,111 147,816 146,807 145,843 112,347 97,291 Mozambique 0 186 2,516 2,151 2,828 940 825 129 Namibia 0 1,543 32,132 75,904 53,058 33,019 28,579 6 Niger 0 0 2 0 24 1 27 1 Nigeria 5,688,102 5,409,176 9,353,914 15,415,91 3 22,460,05 2 25,823,09 1 30,137,13 3 35,366,20 4 Rwanda 265 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 Senegal 0 0 11 7 9 14,239 14 10,229 Sierra Leone 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 South Africa 417,256 789,552 998,420 832,441 455,316 717,439 1,076,985 2,427,690 Swaziland 8,314 74,312 127,005 175,927 160,462 135,425 135,838 125,387 Tanzania 16 639 1,110 2,984 2,812 3,022 2,815 1,527 Uganda 0 13 1,442 4,022 4,854 1,490 1,189 473 Zambia 10 52 0 22 0 8 73 5 Total 7,579,158 8,334,157 13,143,049 21,897,871 32,743,077 36,132,990 42,269,649 56,373,651 * Amounts are in thousands of U.S. dollars. Source is the United States Information Trade Center. Conclusion: AGCI assistance to African enterprises is designed to increase their ability to take advantage of AGOA preferences and increase overall competitiveness and capacity to trade. However, USAID enterprise development efforts must continue to be rooted in competitiveness and value chain analyses that assess strategic decisions, such as which markets – United States, other international, or regional markets – should be targeted. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 11 Recommendation: Expand the use of competitiveness and value chain analyses to ensure that informed decisions are based on a strategic understanding of markets. The implication is that AGCI should continue to help firms expand trade with the United States but only when based on sound evidence that it is the most effective way to build private sector capacity to trade. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 12 3. MANAGEMENT, COORDINATION,AND COLLABORATION This chapter addresses the following AGCI Assessment Questions: What are the main strengths and weaknesses of AFR/SD’s management of AGCI? Has AGCI assistance reflected the priorities of host country governments and the major regional economic communities? The first section of this chapter addresses the management of AGCI from USAID/Washington and includes a treatment of issues related to communication and distribution of AGCI funding. The second part of this chapter focuses on the degree of coordination and collaboration in the field related to AGCI between regional and bilateral missions, Hubs, other USG agencies, and other bilateral donors and multilateral organizations. It also provides an analysis on how responsive USAID has been to host country government and REC priorities. 3.1 USAID/Washington Management and Communication As detailed in Chapter 1, USAID is the implementing agency on behalf of an interagency process that designed AGCI. Within USAID, AFR/SD/EGEA was charged with overseeing the Initiative’s overall design, strategy, reporting, and program and financial management. The current management structure consists of one U.S. direct hire (USDH) staff who has the overall responsibility for management and oversight as the AGCI Activity Manager (the second one to hold this position since 2006) and one program (USDA-PASA) staffer responsible for management and oversight of the AGCI KSA contract. Both staff members have additional assigned duties. Management of the four components is divided among technical experts in AFR/SD/EGEA and EGAT. Three of the four experts are located in the EGAT Bureau, and all serve in an advisory capacity. Additionally, a program-funded information and communication technology (ICT) manager in EGAT also contributes to AGCI ICT activities as required. AFR also contracts the Knowledge Sharing and Analysis (KSA) component of AGCI from an implementing partner. In all, there are two full-time and five part-time staff based in Washington supporting AGCI, excluding the KSA Team. 3.1.1 USAID/Washington Management Structure and Internal Communication Finding 1: Through decisions taken at the beginning of the Initiative in 20069 , USAID decided on a decentralized implementation management structure divided among AFR/SD/EGEA, the regional missions, and the bilateral missions. Finding 2: Although AGCI Advisors from EGAT do attend AFR/SD/EGEA weekly staff meetings in which all EGEA and economic growth programs are discussed, conversations with AFR staff clarified that there are no AGCI coordination meetings between AFR/SD and the AGCI Activity Managers. 9 USAID Memorandum, AGCI: Concurrence in Approach to Unified Management of AGCI, 2006. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 13 Finding 3: Interagency meetings were held at the beginning of the Initiative to set up AGCI and to design its four components. According to interviews with the former and current AGCI managers, no AGCI interagency meetings have been held since then. Finding 4: Missions chose to which components of the Initiative they attributed their DA/EG funds within the parameters of AGCI’s annual targets (see AGCI Status Memo, March 6, 2006 from Harry M. Lightfoot, AFR/SD). Finding 5: AGCI managers in AFR/SD/EGEA stated that a mid-term evaluation of AGCI originally scheduled to take place in 2008 was not conducted. Conclusion 1: Africa Bureau’s decision to use a unified management-decentralized contracting approach for AGCI has empowered participating missions to make programmatic choices with the flexibility to foster trade-led economic growth as appropriate to host country challenges and circumstances.10 Conclusion 2: Beyond the AGCI Program Manager and KSA Activity Manager, AGCI does not have a broader working group that supports the management and oversight of the Initiative. This is due to the decentralized management structure discussed above, and a number of other factors that contribute to this capacity shortcoming. The lack of funding for the AGCI Program Manager, other dedicated Africa Bureau staff, and AGCI-specific coordination meetings all underscore and reinforce the deficiency of not having a central constituency responsible for AGCI. Conclusion 3: There are significant constraints inhibiting increased levels of communication and coordination within and between USAID offices in Washington. The constraints are related to: 1) heavy workloads of staff managing core activities not allowing engagement in additional coordination with other teams, and 2) limited staffing (exacerbated by a lack of formalization of staff responsibilities to engage in liaison duties) results in a lack of personnel to assign liaison roles necessary for meaningful and more systematic coordination. Conclusion 4: If the mid-term evaluation of AGCI had been performed in 2008, it would have afforded more time for its results to inform future economic growth strategic planning as well as improvements for the last two years of the Initiative. Recommendations: 1. A review of Africa Bureau staff should investigate the extent to which current staffing responsibilities should be shifted to provide the needed liaison functionality required of increased, systematic coordination between related programs and initiatives. This analysis should also be mindful of increasing USAID staffing levels, as planned by the Administration, as current staffing arrangements are not adequate to meet the resource-intensive nature of greater emphasis on integrated systems. 2. Africa Bureau’s approach in building communication and coordination mechanisms to advance AGCI goals and that of its successor must be rooted in the development of an incremental and increasingly formalized process. This approach acknowledges that a long-term, well-planned system will be needed to build increasingly advanced communication and coordination resulting in more efficient and effective collaborations. Formalizing the elements of this system will promote collaboration that will move Africa Bureau beyond ad-hoc and irregular communication. 10 USAID Memorandum, AGCI: Concurrence in Approach to Unified Management of AGCI, 2006. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 14 Short-term actions that could be implemented immediately include: 1) Convene regular monthly meetings that are open to all AGCI managers from Africa Bureau and EGAT and are devoted solely to AGCI and the activities it funds. This would explicitly shift the focus to AGCI, elevating the importance of the Initiative and its goals, and laying the foundation for increased knowledge sharing and communication. 2) Identify a broader group of activity managers from AGCI and other complementary USAID/Washington-based portfolios and initiatives to have a limited number of meetings with the explicit purpose of exploring synergies between the initiatives and laying the groundwork for establishing that the group would meet. Medium-term actions that could be implemented within six months include: 1) The identification and establishment of working groups to oversee AGCI (and its successor) would result in augmenting the responsibilities of the members of all AGCI meetings to include such possibilities as a core AGCI management group of two to five key managers, AGCI component groups, and/or other technical groups as identified. 2) The core AGCI management group should include internal briefings to gauge progress on reallocating resources and programs into a more integrated approach both within Africa Bureau and with participating missions in the field. These briefings could be summarized with the all-AGCI meeting group as well. 3) Establish regular quarterly meetings with managers from AGCI and other complementary initiatives with the purpose of sharing information and recognizing areas of overlap. Long-term actions that could be implemented within nine months to one year include: 1) Expand the scope of the joint initiatives meetings (including AGCI or its successor and other initiatives such as GFSR) concentrating on: a) integrating strategic plans across initiatives and developing joint work plans, and b) identifying and establishing specialized management or working groups, if needed, to focus on specific technical subjects. 3.1.2 USAID/Washington Communication with AGCI Field Missions Finding 1: Six of the 10 missions were queried about their satisfaction with communication with AFR/SD/EGEA. Responses were mixed both across and within regions as indicated by the summary of comments below. “We have a good relationship with USAID/Washington through “virtual” team members in AFR and EGAT… The AGCI Activity Manager is a good integrator of the Initiative and good communicator of broader economic growth trends.” “We don’t like long-distance management. There needs to be better communication, integration, and coordination with USAID/Washington, but we appreciate Washington’s efforts to communicate, especially through the AGCI Activity Manager.” “Communications with Washington are alright and periodic.” “We don’t really communicate with the regional mission, Trade Hub, or AFR/SD. Most of our communication is with EGAT through the DCA (Development Credit Authority) which provides services and information attuned to our needs.” “We receive a lot of information from the AGCI Activity Manager on the Initiative and economic growth strategies which are very helpful.” “Not satisfied… there is a real leadership gap on AGCI in USAID/Washington.” ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 15 Finding 2: Interviews by the assessment team with four of the nine missions revealed negative responses about the lack of communication from AFR/SD in 2005-2006 regarding the design of AGCI. The primary problem cited was the fact that AGCI was designed without input of field missions. Consultations with the field came after the fact and were used primarily to develop regional and bilateral AGCI budgets to meet Initiative allocation targets. The short-term political pressure for getting the program up and running quickly precluded affording due attention to field consultations and the technical soundness of the Initiative. Finding 3: Bilateral mission online survey responses regarding communication with AFR/SD and EGAT showed that missions were largely satisfied. In response to the online survey question on level of satisfaction with communication of AGCI’s purpose, objectives, and goals, 11 of 12 respondents reported being either satisfied or very satisfied. The remaining respondent reported that they do not engage with AFR/SD in this type of interaction. In terms of mission level of satisfaction with AFR/SD’s assistance on how to best contribute to/participate in AGCI, 9 of 11 respondents reported either being satisfied or very satisfied. Two of the respondents noted that they do not engage with AFR/SD in this type of interaction. In response to the question on mission level of satisfaction with their relationship with EGAT concerning the process and procedures for requesting technical assistance and support, all respondents reported that they were either satisfied or very satisfied. In response to the question on mission level of satisfaction with their relationship with EGAT concerning regular communication meant to exchange ideas and/or keep each other abreast of issues and activities relevant to AGCI, 11 of 12 respondents reported they were either satisfied or very satisfied, with eight of 12 respondents indicating that they are very satisfied. The remaining respondent indicated that they do not engage EGAT for these purposes. Conclusion 1: Regional and bilateral mission feedback indicates that they are currently relatively satisfied with Washington’s communication and assistance. The field is pleased with Washington’s information sharing on best practices, AGCI events, and materials on promoting economic growth. However, there is a significant area that the field identified where improvements would be beneficial: a lack of regional and bilateral mission substantive involvement in AGCI design. Conclusion 2: Regarding Conclusion 1 above, it is worth noting that Africa Bureau currently risks once again alienating the field ,with the 2009 AFR Economic Growth Meeting, as it did at the outset of AGCI. Some missions expressed concern that the purpose of the meeting was not to elicit feedback from the field, but to introduce programs that had already been largely developed in Washington; i.e., the Food Security Framework. Conclusion 3: Similar to the aforementioned USAID/Washington communication challenges, there are similar disincentives in advancing coordination between Washington and the field. These disincentives also center on high staff workloads and limited staffing and are compounded by the Agency’s struggle to formalize structures that promote coordination and joint planning. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 16 Recommendations: 1. As recommended within USAID/Washington, Africa Bureau needs to build communication and coordination mechanisms that use an incremental and increasingly formalized process. As part of this process, Africa Bureau should develop a number of short-, medium-, and long-term goals to facilitate improved coordination between Washington and the field. Short-term actions that could be implemented immediately include: 1) before finalizing the next generation of AFR/SD initiatives (including GFSR, global climate change (GCC), and the successor to AGCI), Washington should conduct consultations with the field that would provide them an opportunity to have substantial input into the designs of these initiatives. 2) Establish quarterly meetings open to Washington and regional and bilateral missions devoted to AGCI (and its successor) to increase knowledge sharing. Medium-term actions that could be implemented within six months include: 1) Integrating field staff, as appropriate, into the medium-term teams recommended in Washington (refer to Section 3.1.1), such as having field presence (from regional and/or bilateral missions) on the core AGCI management group and/or other working/technical groups. 2) Quarterly briefings from the regional missions should also be delivered to Washington that outline progress on allocating resources and realigning programs and management into a more collaborative process between the regional and bilateral missions. Long-term actions that can be implemented within nine months to one year include: 1) Convene biannual meetings with Washington and field-based AGCI (and its successor) managers for the purpose of integrating strategic plans and work plans between Washington and the field. Additional meetings would be required to facilitate specific partnerships. 2. Africa Bureau should explore traditional and Internet-based interactive information and communication technologies to help promote communication between Washington and the field. As an Agency, USAID has been deficient in taking advantage of such technologies. It will be difficult for Africa Bureau to engage regularly in meaningful dialogue – as would be required through more integrated strategic planning – with the regional and bilateral missions without leveraging these technologies. 3.1.3 AGCI Funding and Attribution Process Although AGCI is not a funded initiative, it nonetheless was accompanied by overall spending targets for each year and for each component. In order to meet component and overall annual spending targets, regional and bilateral missions participating in AGCI must attribute funds to AGCI from the non￾earmarked DA portion of their economic growth budget. In most cases, this means that missions reviewed which of their existing activities were consistent with AGCI objectives and, where appropriate, labeled those activities as AGCI, and attributed AGCI funding to them. In order to ensure that the overall funding target for a given year has been met, AGCI managers in Washington work with AFR/DP and then communicate with each AGCI mission to calculate specific funding levels of available DA/EG funds for AGCI to meet component and overall annual targets. Once the AGCI allocation targets are met for a given year, additional funding supporting activities pertinent to the Initiative’s objectives are not attributed to AGCI. Finding 1: Of the 18 bilateral missions receiving AGCI funding, three missions received funding only one year, two additional missions received funding over multiple years of AGCI but never received ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 17 funding over two consecutive fiscal years, another mission received funding only the first two years, and overall five missions are not scheduled to receive funding the last year of the Initiative. Refer to the table presenting funding levels for AGCI by mission to understand how funding levels varied greatly year to year (Section 1.2). Finding 2: Since AGCI is an unfunded initiative, this has largely resulted in participating field missions reviewing their existing activities to determine which are applicable to the Initiative’s objectives and components and then attributing those selected activities to AGCI. By comparison, the Initiative for End Hunger in Africa (IEHA) has either earmarked funding or DA/Agriculture funds specifically for its field missions. Finding 3: Comments from five of the nine missions interviewed revealed that there are negative feelings surrounding the fact that there is insufficient AGCI funding for bilateral missions, and that too little funding from bilateral mission DA/EG dollars is available for use on AGCI economic growth and private sector-related activities. Finding 4: In response to the online survey question “In your opinion, what are the three most important factors related to constraints challenging the mission’s AGCI related program,” 58.3% (seven out of 12 respondents) reported that one of these key factors is “insufficient AGCI funding levels.” Finding 5: Current and former AGCI Activity Managers and AFR/DP staff stated that funding emphasis has changed several times over the past several years of the Initiative based on policy set by the USAID Administrator or Africa Bureau leadership. At one point, there was direction to provide the bulk of resources to bilateral missions, which ran contrary to AGCI’s planned funding of the Hubs. Finding 6: AGCI managers and AFR/DP staff revealed that the total amount of non-earmarked DA funds that missions in Africa have available to attribute to AGCI is low because of the numerous unfunded Congressional earmarks and Presidential Initiatives. DA funds for missions are set by Congress, and in most cases there are insufficient funds to cover all earmarks and initiatives. Finding 7: Africa Bureau was forced to double-count available DA funds to meet annual targets for two or more initiatives so that overall AGCI annual funding targets are met. According to the AGCI Activity Manager, double and even triple counting of DA funds is common in order to meet competing requirements within AFR/SD. Yet the online survey revealed only one of 11 respondents as “unsatisfied” with the AGCI attribution process. Conclusion 1: The fact that AGCI funding was not “new money,” and was identified only through an attribution process, hampered USAID’s ability to achieve the same level of technical, managerial, and strategic coordination that other funded initiatives and earmarks benefit from. Conclusion 2: A lack of consistent AGCI funding levels from year to year fragmented the bilateral missions’ ability to design and implement projects that would have a sustained and integrated approach into their own strategic planning efforts. Conclusion 3: Shifts in USAID policy have been contrary to the AGCI strategy and, as such, these incongruities challenge AGCI managers’ ability to preserve critical elements of the Initiative. Conclusion 4: While the evidence from bilateral mission interviews and the online survey show that on the whole there is little to no discontent with the AGCI attribution process, there is dissatisfaction pertaining to the level of consistent and adequate funding available for components that are important to the continuance of missions’ AGCI programs from year to year. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 18 Recommendations: 1. In order to strengthen missions’ ability to plan their AGCI activities (or successor activities) over multiple years with the specific Initiative objectives in mind, it is recommended that the successor Initiative, if there is one, be funded with new monies. An allocation process at the outset of the Initiative and an annual funding review process must be established that will allow missions to understand the basis for their funding and bring them into the review process for annual adjustments. In addition, it would certainly be beneficial for the missions if planned funding were projected on a multiple-year basis. 2. Africa Bureau should review its allocation process to ensure that funding levels are consistent when developing the follow-on Initiative to AGCI. This will help ensure the missions’ ability to program strategically for AGCI objectives and better integrate AGCI objectives into their own long-term strategic plans. The assessment team was not able to determine the basis for these funding irregularities under AGCI; however, Africa Bureau should aim to minimize them to the greatest extent possible. 3. USAID leadership should provide sufficient funds to Africa Bureau for program management and oversight and for regional and bilateral mission DA accounts in support of the future economic growth program. 3.2 Field Mission Communication and Coordination 3.2.1 Communication and Coordination between Regional and Bilateral Missions The significance of approaching economic growth and trade through a regional approach, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, was understood by the designers of AGCI as illustrated in this passage from an Africa Bureau memorandum: “While regional programs are important, without working at the national level in reform-minded countries, regional efforts will have far less impact and will likely be unsustainable. Therefore, AGCI will need to address priority projects that work at the national level as well in key areas.11” This underscores the importance of regional and bilateral missions working together and the Bureau’s mounting focus on regional integration and trade in Africa highlights the role for regional-bilateral collaboration and coordination. Regional economic integration has to take place at both regional and national levels. At the regional level, there are issues to be addressed that naturally cross borders, such as transport corridors (roadways and railways are two examples) and the establishment of regional trade protocols. At the national level, there are a variety of issues that are applicable within a country’s borders, such as national management of roadways within a country and the passage and enforcement of legislation to implement regional trade protocols. For the most part, USAID regional missions are best suited to address issues that cross borders, while the bilateral missions have an advantage in tackling issues that are essentially national in nature. With these examples, it is also important to recognize that many issues inherently have dimensions that are both national and international. The establishment of a regional trade protocol is developed through an agreement between several countries; however, each of those participating member states must pass legislative reforms and/or implement regulations that carry out the agreement. 11 From an Information Memorandum titled Status of the African Global Competitiveness Initiative, drafted March 3, 2006. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 19 In addition, this section also looks at the role of the Hubs, as implementers for the regional missions, and their ability to communicate and coordinate with the bilateral missions. The Hubs are working on issues that are regional by nature and thus are applicable to many of the bilateral missions in a given region. It is very important to note that the Hubs’ scopes of work do not require them to actively coordinate with the bilateral missions or each other. The Hubs’ locus of communication is with the regional missions that manage them. Finding 1: In response to the online survey question on bilateral mission level of satisfaction with their regional mission regarding ―regular communication meant to exchange ideas and/or keep each other abreast of issues and activities relevant to AGCI,‖ five of the 12 respondent missions reported being satisfied or very satisfied. Specifically, seven of 12 respondents reported being either satisfied or very satisfied, yet three respondents reported being unsatisfied and two other missions reported not being engaged in this type of interaction. Finding 2: Four of the five bilateral missions that were queried on how often they communicate with their regional missions replied that communication is limited. (Five of the seven bilateral missions were interviewed on this subject.) More detailed responses from discussions held with two of the seven bilateral missions and one of the regional missions during July provide some insight as to why there is not a higher level of satisfaction regarding communications between bilateral and regional missions, particularly on the issue of joint planning. Interview Comments from Bilateral Missions Visited During July 2009 (Note: Both comments are paraphrased.) The bilateral mission has not really been involved by the regional mission in planning and strategizing of AGCI. If the regional mission would invite bilaterals into their planning processes it would strengthen both their and our development efforts. The regional mission should initiate an effort to coordinate with bilateral missions. The regional mission has ignored our mission, and doesn’t yet understand how the regional and bilateral missions complement and/or conflict with each other. We want to be consulted by the regional mission more on activities that impact our host country, especially since they understand that most economic growth activities are regional in nature. We support sharing strategies for regional planning. Interview Comment from a Regional Mission “Bilaterals need to know what is pending regionally as this has implications for each country and the bilateral work with host country governments to improve regional trade facilitation. … the bilaterals could let the regional mission know what kind of help is needed in their countries that the regional mission can provide. We need an integrated framework for the regional and bilateral missions. If we did this, USAID regional strategies would really be helped. There is great regional/bilateral work being done….. The conflict between the two that is talked about in USAID/W is overplayed. We should all combine to solving value chain issues within a region and work on the enabling environment.” ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 20 Finding 3: Field missions develop implementation plans and their budgets independently from other missions. Therefore, while missions are encouraged to collaborate, the Agency does not have any particular requirements for them to do so nor are there rewards for those that do or penalties for those that fail to collaborate. Finding 4: As noted above, Hub scopes of work in the past have not required them to coordinate and communicate closely with bilateral missions, but interview data from discussions with the Hubs in eastern and southern Africa indicate that there is a growing understanding that increased interaction is needed to foster regional integration. In fact, USAID/East Africa’s (EA) new Competitiveness and Trade Expansion (COMPETE) Program contract holds promise of better coordination with bilateral missions as they were all invited to provide input into the COMPETE scope of work and work plan. COMPETE’s work plan requires staff to specifically visit each bilateral mission to make plans for providing greater support to bilateral trade programs and to coordinate plans to advance regional trade improvements. Finding 5: In response to the question on bilateral mission level of satisfaction with their respective regional Hub regarding ―regular communication meant to exchange ideas and/or keep each other abreast of issues and activities relevant to AGCI,” the majority of respondents were satisfied, with 58% of the respondents reporting being satisfied or very satisfied and 33% unsatisfied. Finding 6: In response to the question on bilateral mission level of satisfaction with the regional trade hub regarding ―coordination of regional trade actions involving your mission,‖ the responses are more mixed. Six out of 12 respondents reported being satisfied or very satisfied, while five respondents reported being unsatisfied. One respondent reported that they do not engage in this type of interaction. Finding 7: Four of the five bilateral missions the assessment team interviewed noted that there is little engagement between the Hubs and their missions. USAID/Senegal noted an improvement in coordination with the West Africa Trade Hub. Finding 8: Interview data from Hubs, bilateral contract implementers, and bilateral missions found instances in each country, with the exception of Nigeria, where trade hubs are coordinating and collaborating with bilateral mission implementation partners involved in AGCI projects. Some brief examples are provided below. Ethiopia – USAID/AGOA Plus Project coordinated closely with the East Africa Hub to provide technical assistance to export-ready firms in Ethiopia and will continue that coordination with the successor regional contract, COMPETE. Kenya – USAID/ Kenya Maize Development Project worked closely with the regional USAID/EA’s RATES project (now folded into COMPETE) to develop the capacity of the East African Grain Council, whose work benefits the maize farmers that the Kenya Maize Development project works with. South Africa – USAID/SAIBL project (South African International Business Linkages) reports that the Hub has been helping its clients into U.S. markets through the Fancy Food Show. Zambia – USAID/MATEP project (Market Access, Trade, and Enabling Policies project) works with the Hub in Botswana on trade facilitation and harmonization. Ghana – USAID/TIPCEE project works with the West Africa Trade Hub for the African Cashew Alliance. TIPCEE provides technical assistance in GIS mapping. Senegal – USAID/SAGIC project (Senegal Economic Growth Program) collaborates with the West Africa Trade Hub on transport and road governance. They are collaborating on mapping the Bamako-Dakar corridor as well as the North-South corridor. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 21 Conclusion 1: The lack of regional-bilateral coordination for TCB is noticeable. The bilateral and regional missions are not currently incentivized to link their activities and, as a result, the Bureau’s TCB portfolio suffers from a lack of sub-regional strategies. Evidence from the findings above indicates that communications and coordination could be significantly improved. Regional and bilateral missions echo these concerns. These actions, however, have major implications for mission staffing, work orientation, and the current incentive structure. Conclusion 2: Hubs are coordinating with bilateral missions and implementers on an as-requested basis where collaboration furthers both of their development goals. Deepened coordination between Hubs and bilateral missions would further regional integration efforts, but this needs to be managed through the regional missions. Recommendations: 1. Africa Bureau should incentivize regional and bilateral missions in Africa to systematically increase collaborative efforts and develop regionally based, integrated strategic plans and joint work plans in order to foster improved regional trade integration. Furthermore, the regional missions would be well placed to take the lead role in pursuing the development of these unified strategic plans and complementary work plans with the bilateral missions in the regions in order to foster improved regional trade integration. The regional missions should coordinate these activities with the bilateral missions and periodically brief USAID/Washington on their progress. The overall conclusion is that with the Agency’s increased emphasis on promoting regional integration in Africa, more active communication, planning, and active strategy development is needed between regional and bilateral missions. As such, an incentive that promotes increased coordination and collaboration could be to require regional and bilateral missions to receive approval from AGCI coordinators for their separate strategies with the condition that those strategies be coordinated regionally. 2. As part of the measures discussed above in Recommendation 1, the field missions need to build communication and coordination mechanisms that use an incremental and increasingly formalized process. As part of this process, regional and bilateral missions should develop a number of short-, medium-, and long-term goals to facilitate improved coordination between them, resulting in increased integration of development programs on a regional basis. Short-term actions that could be implemented immediately include: 1) Establish regional meetings (led by the regional missions) in East Africa, Southern Africa, and West Africa – on a quarterly basis – open to the respective regional and bilateral missions and devoted solely to AGCI (and its successor) to increase knowledge sharing between the missions. 2) Identify a group of AGCI activity managers – preferably at least one staff person from each AGCI participating mission – that would serve to initiate an analysis of each mission’s strategic plans and work plans relevant to economic growth and trade for the purpose of identifying synergies between missions. Medium-term actions that could be implemented within six months include: 1) Expand the three regional meetings beyond simple information sharing to actually producing integrated regional strategic plans and joint work plans for AGCI and its successor. The identification of specialized management or working groups would facilitate field offices moving toward these integrated regional approaches. 2) Establish regular quarterly meetings with field managers of AGCI (and ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 22 its successor) and other complementary initiatives (such as GFSR and GCC) for the purpose of sharing information and recognizing areas of overlap. Long-terms actions that could be implemented within nine months to one year include: 1) Expand the scope of regionally based joint initiative meetings (including AGCI or its successor and other initiatives such as GFSR and GCC) to integrate strategic plans and work plans across initiatives as feasible. 3. Africa Bureau leadership should promote and invest in annual or biennial regional forums to promote increased alignment of integrated strategic plans and joint work plans. These forums could be hosted on a revolving basis by the various missions in the region, but it is envisioned that the first forum would be hosted by the regional mission. 4. Regional and bilateral missions should increase utilization of ICT to communicate with each other to effectively coordinate activities on a regional basis. Although the Agency has had difficulties in utilizing new communication technologies, such as videoconferencing, these tools are necessary given the increasing importance of communication and coordination across field missions. It will be difficult for the field to engage regularly in meaningful dialogue – as would be required through more integrated, regionally based strategic planning – between regional and bilateral missions without having these technologies at its disposal. 5. Hub collaboration with bilateral missions and their implementers should be strategic and limited to instances that will have regional impact. Regional missions should oversee when it is appropriate for Hubs to assist bilateral missions and/or their implementing partners in activities pertinent to regional integration. 3.2.2 Coordination with Other USG Agencies in the Field To assess the interagency aspect of AGCI, the assessment team looked for evidence of whole-of￾government cooperation and collaboration in the field. Finding 1: Five of the six bilateral missions interviewed (Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, and South Africa) related that most interagency collaboration in the field is centered on helping African countries increase their exports to the United States under AGOA provisions since the primary USG agencies in Africa – USDA and USTDA – are focused on promoting exports from Africa to U.S. markets and/or promoting U.S. investment in Africa. Finding 2: Interviews in the field found several examples indicating close coordination between AGCI missions and other USG agencies, and in one instance, with the U.S. Embassy Economic and Political Division. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 23 Finding 3: When asked through the online survey to identify the three most important factors contributing to the achievement of mission’s (bilateral) AGCI-related programs, only one of the 12 respondents to this question cited support and technical assistance from other USG agencies as one of those factors. Conclusion: There are a few good examples of collaboration and coordination between missions and other USG agencies in the field noted above under Finding 2. This may be explained, in part, by the fact that under AGCI the primary responsibility for implementation rests with the field missions. Most coordination with other USG agencies is limited to specific technical assistance in support of AGOA. Recommendations: 1. USAID’s interaction with other USG agencies should be targeted and strategic to ensure that it is supporting development goals from USAID’s perspective given that the focus of other USG agencies is primarily on promoting trade only with the United States 2. To maximize success under AGOA through AGCI, missions, trade hubs, and relevant USG agencies, country representatives should conduct joint planning sessions to develop coordinated strategies with relevant host country ministries. 3. Annual reviews of progress toward country-specific AGOA goals and in strategy implementation should be conducted between host country governments and all USG partnering agencies. 3.2.3 Coordination with Other Bilateral Donors and Multilateral Organizations Are missions coordinating their efforts with other donors and multilateral organizations in countries to maximize the ability of African nations to engage in increased global trade? This section of the chapter looks at the evidence found to answer that question. USDA – USAID/Kenya’s Horticultural Program coordinates with USDA to help growers meet U.S. phyto￾sanitary standards in support of Kenya’s capacity to export horticultural commodities under AGOA. USTDA – USTDA has worked with USAID/Nigeria to partner on enabling environment issues, and with USAID/Ethiopia on the Agricultural Trade Expansion Project. MCC – USAID/Senegal worked closely with MCA in the development of the Compact proposal for Senegal, and coordinated the approach for its development frameworks to work in Northern Senegal on roads for transport to facilitate trade in rice. In Ghana, the MCC Office reported working with USAID/Ghana to identify areas of collaboration and build on USAID progress in the country’s capacity to develop horticultural commodities for trade. U.S. Embassy Ethiopia – Only in Ethiopia did the assessment team find close coordination between USAID and U.S. Embassy Economic Divisions. USAID/Ethiopia’s activities in supporting trade expansion are complemented by the U.S. Embassy’s Economic and Political Division which focuses on increasing competitiveness. The Division and the Mission meet every 4-6 weeks to coordinate their work, and expect that this level of coordination will grow further once the Embassy and USAID are co-located in a new facility slated to be completed in 2010. U.S. Embassy South Africa – The U.S. Embassy Economic Division reports that the Division has close contact with USAID informally, but does not engage in any substantive coordinated work. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 24 Finding 1: Interviews held with missions found that foreign donors (namely, DFID, GTZ, EU, JICA, CIDA, SIDA, DANIDA and NIV and the World Bank) are also working toward building country competitiveness and economic growth through support to improve the quality of goods and to increase trade capacity and the ability to export commodities, primarily to locations throughout Europe and Asia. Field interviews with the World Bank, European Union (EU), and major bilateral donors in Kenya, Botswana, Ghana, and South Africa indicate a strong and growing trend whereby these agencies and other organizations are also working to strengthen regional integration through supporting and promoting regional trade in eastern, southern, and western Africa. Finding 2: Bilateral mission interviews in Nigeria, Senegal, Ghana, Zambia, South Africa, Ethiopia, and Kenya indicate that they coordinate with other bilateral donors and with multilateral organizations through regularly scheduled monthly or quarterly donor coordination meetings focused on either agricultural development, economic development, and/or private sector development. The degree of coordination differs from case to case, with most of the missions interviewed reporting that at a minimum they make concrete efforts not to duplicate efforts, primarily through donor coordination meetings (see text box below with examples of effective donor coordination). Finding 3: The team found several instances in Kenya, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Senegal where USAID and other bilateral donors had coordinated closely to support host country government strategy development and to support their five-year strategies in either agricultural, private sector, and/or industrial development. In these cases, bilateral donors coordinate around which aspects of these strategies they will focus on (see text box with examples). Examples of Donor Coordination in Eastern, Southern, and Western Africa In Kenya, USAID worked closely with DFID and NIV to establish a Dairy Task Force to bring back Western Kenya’s dairy industry after the post-election violence of 2007-2008 USAID/EA and USAID/Kenya worked closely with DFID and SIDA to establish the East Africa Grain Council. The Council has succeeded in helping growers obtain loans and higher prices for grains, and to link growers with buyers and traders in Kenya and throughout the East Africa region. The East Africa Trade Hub (COMPETE) teamed with DFID in March 2009 to get the World Bank and other donors together to map out border posts. Five donors focused on required hardware, and 10 on software. They are working closely with DFID on regional transit issues and held a regional workshop in Mombasa in July with all stakeholders to work out the next steps. In Ethiopia, The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development reported that USAID and the EU are working very closely with the Ethiopian Coffee Association on fine coffee marketing, and on developing facilities for coffee processing to increase the quality of coffee so that Ethiopia can better compete. USAID’s WTO Accession Plus project staff attends Ethiopia WTO Coordination meetings with the Italian Development Corporation, NIV, GTZ, African Development Bank, and UNDP. There is a concerted effort by the donors to push the government toward membership and in July, the Multidonor Private Sector Development Group that USAID belongs to worked on a coordinated effort to prompt the government. In Botswana, DFID is taking lessons learned and studies conducted by the Trade Hub coordinated regional transport program which establishes and strengthens three major transport corridors to assist the development of a fourth corridor where they are the lead. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 25 In Nigeria, USAID/Nigeria is currently participating in a multi-donor strategy development process with DFID and the World Bank in Nigeria for the next five-year strategy. In Ghana, USAID/Ghana, through its TIPCEE project to promote horticultural development for export, the mission collaborates with GTZ on GIS mapping to avoid replication and to maximize resources through an informal relationship with a memorandum of understanding at the project/activity level. The West Africa Trade Hub leverages funds of other partners, specifically GTZ, for the development of the West Africa Cashew Alliance. Finding 4: In response to the question on the extent of a mission’s ability to coordinate efforts and/or partner with other bilateral donors, nine out of 12 respondents reported that their efforts are well coordinated, whereas three respondents reported that coordination efforts are ad hoc. In response to the question on the extent of a mission’s ability to coordinate efforts and/or partner with multilateral organizations, 10 out of 12 respondents reported that they are well coordinated12 . Finding 5: While the AGCI assessment team uncovered many good examples of donor coordination on specific issues as cited above, several of the other bilateral donors countered these reports by saying that this coordination was rather ad hoc and not as close as it should be to truly help strengthen private sector capacity to engage in trade, improve access to finance, transit issues, and the policy environment that would support private sector trade-led growth. For example in Ghana, GTZ stated that the Multidonor Group is not as effective as it should be, and there is a need to work more at institutional level rather than personal. “We need to know what other donors are doing in complementary areas.” The GTZ representative in Kenya made similar remarks. In South Africa, DFID informed the AGCI assessment team that donor coordination has been opportunistic, and limited to project-specific tasks such as trainings and seminars. This remark was consistent across the board in southern Africa. Conclusion: Based on the evidence from Findings 2 - 4 above, USAID bilateral missions are coordinating with other bilateral and multilateral organizations in regard to their economic growth and trade programs. However, Finding 5 indicates that in some instances there is room for improvement to be made with donor coordination. Recommendation: Admittedly, donor coordination requires resources and considerable effort. Therefore, missions need to take measured actions to ensure that the required efforts of donor coordination will be a productive endeavor. When missions recognize the need to improve coordination with other donors, a “donor coordination activity map” is recommended as a basis for such efforts. 1. Consider jointly developing a “donor coordination activity map” that addresses activities in sufficient depth to identify specific tactical approaches where coordination could be strengthened in order to leverage donor funding to maximize economic growth and trade outcomes based on comparative advantage and level of funding available to each donor. 12 One out of 12 respondents reported no coordination at all with multilateral organizations, and one respondent) reported ad hoc coordination with multilaterals. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 26 3.2.4 Responsiveness of USAID to Host Country Governments and RECs. This section of the chapter discusses the degree to which USAID assistance reflects the priorities of host country government and the major RECs. The assessment team conducted interviews with host country governments in each country visited on issues of country trade performance, engagement in regional trade, private sector economic development, and perspectives on appropriateness and satisfaction with USAID assistance to their priorities. Interviews were conducted with ministries of economic development, industry and trade, agriculture, and finance. The team also held interviews with key representatives from three major RECs that receive technical assistance and support from the Hubs: COMESA in Zambia, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in Nigeria, and SADC in Botswana. Finding 1: With some exceptions, host country government ministries and government-run organizations that were interviewed in five countries across the continent expressed satisfaction that USAID was providing technical assistance that reflects their priorities for economic growth and trade. 13 Finding 2: Interviews with RECs related to how well USAID and its implementing partners are providing assistance in line with their priorities in general yielded positive responses. COMESA reported that their partnership is “strong” and that USAID/EA’s assistance (through the former trade hub located in Kenya and now through the COMPETE contract) is value chain-based and “effective, quick, and flexible.” COMPETE is currently supporting COMESA’s objectives to remove transit constraints throughout east and central Africa.. SADC and other key stakeholders were invited to provide input into the Hub’s work plan based on their needs and preferences. The Food Security, Agriculture and Natural Resources Directorate provided several examples of how Hub technical assistance and support have supported their work in regional agricultural trade. However, several individuals in the SADC Directorate commented that the overall process was not being sufficiently led by the REC and that the Hub was doing too much to control the process. ECOWAS and USAID/WA exchange strategic plans for programming to understand their respective objectives for regional integration and competitiveness. They stated that they have a constant dialogue, and that the Private Sector Directorate is supported by the West Africa Trade Hub, for example, on the development of the Common External Tariff. The Directorate also stated that USAID’s role in regional integration and competitiveness is critical. Finding 3: There was consensus across USAID missions interviewed by the assessment team that support the RECs, as well as with the Hubs, other donors, and with the RECs themselves that there are capacity issues within the RECs that affect their ability to effectively promote regional integration and trade. 13 In Senegal, the Permanent Secretary for the government’s accelerated growth strategy, led by the President, would like to further define and integrate USAID’s activities in the framework of implementing this strategy. In Ethiopia, the USG community is at variance with the government’s stance and approach as Ethiopia’s government still controls key sectors related to economic growth and is reluctant to reform. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 27 Conclusion: In general, evidence shows that assistance that missions are providing to host country governments and RECs is in line with REC priorities. However, to increase the capacity of host country government agencies and RECs, technical assistance and advisory services are needed to increase the capacity of these institutions to provide stronger and more effective leadership. Recommendations: 1. Regional missions and Hubs should increasingly focus on expanding the capacity of the RECs for management and for working more effectively with host country governments in the region to implement regional trade goals and programs. Assistance should focus on the particular needs of each REC and the particular trade barriers faced in each region. 2. Formal, regular inter-Hub coordination and knowledge sharing on approaches to increase REC management ability would be useful to accomplishing these objectives more effectively and efficiently. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 28 4. IMPLEMENTATION This chapter addresses the following AGCI Assessment Question: What has AGCI achieved to date as an initiative when compared to its goals? What has worked, what hasn’t, and why in terms of the four focus areas that can be addressed for future programming? Are the achievements sustainable? Chapter 4 Implementation addresses each of the four AGCI components with respect to achievement of component goals and implications for programming under the successor to AGCI. The four main sections of this chapter are arranged by the AGCI components: 1) Enabling environment, 2) Enterprise strengthening, 3) Access to finance, and 4) Infrastructure. 4.1 Component 1 – Enabling Environment This section of the chapter discusses progress and challenges related to AGCI Component 1 on improving the enabling environment. The primary goal of AGCI assistance under this component is to improve the policy, regulatory, and enforcement environment for private sector-led trade and investment. 4.1.1 Achievements to Date This section draws on achievements under the enabling environment component as reported in the 2008 AGCI Annual Report and the 2009 Compendium of Trade-Related Success Stories, and provides further data from field interviews conducted in seven of the eight African countries that the AGCI assessment team visited in July. Finding 1: Data on achievements14 in the enabling environment for increasing trade and investment (see table below) show that: Member states of COMESA and SADC are making significant progress in harmonizing customs and in standards for some key products (dairy and maize in eastern, central, and southern Africa; seeds in southern Africa). These achievements will support increases in intra-regional trade, and in some instances, trade across regions. ECOWAS and its member states have made little progress to date in harmonizing customs and standards or in easing cross-border transit compared to members of COMESA and SADC. 14 The word “achievements” is used here to mean actual reforms in policies and regulations that have been completed and implemented, or the passage and implementation of new policies and regulations, to increase trade and investment. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 29 AGCI Enabling Environment Achievements by Region and in Selected Bilateral Missions Region/ Country Results Reported for AGCI in FY 200815 Additional Results as of July 200916 COMESA and member nations COMESA Customs Union implemented SPS standards for dairy, and maize products harmonized and implemented in COMESA and East African Community (EAC) member states, then expanded to include harmonization with the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Trade in Services Agreement and Rules of Origin requirements for trade within the COMESA region implemented COMESA finalized the Rules of Origin SADC and member nations Zambia agreed to a customs improvement implementation plan South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, and Zambia agreed to use harmonized customs transit procedures and the SAD 500 as a “through-customs declaration” across international frontiers Trans-Kalahari Corridor and Dar Corridor countries agreed to a Customs Systems Interface and Electronic Data Interchange across international frontiers Trans-Kalahari Corridor countries agreed to the establishment of one-stop border posts Swaziland accepted a revised Customs Act as well as revised Customs and Excise General Regulations for Parliamentary approval SADC gained acceptance among member nations on a common seed agreement. Member nations amended national laws for alignment with the agreement The governments of Botswana and Namibia have agreed to establish a One￾Stop Border Post ECOWAS and member nations Nigeria lowered tariffs from as high as 100% to a maximum of 35 % for imports coming in from ECOWAS member nations Country Specific Enabling Environment Improvements Ethiopia Government: 1) removed an export ban on hides and skins that was consistent with Article XI of the GATT; and 2) enacted a reform in ITC Tariffs in accordance with the WTO ITC agreement Mozambique Government: 1) enacted a decree for a Simplified Licensing Regime that eliminated more than 100 licensing requirements; 2) approved a new Procurement Law, Labor Law, Competitive Policy, and Business Enabling Environment Strategy; 3) eliminated the Pre￾shipment Inspection requirement; and 4) introduced a “single window” electronic payment system among importers, freight forwarders, dispatch agents and customs 15 2008 data is from the FY 2008 AGCI Annual Report. 16 2009 data is from the AGCI Compendium of Success Stories and from field interviews conducted in July 2009. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 30 Region/ Country Results Reported for AGCI in FY 200815 Additional Results as of July 200916 Zambia Government agreed to a customs improvement implementation plan The number of days required for registering new businesses in Zambia was reduced from 35 to 3. Ghana Ghana’s new Labor Act was operationalized in partnership with the National Labor Commission and the Trade Union Congress Senegal The number of days required to license a business was reduced from 58 to 8 days. Ministry of Labor developed the 29 decrees “necessary to implement a new Labor Code” Senegal’s Doing Business ranking changed from 168th in 2008 to 149th in 2009. The number of days required to license a business was further reduced from 8 to 2. Finding 2: According to data from the FY 2008 AGCI Annual Report, eight of the 15 AGCI-assisted countries have enacted significant policy, legal, or regulatory reforms that expand trade as a result of USG assistance. The life-of-initiative target for this lead indicator chosen by Africa Bureau to measure success over time as a result of AGCI assistance under the enabling environment component is 15. Finding 3: Interviews in the eight countries visited queried regional and bilateral missions, Hubs, bilateral mission implementing partners, RECs, and host country governments on the issue of the enabling environment. A summary of information from these interviews on activities that have been recently concluded or are currently under way is found in the table below17 . Country Examples of Progress Being Made in the Enabling Environment in 2009 Reported By Kenya Through a closely coordinated donor assistance process working with the Kenyan Agriculture Sector Coordination Unit, there is a now a consolidated legislative agenda and common strategy in line with the CAADP process. The new consolidated agriculture sector strategy, along with its proposed legal and regulatory reforms, should be signed by the government in October 2009 USAID/Kenya and the Government Agriculture Sector Coordination Unit Ethiopia The USAID WTO Accession Project is providing support for the government in preparing for WTO Accession, and has effectively dispelled myths held by the Ethiopian government and the private sector about dangers of WTO membership. The mission is actively engaged in donor coordination efforts with the government to convince the government to privatize the telecommunications and finance sectors USAID/Ethiopia 17 We have no information on this topic from Nigeria. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 31 Country Examples of Progress Being Made in the Enabling Environment in 2009 Reported By SADC and member nations Two areas of recent Hub work includes the development of a monitoring tool for the SADC Secretariat and the further development and expansion of the “user pay” principal with the Corridor Secretariats The South Africa Trade Hub provided support to SADC by: 1) auditing the past three years of member states on implementation of the Trade Protocol, 2) developing a trade monitoring and compliance instrument, 3) preparing a trade protocol business guide, 4) providing substantive input to the new draft Protocol on Trade in Services The Hub created a consolidated custom form to streamlined the process and reduce transaction costs USAID/SA Regional Mission SADC South Africa Trade Hub South Africa The SAIBL project helped develop the policy that called for the creation of the national credit regulatory body USAID/South Africa Botswana The Hub is providing support to Botswana to join the WTO by working on addressing three key GATT articles: Article 10 – transparency of formalities; Article 8 – fees and charges; and Article 5 – freedom of transit. It is also working at the country level to compare country regulations/laws against WTO (GATT) standards USAID/SA Regional Mission Zambia The USAID/MATEP project provided technical assistance to the small claims court to resolve problems at borders through support to necessary changes required by the legislation MATEP Senegal Progress has been made through USAID support in creating specialized commercial courts to improve the business environment. Progress has begun in developing protocols for ICT for trade corridors APIX (Government Ministry) and USAID/Senegal Ghana The West Africa Trade Hub is working with truckers and their associations to inform them on new laws passed to cover safety standards, and has set up a new information system to record data on bribes and delays that will help reduce this illegal behavior and cut down in time and costs for transporting goods across the border between Ghana and Togo USAID/West Africa Finding 4: Evidence from field interviews with bilateral and regional missions, trade hubs, RECs, and host country governments in the eight countries where the team conducted fieldwork pinpointed six key areas of the enabling environment currently being addressed by regional and/or bilateral missions: 1. Harmonization of policies, regulations, and standards among countries within a region to facilitate and increase regional trade. Examples include: Creating one-stop border posts where customs and other clearances are completed at one point (East and Southern Africa) Creating consolidated custom forms to streamline the process and reduce transaction costs (East and Southern Africa) Harmonizing safety, phyto-sanitary measures, and quality standards for regional trade (East and Southern Africa) Identifying incentives for host country governments to abolish regional trade barriers (all regions), cease involvement in commodity pricing (Kenya) and reduce burdensome regulations on the private sector (all regions) Supporting the capacity of RECs to convince/support member countries align their policies and regulations with regional trade agreements, as well as donor coordinated support to convince, advise, and assist host country governments in each region to make the required policy and regulatory adjustments (all regions) ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 32 2. Assistance to help host country governments to meet WTO GATT standards and to ascend to WTO membership. (Botswana, Ethiopia) 3. Engaging in dialogue with host country governments to abolish parastatals and to privatize key economic sectors. (Ethiopia, Kenya, and Burundi) 4. Promotion of changes in banking lending policies, collateral requirements and other regulations that would increase private sector access to financial services for business start-up, expansion, and engagement in regional or global trade. (all regions) 5. Assistance to host country governments to promote private investment and to streamline business regulations, particularly regarding reducing the number of procedures required to start a business. (Zambia and Senegal) 6. Assistance and training to increase the capacity of host country governments and private sector associations to engage in effective public-private dialogue on the business environment, and to increase the ability of private sector trade associations to lobby government for changes in policies and regulations that impede business growth and trade. (all regions) Conclusion 1: Based on data from the inception of AGCI, missions are making significant progress in improving the enabling environment in AGCI-assisted countries. Conclusion 2: Data from the field on work being pursued in 2009 demonstrates that missions are continuing to make progress in supporting host country government steps toward further reforms in line with regional trade agreements and on the enabling environment for private sector enterprises. It is generally acknowledged that the timeline of actual reform implementation often exceeds the timeline of USAID contract awards or even long-term USAID contracting vehicles. 18 Conclusion 3: Progress in implementing regional trade agreements in western Africa has been slow compared to eastern, central, and southern Africa. To further progress in implementing regional trade agreements in western Africa that were signed through ECOWAS, more concerted efforts must be made to promote and support member host country government willingness to reform as well as in taking concrete steps toward reforming necessary policies and regulations. Addressing the issue of overlapping REC membership will also pave the way for clarity on the regional integration agenda. Conclusion 4: There is a lack of clarity concerning uniform measurement of the primary performance indicator, where the goal is to enact significant policy, legal, or regulatory reform to expand trade in 15 countries. This is because the qualifications a country must fulfill to reach this threshold have not been defined. Recommendations: 1. If the successor to AGCI includes the same or a similar performance indicator measuring the number of countries enacting significant reform through support of the Initiative, Africa Bureau needs to address the deficiencies of the current indicator – including developing a set of criteria to determine what qualifies as “significant” reform and defining how to treat reforms that actually or potentially impact multiple countries – to ensure that progress made through the follow-on can be clearly recorded. 18 For example, refer to the Enabling Environment Policy Reform Field Assessment, Lessons Learned, 2009. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 33 2. Increase collaborative efforts, including among donors, between regional and bilateral missions to finalize the harmonization of tariffs, quality and safety standards, and to reduce non-tariff barriers to regional trade. 3. Provide technical assistance to increase host country government and trade association capacity to negotiate global and regional trade agreements. 4. Continue efforts to support an increase in effective public-private dialogue, and to increase the capacity of the private sector to effectively lobby government. 4.2 Component 2 – Enterprise Development The primary goal of AGCI firm-level technical assistance and training is to support advances in competitiveness and value-added exports to the United States, other global markets, and regional markets in Africa. From interviews with Hubs and bilateral contract implementing partners, the assessment team found that AGCI provides a wide range of technical assistance to private sector enterprises to support their capacity to trade and to be competitive in export markets. Technical assistance is targeted to two types of private sector enterprises: 1) export-ready firms that largely have the capacity to export to the United States or other international markets; and 2) “next generation” enterprises to increase their capacity for export-readiness. 4.2.1 Achievements to Date Conclusions on the achievements of AGCI work under the Enterprise Development Component are based on data from three sources: 1) the FY 2008 AGCI Annual Report; 2) AGCI Compendium of Success Stories, 2009; and 3) stakeholder interview data from Ghana, Senegal, Botswana, Zambia, South Africa, Kenya and Ethiopia collected in July 2009. Finding 1: AGCI measures overall success under the Enterprise Development Component based on the value of exports. Data on achievements for FY 2008 show growth in export value and sales from each of the three Sub-Saharan African regions, as well as from the AGCI-assisted countries of Ethiopia, Senegal, Kenya, South Africa, Uganda, and Zambia. The table below provides specific examples of export value and sales to U.S., regional, and other global markets. For more in-depth examples of AGCI progress being made under the enterprise strengthening component, refer to Annex G. Country/Region Enterprise Development Achievements Reported for 200819 East/Central Africa Region More than $8 million in exports to the U.S. market as a result of technical assistance provided by the East and Central Africa (ECA) Trade Hub to 21 firms in the region 184% increase in the value of intra-COMESA maize trade was realized Value of intra-regional trade in maize, dairy, cotton, and coffee increased 116% over 2006; exports of these same targeted agricultural commodities increased 35% Southern Africa Region $19.2 million in shipped exports as a result of industry-wide technical assistance and training provided by Southern Africa Global Competitiveness Hub (SAGCH) to 141 firms in the region 885 buyer/seller linkages in export markets were developed 19 Reported in the AGCI Annual Report for FY 2008. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 34 Country/Region Enterprise Development Achievements Reported for 200819 Western Africa Region $11.5 million in exports from AGOA-eligible countries to the United States as a result of capacity building assistance to 338 firms and trade and investment training to 2,064 participants provided by the West Africa Trade Hub (WATH) Ethiopia Achieved a 250% increase in AGOA exports over the prior year Exports from project-assisted firms in the sectors of coffee, oilseeds and pulses, hides, skins, and leather; and horticultural products increased by $227.8 million Senegal Achieved a 30% increase in AGOA exports over the prior year Kenya The value of Kenyan horticultural exports reached $1.02 billion in 2008. Some 70% of all of the exported vegetables, fruits, and nuts were grown by more than 300,000 smallholder farmers South Africa SMEs assisted by USAID successfully generated exports sales of more than $26 million during FY 2008 Uganda USAID assistance helped to create 43 new public-private partnerships resulting in agribusiness investments of more than $1 million Zambia USAID assisted SMEs and smallholder farms resulted in $40 million in exports Finding 2: The value of AGOA exports from USG-assisted AGOA-eligible countries to the United States is the lead indicator used by Africa Bureau to measure success over time as a result of AGCI assistance for enterprise development. Data from the FY 2008 AGCI Annual Report shows the cumulative effect of technical assistance and training exceeded the targets set by those operating units reporting on this indicator (refer to the table below). Indicator 2008 Target 2008 Actual 2009 Target Value of AGOA exports from AGOA-eligible countries to the United States as a result of USG assistance Ethiopia 4,000,000 4,300,000 12,000,000 Senegal 130,000 135,984 150,000 East Africa 7,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 Southern Africa 10,000,000 19,200,000 15,000,000 West Africa 12,000,000 26,800,000 14,000,000 Total 26,130,000 58,435,984 41,150,000 Finding 3: The AGCI assessment team consistently queried all stakeholders in each country about what kind of technical assistance is needed for enterprises engaged in trade going forward to both sustain and increase gains made to date in private sector development, and to increase trade capacity and competiveness. Major needs for assistance that were most often cited are briefly described below. 1. Access to finance is a critical issue. Respondents interviewed in Senegal, Nigeria, Zambia, South Africa, and Ethiopia all cited access to finance as the major impediment for enterprise development start-up, growth, and sustainability with respect to involvement in trade. This feedback is consistent with much wider results in the World Bank Enterprise Surveys. Specific problems cited included the need to resolve cash flow issues, the need for business loans to expand productive capacity, quality standards compliance, and market products and to penetrate new markets. This topic is discussed in more detail in Section 3.3. 2. Access to timely and quality market information is a key issue. Limited accessibility to reliable, real-time market information that can be used by export producers, traders, and buyers was cited as an impediment by the majority of stakeholders (trade associations, bilateral project implementers, host country governments, and other bilateral donors) interviewed. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 35 3. Continued technical assistance and training is needed to further increase the ability of exporters to access global markets. Respondents in Senegal, Nigeria, Zambia, Kenya, and Ethiopia highlighted the need for sustained assistance to build the capacity of exporters to expand into new markets and to further penetrate and sustain existing markets. One trade association director in Ethiopia noted that support from the Hub to attend a trade fair in the United States is not sufficient for what economists would term “distant market realization.” Assisted enterprises trying to break into United States markets under AGOA preferences require long-term follow-up training in how to turn leads and contacts made at trade fairs into solid contract orders. This follow-up timeline often exceeds those of implementation contracts or even contracting vehicles. 4. Continued technical assistance and training is needed to help export producers meet global and regional market quality standards, sanitary phyto-sanitary standards, and other safety measures. When targeting markets in the United States and Europe, enterprises still need assistance in meeting consumer preferences, packaging standards, international labor laws, and global fair trade practices. This issue was raised by many stakeholders interviewed in Kenya and Ethiopia and by SADC in Botswana. 5. Greater and sustained attention must be paid to the enabling environment in order to strengthen trade capacity and competitiveness, and to increase exports to both global and regional markets. The majority of stakeholders interviewed in all eight countries visited by the assessment team cited the need to resolve policy and regulatory issues that impede private sector competitiveness and ability to export. This issue is treated more substantively in Section 3.1. 6. More in-depth country, region-specific, and global value chain research is required to develop strategies for resolving constraints faced in targeted sub-sectors. Interviews in Ghana, Ethiopia, and Kenya underscored the need for more comprehensive value chain research in order to identify specific barriers and remaining gaps that impede exporters and affect their competitiveness in global and regional markets. However, interviews revealed that the regional mission in West Africa has utilized value chain analyses to inform its strategy and interventions. These studies are posted on the Hub Web site. Conclusion 1: The value of exports from AGCI-assisted countries to the United States through AGOA has increased significantly since the inception of AGCI. However, the global economic crisis has caused AGOA exports to plateau recently. AGOA exports may well decrease in the future due to the slowdown in global demand and similar duty-free preferences granted to more competitive non-African least developed countries. Conclusion 2: The original design of AGCI did not include adequate or sufficient indicators that can be used to measure the effectiveness, efficiency, or the true level of success of work carried out under this component. Despite the main indicator focusing only on AGOA exports, this component also supports capacity to export to regional and other international markets in addition to the United States AGCI does not currently direct or incentivize projects to determine the return on investment of their technical assistance vis-à-vis firm’s exports. Conclusion 3: Technical approaches to supporting enterprise development are diverse and specifically targeted to the demand of stakeholders. In addition, it would benefit missions to employ an integrated approach toward enterprise development that strategically draws on all AGCI components based on the identified six areas in Finding 3 above that require technical assistance. Recommendations: 1. A future technical assistance program to strengthen African enterprise competitiveness and capacity to successfully engage in regional and global trade should focus attention on the ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 36 appropriate mix of the six areas of assistance noted above, as appropriate to the specific country and based on comprehensive value chain research. To summarize, these areas include: Continued focus on aspects of the enabling environment that affect private sector competitiveness and intra- and inter-regional and global trade. To forward the process of regional integration for the promotion of economic growth in Africa, particular focus is needed to finalize the harmonization of customs, standards, and other non-tariff issues affecting the transit of goods, and finally, the implementation of free trade agreements by REC member nations. Continued focus on increasing access to finance for private sector enterprises (particularly SMEs) Continued support for enterprise access to global markets, and for greater penetration in existing markets. Further assistance is required to help enterprises with “distant market realization” beyond support to attend trade shows. Greater access to, and availability of, real-time and reliable market information by all participants involved in a sub-sector value chain. Training and assistance for enterprises to meet regional and then global standards. To develop the next generation of “export-ready” firms, it might be more effective to first support those firms in successfully meeting intra- and inter-regional safety and quality standards. The development of sub-sector-specific strategies based on more comprehensive value chain research (from input production to end market demands and requirements in targeted markets) that crosses political boundaries. 2. Develop adequate and appropriate measures of the effectiveness and efficiency of USAID support to enterprise development. The three Hubs should consider conducting a baseline study of the return on investment of assisted firms employing the same methodology in each region. To capture achievements under this component, a performance indicator measuring the value of total exports disaggregated by regional, U.S., and other international trade should be considered. 4.3 Component 3 – Access to Finance This section of the chapter discusses progress and challenges related to AGCI Component 3 on increasing access to financial services for trade and investment. The access to finance component has been managed in large part from Washington using centrally managed procurement mechanisms. These activities have focused on supporting the Partnership for Making Finance Work for Africa, an open partnership that seeks to “facilitate a scale-up of financial sector development support, overcome fragmentation, and increase aid efficiency.” In addition, a limited number of activities are managed by field missions, including loan guarantees where missions work in partnership with USAID/Washington’s Development Credit Authority. 4.3.1 Achievements to Date This section draws on achievements under the access to finance component based on data from three sources: 1) FY 2008 AGCI Annual Report, 2) AGCI Compendium of Success Stories, 2009, and 3) field interviews in eight African countries from Phase III of the assessment collected in July 2009. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 37 4.3.1.1 Achievements Reported in the Annual African Global Competitiveness Initiative Report for 2008 Finding 1: Credit to private sector as a percentage of gross domestic product for Africa is the lead indicator selected by AFR/SD to measure success over time as a result of AGCI assistance for its access to finance efforts.20 Indicator 2005 2006 2007 Credit to private sector as a percentage of gross domestic product for Sub-Saharan Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa 18.96 20.53 20.2721 4.3.1.2 Progress in Improving Access to Finance in 2009 – Evidence from the Field Finding 1: The assessment team interviews in the eight countries visited queried regional and bilateral missions, trade hubs, bilateral missions’ implementing partners, and host country governments on the issue of increasing access to finance. A summary of information from these interviews on achievements that have been made since the 2008 AGCI Annual Report is found in the table below. Country Examples of Progress Being Made in the Access to Finance Component as Reported During Phase III Fieldwork Reported By DC-Managed Activities Rwanda Introduced an automated off-site surveillance system to monitor financial markets for the National Bank of Rwanda USAID/ EGAT Nigeria Engaged the Central Bank of Nigeria for bank supervision and support for off-site surveillance systems for microfinance and non￾bank financial institutions USAID/ Nigeria Regional Assisted the European Community in developing a financial sector support capacity and integrating them into the Partnership for Making Finance Work in Africa USAID/ EGAT Eastern Africa Kenya In partnership with the USAID Washington-based DCA office, USAID/Kenya provides loan guarantees to local agricultural producers and SMEs Completed efforts to link the Central Bank of Kenya’s School of Monetary Studies with the FDIC Corporate University USAID/ Kenya USAID/ EGAT Ethiopia USAID/Ethiopia has a project that is helping SMEs gain access to bank finance USAID/ Ethiopia 20 The reported achievements to date cannot be attributed solely to USAID assistance given that there are a variety of other donors, host country governments, and African and international organizations working in related areas contributing to this high-level result. 21 Based on an estimated mean for the Africa region that has been calculated where 2007 data for 11 countries was not available. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 38 Country Examples of Progress Being Made in the Access to Finance Component as Reported During Phase III Fieldwork Reported By Southern Africa South Africa USAID/South Africa is providing financial support for African enterprises by working through traditional financial institutions. Strengthening business service providers’ ability to offer tailored support specific to the needs of South African SMEs, including financial literacy. Efforts are under way to develop an accreditation system for mentors with the ABSA Bank and Rays Corporation Partnering with the Department of Trade and Industry on policy development and assisting the National Credit Authority to reengineer its internal business processes All cited by USAID/ South Africa and FSP Project Zambia USAID/Zambia works with banks and leasing firms in directing increased levels of credit to smallholder agricultural producers In addition, USAID/Zambia worked with the Zambia Agribusiness Technical Assistance Centre (ZATAC), where the centre provided technical assistance in concert with funding to 20 SME clients The Agricultural Enhancement Security Scheme aggregates smallholder farmers to mimic some of the benefits of larger commercial farmers, including greater access to farming inputs and access to finance (such as credit guarantees) Provides Zambian business with comprehensive financial advisory services, including assessments of risk PROFIT Project ZATAC Lloyds Financial Services Lloyds Financial Services Western Africa Ghana The Western Africa Trade Hub is providing technical support to African enterprises on how to access loan products and increasing the awareness of commercial banks on underserved markets. West Africa Trade Hub Finding 2: In 47 field interviews where the question was asked to identify the top three barriers to increasing trade and economic growth in Africa, issues related to access to finance was cited the most of any single barrier. Access to finance was cited 21 times, as were issues related to infrastructure. Finding 3: In line with program design, AGCI’s financial sector component has been implemented with a view toward leveraging resources from other donors. Embarking on banking and financial sector activities on a larger scale would have been beyond the scope and limited resources of AGCI. Finding 4: The results framework description of AGCI’s financial sector component states that implementation of program activities “will require close collaboration with the other objectives of the AGCI to ensure a holistic approach.” It also states that to ensure sustainability, “activities will be closely coordinated with other objectives of the AGCI effort to ensure leveraging and complementarity.” Finding 5: Access to finance is the only AGCI component that developed a component-specific strategy document. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 39 Finding 6: Washington has focused its access to finance strategy by working with host country governments because it insists that field missions do not have the necessary expertise. Finding 7: Regional and bilateral missions have designed their access to finance activities with a view toward improving the business and regulatory environment and strengthening the skills and knowledge of private sector enterprises to take advantage of market opportunities. As such, they have concentrated on supporting partial credit guarantees to financial institutions and on encouraging private banks to go down￾market in order to reach underserved or crowded-out enterprises. Improving access to finance through greater regional integration has been their other main area of intervention. Missions and implementing partners alike have pointed out that – measured against their priorities – AGCI’s financial sector component may have addressed important structural deficiencies in the banking and financial system, but only a few of those issues have been directly relevant to what is being implemented in the field under the other AGCI components. Finding 8: The majority of the FY 2009 access to finance component funding is managed out of the Washington-based EGAT Bureau. Precise figures are not available, but based on Operating Units’ self￾reported funding levels Washington managed $4,300,000 and the field managed $3,155,000. Finding 9: Many regional and bilateral mission staff and implementing partners have also noted the AGCI finance component’s limited relevance to their work and its lack of integration with the other AGCI components. Finding 10: Of the field missions actively working with Washington in support of their finance portfolio, the majority of interviews have revealed satisfaction with the quality of technical assistance received. The bilateral mission online survey responses regarding EGAT’s performance were as followed: 1. Process and procedures for requesting technical assistance and support – seven respondents were very satisfied, two respondents were satisfied, and three respondents indicated that they do not engage in this type of interaction with EGAT. 2. Quality of technical assistance provided – five respondents were very satisfied, three respondents were satisfied, and four respondents indicated that they do not engage in this type of interaction with EGAT. 3. Regular communication to exchange ideas and/or keep each other abreast of issues and activities relevant to AGCI – eight respondents were very satisfied, three respondents were satisfied, and one respondent indicated that they do not engage in this type of interaction with EGAT. Conclusion 1: Despite a broad effort by USAID, it is apparent based on the interviews in the field and in Washington that increasing African producers, manufacturers, and exporters’ access to finance is still needed to promote business expansion in order to create growth, job creation, and increase market penetration. Conclusion 2: Field missions that have collaborated with Washington have been satisfied and expressed close coordination. However, the number of field missions involved in these activities has been limited given the lack of EGAT staffing, and these activities have been implemented in isolation from other AGCI components. Conclusion 3: A central, unresolved question is whether the structural reforms at the center of USAID/Washington’s approach to AGCI’s finance component are necessary to realize AGCI’s goal of increasing access to credit for African enterprises. Additional investigation by USAID could better inform this issue and then contribute to Africa Bureau’s future economic growth and trade program. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 40 Recommendations: 1. The access to finance component should be redefined to ensure that it is more supportive of advancing trade generally and more thoroughly integrated into the efforts of the regional and bilateral missions specifically. 2. Africa Bureau should further investigate when a centrally managed program based in Washington is appropriate to manage finance activities and the appropriate mix between DC and field￾administered activities. 3. Future finance interventions should be more informed by the field mission activities in the field. Africa Bureau should take stock of staff expertise in Washington and the field. 4.4 Component 4 – Infrastructure This section of the chapter discusses progress and challenges related to AGCI Component 4 on facilitating increased investment in infrastructure. AGCI interventions in infrastructure fall into three categories: transport, energy, and information and communication technology (ICT). The transport subcomponent has focused on creating efficient transport corridors and cross-border customs administration. The energy subcomponent has focused on regional integration and technical assistance to conclude late-stage transactions in energy investment. The main objective of the third subcomponent is to enhance competitiveness through expanded access to ICT. The transport subcomponent has been carried out mainly through the Hubs. ICT interventions have been implemented through Washington-managed procurement mechanisms. Energy activities have been implemented by both field missions and Washington through the Africa Infrastructure Program (AIP). 4.4.1 Achievements to Date This section draws on achievements under the infrastructure component based on data from three sources: 1) FY 2008 AGCI Annual Report, 2) AGCI Compendium of Success Stories, 2009, and 3) field interviews in eight African countries from Phase III of the assessment collected in July 2009. 4.4.1.1 Achievements Reported in the Annual African Global Competitiveness Initiative Report for 2008 Finding 1: Total public and private dollars leveraged by USG for energy, communication, and transportation infrastructure projects is the lead indicator selected by AFR/SD to measure success over time as a result of AGCI assistance for its infrastructure efforts. Indicator 2008 Target 2008 Actual 2009 Target Total public and private dollars leveraged by USG for energy, communication, and transportation infrastructure project. Southern Africa — — — West Africa 70,000,000 63,140,000 70,000,000 Washington — 1,650,000 — Total 70,000,000 64,790,000 70,000,000 ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 41 Country/Region Infrastructure Achievements under AGCI22 East and Central Africa Region ECA Hub has reduced the shipment time between Mombasa and Kampala by at least one day, which is estimated to have annual saving of $79 million. This was achieved by harmonizing Kenyan and Ugandan customs systems through the Hub’s installation and operationalization of the Revenue Authorities Digital Exchange customs software. The ECA Hub also facilitated the negotiation of a common approach to a regional transmission wheeling agreement and a framework agreement for electricity trading. Both are critical milestones to make regional energy trading a reality in East Africa Southern Africa Region In FY 2008, the Hub provided targeted assistance that enabled the Government of Mozambique to sign a Framework Agreement with the preferred bidder on the Moatize electricity generation project that will provide up to 1,500 MW of additional electricity in the southern Africa region SAGCH conducted a feasibility study on the establishment of a One-Stop Border Post at the border between Botswana and Namibia. This study established the legal framework for authorizing extraterritorial border controls and the Hub has successfully obtained commitment to the Post West Africa Region USAID’s work in West Africa helped to leverage more than $63 million in new investment in the energy sector in FY 2008. Wide media coverage of the West Africa Trade Hub’s transportation study revealing delayed shipping times and increased shipping costs due to corruption has resulted in Ghana, Mali, and Togo reducing the number of police and customs checkpoints. 4.4.1.2 Progress in Improving Infrastructure in 2009 – Evidence from the Field Country Examples of Progress Under the Infrastructure Component as Reported During Phase III Fieldwork Reported By East Africa Regional The East Africa Trade Hub’s support of infrastructure has been based on harmonizing transport standards across the region. The Trade Hub conducted a regional study examining transit barriers and has supported the trade corridors. Much of the support provided by the Trade Hub is directed to or through COMESA. The Transit Northern Corridor Association has also benefitted East Africa Trade Hub and the USAID/East Africa Regional Mission 22 Achievements reported in the 2008AGCI Annual Report. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 42 Country Examples of Progress Under the Infrastructure Component as Reported During Phase III Fieldwork Reported By Southern Africa Regional The Southern Africa Trade Hub’s approach has focused on regional transport with an emphasis on trade facilitation. The Trade Hub has engaged in the following activities: 1) study on the impacts of liberalizing air transport policy, 2) study on privatizing ports and terminals, 3) creating a panel concerning regional harmonization of vehicle standards, 4) collaborating on WTO trade assessments (Madagascar, Seychelles, Malawi, and Botswana), and 5) partnering on Aid for Trade studies investigating issues related to transit trade. The Southern Africa Trade Hub’s foundation for regional transport resides in its support for strengthening three transport corridors: Trans-Kalahari Corridor, Dar es Salaam Corridor, and Maputo Corridor. The Trade Hub assisted the transport corridors develop work plans. It assisted the Trans￾Kalahari Corridor in developing a transit monitoring system, which will help identify transport bottlenecks and provide a baseline for measuring improvements. Capacity building efforts have focused on building sustainable African institutions and the Trade Hub has promoted the “user pay” principal, which generates a consistent revenue stream from users of the corridor. A nominal portion of this fee also goes to support the Corridor Secretariats. The Trade Hub has introduced a one-stop border post where customs and other clearances are done at one point. This has included harmonizing customs transit procedures into a single administrative document, called the SAD 500, which is now being utilized in several countries throughout southern Africa. Technical assistance to the Southern Africa Power Pool from the appointment of a South Africa-based Regional Energy/Infrastructure Transaction Specialist and the DC-based Africa Infrastructure Program will identify gaps in power development based on the Power Pool’s identification of ten priority projects. Assistance has targeted inadequate regulatory structures, especially with renewable technologies such as wind power Southern Africa Trade Hub USAID/ South Africa West Africa Regional The Trade Hub has placed significant efforts in mapping the Bamako-Dakar and the North-South Corridors. Support has been provided to ECOWAS’ West African Power Pool. West Africa Trade Hub Illustrative Activities and Results Transport USAID/West Africa has focused on the sources of transport inefficiency in the region and their impact on cost under its Improved Road Transport Governance initiative. As part of that effort, the WATH has tracked and disseminated data on delays and bribes along major cargo corridors in the region – an effort that prompted the Economic and Monetary Union of West Africa and its member states and the private sector and civil society organizations to take a more active role in removing those constraints. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 43 The ECA trade hub has supported COMESA’s initiatives to encourage national authorities to enforce regional trade facilitation instruments such as harmonized vehicle overload control, standardized road user charges, harmonized motor vehicle insurance and mutual recognition of licenses for heavy commercial vehicles involved in trans-border shipments. USAID/Southern Africa has assisted SADC in the introduction in of the Single Administrative Document (SAD 500) between Botswana and Namibia. SAD 500 is a standardized goods declaration form that incorporates the necessary information for advanced customs clearance and customs risk-management purposes. A roll-out of the SAD 500 in other SADC countries is planned. Ongoing collaboration between USAID and SADC aims at reducing transit time and cost on three regional corridors: the Trans Kalahari Corridor, the Maputo Development Corridor, and the Dar es Salam Corridor. Ongoing or planned activities include the development of one-stop border posts, sustainability studies, implementation of a corridor performance monitoring system, and cross-border overload control. Energy USAID/West Africa has assisted the West Africa Power Pool, an initiative that was designed in 1999 under the auspices of ECOWAS as a forum for the development of policies and projects relating to the West Africa transmission system. The Pool is an ambitious undertaking to promote sustainable development of the region’s energy. Its activities include physical infrastructure development, facilitation of interconnected system operations, development of regional codes and standards, and promotion of energy trade and investment. The major objectives of USAID’s technical assistance are to strengthen the institutional and legal framework that must accompany generation, transmission, and distribution of energy in the region; improve the financing environment for energy infrastructure; and increase private sector investment and participation in regional projects. The Southern Africa trade hub seeks to remove barriers to private sector investment in energy and facilitate late stage transactions. It works closely with the Regional Electricity Regulatory Association, a SADC subsidiary body, to establish, operationalize, train, and build capacity in electricity regulators within the SADC region. USAID/Washington’s AIP has assisted the Central African Power Pool in expanding electric infrastructure and operational capacity. USAID assistance has included capacity building to improve regional grid operations and the enabling environment to promote private investment; and planning for the expansion of energy generation and transmission within Angola, DRC and other Pool member countries and to other regions. AIP has provided finance, legal, technical experts to help the Government of Botswana negotiate regulatory and environmental contracts. Fifteen activities are under consideration in Cameroon, Botswana, Djibouti, Kenya, Namibia, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. ICT USAID/West Africa has implemented a program to expand access to ICT in the region, build capacity of local service providers, and leverage private investment in the ICT sector. Activities to achieve this objective have included a partnership with the Intel Corporation to help small businesses take advantage of new broadband capabilities for interaction with major American buyers, and a partnership with MTN, an African mobile network operator, to facilitate cross-border transactions via cell phones. The ECA trade hub has assisted in the introduction in Kenya and Uganda of the Revenue Authorities Data Digital Exchange customs software to reduce the time and cost associated with trade in Eastern Africa. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 44 Connections between Kenya and Tanzania were also tested and a pilot program between Uganda and Rwanda is contemplated. USAID/Washington’s Communications Cooperatives International is an AGCI effort to improve ICT usage in Africa. It helps promote the necessary legal and regulatory framework to enable the successful operation of community-based providers in the ICT sector. Its activities have included strengthening a Sub-Saharan Africa alliance of ICT activities in 11 universities, and supporting the Africa Global Quilt Alliance, a public-private partnership between USAID, the Internet Educational Equal Access Foundation, and Geographic Network Affiliates International, a private U.S. company. Finding 1: In approximately 47 field interviews where the question was asked to identify the top three barriers to increasing trade and economic growth in Africa, issues related to infrastructure was cited the most of any single barrier. Infrastructure was cited 21 times, as was issues related to access to finance. Finding 2: There is abundant evidence (see, for instance, World Bank 2009) that a significant source of competitive disadvantage in Africa is the high costs associated with the continent’s poor infrastructure. African firms face crippling electricity shortages for reasons ranging from poor planning to population booms, high oil prices, and drought. Power outages have severe cost implications because firms facing unreliable power have to purchase generators or, for those with more limited resources, lose sales. Similarly, a critical factor in trade competitiveness is inland transportation costs. African geography – with its low ratio of roads per square kilometers, large distances and multitude of land-locked countries – represent a natural obstacle to competitiveness. Not surprisingly, a number of infrastructure initiatives are ongoing on all those fronts, including NEPAD’s Infrastructure Investment Facility, the World Bank’s Sustainable Infrastructure Action Plan, and the ongoing or planned MCC-supported infrastructure projects in individual countries. Finding 3: Addressing the infrastructure problem in Africa requires action on two fronts: physical infrastructure and regulations. In line with program design and the Agency’s comparative advantage, the infrastructure component has not been involved in physical infrastructure and has focused on leveraging resources from other donors and the private sector. AGCI’s approach not to engage in physical infrastructure is justified on two grounds. First, AGCI does not have the resources to embark on electricity, telecommunications, transport, and similar infrastructure projects to make Africa a more cost-friendly location to conduct business. Second, AGCI’s approach is based on USAID’s comparative advantage. As noted in USAID’s 2008 Strategy for Economic Growth, USAID finances little infrastructure directly, except for post-conflict and post-disaster reconstruction and in some strategic states. However, USAID works successfully in many countries to improve policies in energy, telecommunications, water, and transport in ways that leverage the economic impact of infrastructure investments by others. In this context, USAID efforts seek to promote private investment and competent, transparent, and accountable regulatory institutions to maintain an enabling environment that ensures good performance, rational prices, and environmental protection – issues that AGCI has addressed under its infrastructure component. Finding 4: Missions and implementing partners have pointed out that unlike transport activities (which are mainly managed by the field missions) energy and ICT activities that have been centrally managed have not always been well-coordinated and aligned with the field missions’ portfolio. According to field interviews, this may result in Washington-managed infrastructure activities being disjointed from the other AGCI activities that are implemented in the field under the other AGCI components. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 45 Conclusion: AGCI’s focus on transport, energy, and ICT issues has addressed key constraints to greater competitiveness in Africa. AGCI’s focus on infrastructure regulations – and not on physical infrastructure – not only reflects the Initiative’s limited resources, but is also in line with USAID comparative advantage. AGCI’s success must be tempered by the limited integration of certain energy and ICT activities with the other AGCI activities being implemented by the field missions. Recommendations 1. Africa Bureau should continue to build infrastructure activities into its ongoing efforts to promote trade and economic growth in Africa. However, increased integration between Washington and the field is necessary to ensure that these infrastructure activities are supportive of other AGCI components to the greatest extent possible. 2. Africa Bureau should further investigate when a centrally managed program based in Washington is appropriate to manage infrastructure activities and the appropriate mix between DC- and field￾administered activities. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 46 5. PERFORMANCE MONITORING, REPORTING, AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING This chapter addresses the following AGCI Assessment Question: What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the AGCI performance monitoring and reporting system? The first section of this chapter examines the performance monitoring and reporting system and the second section examines knowledge sharing and dissemination under AGCI. The latter discusses AGCI’s ability to identify and share best practices and lessons learned regarding increasing economic growth and trade in Africa for field missions and their implementing partners participating in AGCI. 5.1 Performance Monitoring and Reporting As a Presidential Initiative, AGCI requires a separate performance monitoring and reporting system for the purposes of informing the USAID, interagency USG agencies, Congress, Executive branch, and other stakeholders and the public. The findings presented in this chapter are based on extensive interviews with the KSA performance monitoring specialist. 5.1.1 Background Implementation of AGCI officially began at the start of fiscal year 2006, with Africa Bureau laying out the basic requirements of a performance monitoring and reporting system. These efforts included establishing four macro-level goals for the corresponding AGCI components, identifying a list of performance indicators that could be utilized under each AGCI component, and developing a results framework that explained how the planned results in each of the four AGCI components contributed to increasing African trade. One of KSA’s key responsibilities is to collect, verify the quality of, and analyze AGCI performance data and results for the production of the annual AGCI Report. KSA staff aggregate data from each AGCI mission for reporting on performance against component indicators. The original set of AGCI indicators was established by AFR/SD in 2006. This set of AGCI indicators was drawn on both indicators from USAID’s Strategic Framework and custom indicators23 based on indicators that were established by previous Trade Initiatives already in use by missions in Africa. For the 2007 AGCI Annual Report, KSA staff relied on a data call to the field. In 2008, KSA developed a consolidated data collection system and an AGCI Supplemental Reporting Form24 for annual reporting on AGCI performance in response to a request from Africa Bureau. The primary purpose of this system is for use in reporting against this Initiative to USAID Washington and to other key USG stakeholders. AFR/SD directed KSA to develop an approach whereby AGCI missions could report on a system based mostly on standard indicators that were developed for use by the F Bureau (Department of State) and USAID. KSA began by conducting an examination of the indicators AGCI missions were using in addition to those established by Africa Bureau in 2006, and a review of standard 23 Custom indicators are those indicators that are developed by USAID operating units and are tailored to specifically reflect progress in the programs they are implementing. 24 See the Annex of this report for the AGCI Supplemental Reporting Form. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 47 State Department indicators that had direct relevance to AGCI. Based on this review, KSA developed a draft for a new set of indicators. KSA sent the revised draft indicators to all of the AGCI missions for comment in the spring of 2008. KSA staff queried the missions in an accompanying email regarding whether the set of indicators was applicable to mission AGCI-funded programs, how relevant they were in capturing AGCI-related work, and asked for suggestions on how to improve the indicators. Staff also held discussions on the revised indicators with AGCI Component Leaders in EGAT and AGCI managers and staff in AFR/SD. A final revision of the indicators was developed on the basis of feedback from missions, AFR/SD, and EGAT. In addition, the KSA performance monitoring specialist created detailed reference sheets25 for each of the indicators. The resulting set of 18 AGCI indicators comprises 14 indicators drawn from the F Bureau’s standard Economic Growth indicators, and four custom indicators. Data for the AGCI Goal and Intermediate Goal relies on third-party data sources from USTDA and the World Bank. AGCI missions are not required to provide data at these two levels, but they are required to report on data for indicators for the four Inter mediate Results that correspond to the four components of AGCI. In 2008, the KSA performance monitoring specialist also worked on a revision of the original AGCI results framework to depict more of the logic behind the theory of how the initiative should work to achieve progress against AGCI’s goal level indicators on the value of trade and competitiveness for Africa. KSA created an intermediate goal for the results framework related to increases in the competitiveness of AGCI-assisted countries to clarify the logic between progress made on the four components and the overall AGCI goal indicator on the increased value of regional and international trade of AGCI-assisted countries.26 The AGCI supplemental reporting form was first sent to missions with AGCI funding in August 2008 with detailed instructions on how to use the form for mission performance reporting, detailed indicator reference sheets27 for each of the required AGCI indicators with instructions, and the newly revised AGCI results framework (See illustration on next page depicting the current AGCI results framework and indicators). To support this roll-out, KSA engaged in telephone conversations and detailed discussions with a number of missions on the interpretation of the wording of some of the indicators, their definitions, and means of data collection. The KSA performance monitoring specialist is currently working with the F Bureau team that built the FACTS system28 to incorporate the AGCI indicators. The AGCI indicators will be labeled as such on FACTS. This will be in place for use by AGCI missions to use for FY 2009 performance reporting. AGCI missions will no longer have to report using the supplemental form in a separate submission. Africa Bureau now has a field-tested, standardized set of indicators to report on AGCI results that responds to the standard indicator requirements established for the U.S. Department of State and USAID 25 See the Annex of this report for the AGCI Indicator Reference Sheets. 26 See the Annex for the current AGCI Results Framework and indicators. 27 The indicator reference sheet is a standard sheet developed by the F Bureau for use by all Department of State and USAID operating units to guide data collection and it includes the definition, rational, unit of analysis, and direction of change, but they do not include any guidance on data collection or data calculation methods. 28 FACTS is an electronic system developed by the Department of State’s F Bureau to fully automate online data reporting on foreign assistance programs by USAID and the Department of State. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 48 for reporting purposes on U.S. Foreign Assistance. It is too early to say if the inclusion of the AGCI indicators into the FACTS system will provide reporting efficiencies. 5.1.2 Success of the AGCI Performance Monitoring and Reporting System in Capturing and Aggregating Program Results across the Initiative’s Portfolio Based on interviews with the KSA performance monitoring specialist, all but one of the 15 AGCI missions reported FY 2008 data using the AGCI supplemental reporting form. The data from mission reporting was aggregated by KSA across all the missions that implemented AGCI-funded programs for the Intermediate Level outcome and associated output indicators. The data was used to help produce the FY 2008 AGCI report29 . Finding 1: Interviews with the KSA performance monitoring specialist revealed that KSA staff had to engage in extensive discussions with all of the missions to verify data sources and means of data calculation before data could be aggregated across AGCI missions for FY 2008 reporting. KSA’s review of AGCI data revealed that the field missions had been employing differing data collection methods. Finding 2: F Bureau standard performance indicators (including the subset of those indicators incorporated into the AGCI results framework) do not provide detailed guidance on definitions and data collection methods to ensure consistency across the various AGCI missions. Conclusion 1: KSA’s efforts in ensuring that data collected across the missions was defined in a uniform manner illustrates the inherent weaknesses of the F Bureau standard indicators. These standard indicator definitions lack specificity and data collection guidance is vague, which in the past has resulted in inconsistent methods being applied to collecting data reported across AGCI missions. This adversely affects the accuracy and reliability of data collected under AGCI. It should be noted that this problem with the F Bureau standard indicators is applicable to all of the standard indicators. Conclusion 2: Although all but one mission reported data using the AGCI supplemental reporting form, the lack of any direction for data collection on standard indicators leaves wide room for interpretation of how to collect these data and to calculate values, resulting in the problems experienced with aggregating data across AGCI missions for the Annual Report (Finding 1 above). Many of these indicators need further definitional clarification as well as standardization regarding how participating missions calculate values and report. Recommendations: 1. Africa Bureau should continue its efforts to develop specific guidance in the definitions and data collection procedures for AGCI performance indicators to overcome the challenges described above with the F Bureau standard indicators. These efforts should result in updating the AGCI Indicator Reference Sheets before the February 2010 annual AGCI meeting to help participating missions with their FY 2010 AGCI reporting. These standards would result in more reliable and consistent data. 2. Africa Bureau should consider developing a session on these standards during the February 2010 AGCI meeting. At a minimum, performance monitoring staff should be available to assist AGCI activity managers based in Washington and in the field to ensure that missions are reporting in a consistent manner. These actions could be of value beyond AGCI, as it is possible that many of the current performance indicators would be utilized by the successor to AGCI. 29 See the FY 2008 Africa Competitiveness and Growth Initiative Annual Report. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 49 5.1.3 Field Satisfaction with the AGCI Reporting System To obtain data on how missions view this new consolidated reporting system in terms of the relevance of the indicators, ease of data collection, and level of reporting burden, the AGCI assessment team included a series of questions regarding mission level of satisfaction with various aspects of this system in the online survey that was sent to all of the AGCI missions in June 2009. 5.1.3.1 Pertinence of AGCI Indicators to Mission AGCI-Funded Activities Finding 1: In response to the bilateral mission online survey question regarding the level of satisfaction with the pertinence of AGCI performance indicators to the missions’ AGCI-funded activities, 91.7% of respondents reported that they were satisfied. Finding 2: Interviews with four USAID missions and seven of the 11 AGCI implementing partners reveal dissatisfaction with the AGCI performance indicators. The main deficiencies reported during these interviews were that the performance indicators concentrated at the output level and that there is an absence of meaningful higher-level outcome indicators. Field mission staff stated that the current set of AGCI performance indicators do not adequately capture the worthwhile achievements resulting from AGCI activities. Finding 3: At least some AGCI-funded missions are collecting data on custom, outcome-level performance indicators that are being utilized by the field to manage their programs. The assessment team found evidence of two regional and two bilateral missions collecting such data. While these results are being reported, at least in part, through narrative accounts in mission and/or implementing partner performance reports, Washington has no systematic means to collect this information and consolidate these results at the Initiative level. Conclusion: While the individual AGCI performance indicators are pertinent, collectively this set of performance indicators is not sufficient to capture the higher-level results being achieved through AGCI. Challenges in developing a more comprehensive set of performance indicators that capture the results being achieved under AGCI include: 1) Agency reliance on F Bureau standard indictors that are primarily focused on output measures and 2) The diverse array of AGCI activities complicate the ability to produce a manageable set of indicators. Recommendations: 1. Maintain the current monitoring and reporting system for the FY 2009 and FY 2010 reporting period because of its utility in aggregating AGCI performance data across the Initiative for the AGCI Annual Report. In addition, clarify that the current set of indicators is primarily for reporting (i.e., not for management purposes) and continue to augment the AGCI annual report with compendiums of success stories that are assembled by KSA. 2. A performance monitoring and reporting system for the successor to AGCI would be better served by including additional performance indicators that capture higher-level outcome results. That being said, it will be difficult to develop a concise set of meaningful performance indicators across such a diverse Initiative (or its successor) because of the wide variety of work undertaken to promote economic development and trade across Africa. 3. In developing a future performance monitoring and reporting system for the successor to AGCI, Africa Bureau should have explicit and defined goals for the use of that system – reporting or management, or both – and develop the system accordingly. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 50 4. If the decision is made to develop a system that serves both management and reporting functions, develop (outcome-level) custom indicators for each intermediate result that is more closely and tightly aligned with field mission program results. Outcome indicators at the intermediate result level have the potential of providing more meaningful information to AGCI managers and missions for program management. It also has the benefit of more clearly demonstrating concrete progress that is explicitly linked with mission activities. In addition, employ an accompanying smaller set of F Bureau standard output-level indicators for the AGCI follow-on that can be used more readily for aggregation and reporting. 5. The development of a performance monitoring system should be done in coordination with the development of Africa Bureau’s future economic growth strategy and program. 5.1.3.2 Pertinence of Performance Indicators at the Goal and Component Specific Intermediate Result Levels. As mentioned above, AGCI missions are not required to collect and report data against the AGCI primary and intermediate goals. Africa Bureau relies on third-party data sources from the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, and other organizations for this performance information. Finding 1: One of the key indicators used for reporting against the AGCI Intermediate Goal “Increased competitiveness of selected African countries” is the Global Competitiveness Index score for selected Sub-Saharan Africa indicators. The problem with using this indicator is that individual country scores can go down relative to other countries as the scoring for other countries goes up, or the score may not change even though a country has made progress in individual factors on which the Index is based. This can obscure real steps forward that are actually being made by individual countries. 30 Finding 2: The performance indicator used to measure success against the AGCI intermediate result “Improved market knowledge, skills and abilities of private sector enterprises to trade” (IR 2) is the value of AGOA exports from AGOA-eligible countries to the United States as a result of USG assistance. While this performance indicator does capture one aspect of the performance of private sector enterprises involved in trade, it undercounts the total achievements of trade performance in these countries by focusing solely on the value of exports to the United States The AGOA-eligible countries visited by the AGCI assessment team were also exporting to other global markets and to markets within the region. Since USG assistance also targeted support of regional trade and trade with other global markets, this indicator should be expanded to include the value of exports to each of these other markets. A second problem with the current indicator is that it is actually a subset of the performance indicator used to measure the AGCI goal, the value of non-petroleum exports of selected African countries. This IR requires its own discrete performance indicator that is a more direct measure of the IR “Improved market knowledge, skills and abilities of private sector enterprises to trade.” Conclusion 1: Three of the seven third-party performance indicators used to report against the AGCI goal, intermediate goal, and one of the intermediate results have problems related to stability (fluctuating values), fairness (in the sense of not capturing actual country performance in its own right), or adequacy (the totality of the achievement is not captured). As a result, AGCI stakeholders are not getting a true picture of the results that are actually being achieved. During the process of creating a performance monitoring and reporting system for the successor to AGCI, the creators of that system should seek to 30 For further comments on the use of the Global Competitiveness Index and the Ease of Doing Business Index, see the Enabling Environment Policy Reform Field Assessment KSA, 2009 (soon to be released and posted on the AGCI Web site). The assessment provides critical analysis on the Ease of Doing Business indicator in particular, and suggests that the Trading Across Borders Index is a more appropriate measure of competitiveness for AGCI. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 51 ensure that in selecting high-level third-party performance indicators that they avoid the pitfalls mentioned above. Recommendations: 1. When selecting performance indicators for high-level results (the goal and intermediate goal levels) for the successor to AGCI, Africa Bureau needs to pay particular attention to third-party data sources regarding their suitability to the program and expected program performance. Stability of values and directness of the indicator related to the actual program goal are important issues that need to be considered when selecting key program performance indicators. 2. Africa Bureau should review the performance indicators to ensure that they are sufficiently broad enough to cover all of the support and results being achieved. For example, when using an indicator to measure the value of exports as a result of USG assistance, it should look beyond AGOA exports since USAID provides assistance in the promotion of trade regionally and to other international markets. When appropriate, disaggregate performance data by U.S., other international, and regional trade. 5.1.3.3 Satisfaction with the Level of Data Collection and Reporting Requirements Finding 1: In response to the question regarding level of satisfaction with the level of reporting requirements for AGCI indicators, 75% reported that they were satisfied. One respondent indicated that they were unsatisfied, and two reported that they were neither satisfied nor unsatisfied. Finding 2: Four of the seven missions whose staff were interviewed on the question related to the AGCI performance reporting system commented that the total data collection and reporting burden for all Presidential Initiatives and Congressional earmarks, including AGCI, is heavy and time-consuming. Specifically, missions and their implementing partners are providing information for the OP plus AGCI, IEHA, Aid for Trade, and Global Food Security Network indicators. Staff from these missions noted that they would like to see some harmonization of reporting related to these initiatives. Conclusion: AGCI data collection requirements are not particularly burdensome since AGCI currently relies on low-level output measures. However, when taken together with other data collection and reporting requirements across the Agency, field missions do face a significant burden from the totality of these requirements. There has been no harmonization or integration of reporting requirements for related Presidential Initiatives or earmarks (within a broad sector). Recommendation: In recognition of the overlapping Africa Bureau and Agency-wide Presidential Initiatives whose beneficiaries are often the same across the African continent, begin taking steps toward developing a consolidated system of indicators that can be used in the future. While some indicators will undoubtedly be applicable only to particular initiatives, there will still be a great deal of overlap that can be taken advantage of to utilize performance indicators across multiple initiatives. 5.2 Knowledge Sharing and Dissemination 5.2.1 Background The KSA contract is charged with identifying, developing, and circulating best practice pieces on AGCI activities. KSA is responsible for identifying best practices related to the infrastructure, trade development, enterprise development, and enabling environment components each year of the contract. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 52 The fourth component, access to finance, is covered by an existing knowledge sharing contract, FS SHARE,31 managed by the AGCI Finance component leader in EGAT. The primary manager of AGCI in AFR/SD/EGEA regularly disseminates AGCI-related documents to AGCI missions and implementing contractors through the AGCI Listserv and places them on the AGCI Web site. These include annual compendiums of AGCI success stories developed under the KSA contract, best practice documents developed by KSA, and Annual Reports on AGCI progress. 5.2.2 Level of Satisfaction with Dissemination of Best Practices and AGCI Results and Achievements Finding 1: In response to the survey question on mission level of satisfaction with “regular communications meant to inform you of AGCI’s results and achievements,‖ 11 out of 12 respondents reported being satisfied or very satisfied, with the majority being very satisfied. An additional respondent reported that they do not engage with AFR/SD in this regard. Finding 2: Overall, 88% of the 12 respondents to the survey reported being satisfied or very satisfied with ―regular communications meant to inform you of AGCI best practices.‖ Finding 3: The AGCI Web site contains linkages to three best practice documents concerning the development of trade-oriented enterprises. According to interviews with KSA staff, the topics for these best practices were identified through discussion with the three Hubs at an AGCI meeting in Ghana in March 2008. The three documents were initially disseminated together through: 1. Placement on the AGCI Web site 2. Placement on the Business Growth Initiative Web site32 3. Listing on the USAID DEC Clearinghouse Database 4. Direct dissemination through a USAID Listserv that covers all AGCI missions. Finding 4: The feedback from the missions also requested AFR/SD/EGEA to go one step further by presenting future best practices at workshops and training for AGCI missions and related project staff, rather than in reports. In response to this request, KSA staff report that plans are under way for further development and dissemination of AGCI best practices, primarily through enhanced Web site functionality and workshops. Finding 5: The AGCI Web site is not used to learn about best practices. The assessment team asked staff in bilateral AGCI missions, the three regional missions, the Hubs, and some of the bilateral AGCI-funded project CTOs and other staff if they were aware of and if they used the AGCI Web site. All of the respondents interviewed who were asked about their awareness and use of the AGCI Web site reported that they did not use the AGCI Web site. Finding 6: Best practices and lessons learned developed by the field cannot be directly downloaded by mission or contract staff on the AGCI Web site. They must be submitted to AFR/SD, edited, and formatted according to USAID/LPA’s communication policy requirements, and go through a rigorous review approval process in USAID/Washington to ensure value and quality before they are placed on the AGCI Web site. 31 http://www.fsshare.org/ 32 www.businessgrowthinitiative.org ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 53 Finding 7: AFR/SD has recently expanded the AGCI Web site by including five new pages devoted to new publications and to each of the four AGCI components. AFR/SD has sent out an email to all AGCI participants and stakeholders to inform them of this expansion and to request feedback. Finding 8: AFR/SD has developed FOSTER, an extranet system for real-time dialogue (blogging) with USAID direct hire staff throughout Sub-Saharan Africa. FOSTER has an e-library site to store AGCI documents. AFR/SD is also posting AGCI technical papers to solicit feedback on the discussion/blog site. FOSTER is not accessible to the Hubs or other contractors implementing AGCI activities as this time. Conclusion 1: AFR/SD has met AGCI mission expectations in communicating AGCI results and progress, and in disseminating lessons learned. KSA has been responsive to the requirements of its contract to identify, develop, and disseminate AGCI best practices. However, based on comments from the field regarding use of the AGCI Web site (Finding 6 above), and the lengthy AFR/DP and LPA approval process required for placing timely information and best practices on it (Finding 7 above), this Web site is not a fast or reliable place to disseminate best practice documents. AFR/SD’s recent announcement to the field on the expansion of the external Web site and the addition of the internal FOSTER Web site encouraging feedback may help to further improve usage. Conclusion 2: The creation of an extranet can be taken as an opportunity and an important step forward to encourage informal and more frequent communication among missions, and also between missions and AFR/SD/EGEA and EGAT on issues related to the design and implementation of AGCI activities in the field. However, it is limited in that AGCI implementing partners will not be able to participate in this Web site given that they could profit from discussions around implementation issues. Recommendations: 1. Using the AGCI Listserv, continue to disseminate information and advertise the AGCI Web site contents and best practice documents to encourage readership; send periodic emails of notification as new lessons learned pieces and other documents of interest to missions and their implementing partners are placed on the Web site. Continue efforts to improve the value of the current AGCI Web site through timelier placement of relevant and informative information through the remainder of AGCI. 2. As requested by AGCI missions, hold workshops during annual AGCI conferences or at other scheduled times on the topic of best practice documents to help mission and contractor staff in the field to apply the practice. 3. A Washington, D.C. KSA training session for Development Leadership Interns prior to their field assignment would inform them of the initiative, trade-related economic growth best practices and lessons learned and PMR requirements. 4. USAID should encourage other USG agencies to allow hot links between the AGCI Web site and theirs. For example, the U.S. Department of Commerce has recently agreed to establish hot links between their AGOA.gov Web site and the AGCI Web site. 5. AFR/SD/EGEA should monitor “unique” visitors (hit rate) to the AGCI Web site as a means of determining overall usage. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 54 6. Encourage bilateral and regional missions to use FOSTER to pose questions, comments, potential best practices, and to share experiences and ideas; and to download pertinent traffic to send to implementing partners. 7. AFR/SD/EGEA should monitor the discussions between AGCI missions to identify potential topics for best practices or workshops for further development. 8. KSA should work with AFR/SD/EGEA to migrate documents from the AGCI Web site to FOSTER and other sites before the 9-30-2010 end date of the initiative when IRM may stop supporting the AGCI site. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 55 6. LESSONS LEARNED: FUTURE REGIONAL ECONOMIC GROWTH AND INTEGRATION IN AFRICA This chapter addresses the following Assessment Question concerning lessons learned. How can AGCI bilateral activities assist African countries to integrate an increasingly regional approach to economic growth and trade? How have bilateral mission efforts supported AGCI regional activities, and in turn how have bilateral mission efforts been supported by AGCI regional activities? How can AGCI inform the increasing emphasis on regional approaches to development in Africa? The assessment team queried bilateral and regional mission staff, Hub staff, and bilateral mission project implementation staff in the eight missions visited on the degree of coordination around regional economic growth and trade objectives. Based on the interview data, coordination does take place between regional and bilateral contractors around specific commodities where regional approaches make sense (for example, in western Africa the West African Cashew Alliance, and in eastern Africa, the Kenya Maize Development Program contractors worked with the Hub to develop the capacity of the East Africa Grain Council whose work now benefits Kenyan maize producers). Other instances of coordination focus on non-tariff barrier issues related to regional transit for the movement of commodities (for example, WATH and the Senegal Economic Growth project collaborate on transport and road governance issues.) However, these regional activities between Hubs and bilateral contractors are largely ad hoc and opportunistic. They are not based on formal strategies or work plans developed jointly by regional and bilateral missions. To increase the effectiveness and country benefits of bilateral/regional coordination between contractors, more formalized and systematic strategic planning and joint work plan development is needed between bilateral and regional missions within regions and/or sub-regions. Bilateral and regional mission staff understand this need, but at present there are no incentives to carry out formalized plans to do so. An evaluation of the prior Africa Bureau initiative, TRADE, conducted in 2006, stated that USAID needed to develop an overall bilateral/regional strategy for each region. The “under-defined relationship” between the bilateral and regional missions presented challenges for planning integrated programs. The same situation holds today. There is strong potential to strengthen and build on collaborative efforts to date to increase regional trade and regional integration if incentive structures were changed. In conclusion, as a first step Africa Bureau must decide to develop an explicit policy to promote regional economic growth and integration in Africa, requiring bilateral and regional missions to work together. We further recommend that Africa Bureau convene meetings in each region of Sub-Saharan Africa with the regional and bilateral missions to discuss the practicalities of how this would work out, and what must be changed in: a. Personnel structures b. Funding allocation for regional and bilateral missions with respect to staffing, regional travel, and to carry out regional plans c. Communication systems d. Reporting structures ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 56 At the same time, critical country specific programs must be maintained by the bilateral missions. Based on these regional meetings, Africa Bureau should provide guidance to the field. Guidance should include clear, delineated roles and responsibilities between bilateral and regional missions. Initial roles and responsibilities to organize, develop, and monitor regional economic growth and integration plans could be designated as follows: Regional Missions Convene initial stock-taking discussion meetings with bilateral missions in the region to identify possibilities and remaining constraints for strengthening regional and sub-regional trade and for promoting regional integration with input from regional institutions, government and private sector representatives in Africa Complete sub-sector specific comprehensive value chain analysis for regions, sub-regions, and between regions as identified Convene joint strategic planning sessions with bilateral missions and appropriate African institutional representatives Convene donor coordination meetings with bilateral missions and major donors supporting regional economic growth processes Convene sessions to develop joint regional and sub-regional work plans with respective roles for bilateral and regional missions. Take the lead in developing a regional monitoring system to monitor progress in steps taken in plan implementation Take the lead in developing a regional plan results framework and performance monitoring system and in reporting responsibilities to USAID/Washington Take the lead in developing and implementing a real-time regional communication system between the regional and bilateral missions in the region including a knowledge management and sharing system Bilateral Missions Identify point persons for communication, planning, and knowledge sharing with the regional and other bilateral missions in the region and for monitoring progress in the implementation of joint work plans Ensure that host country government concerns are discussed and addressed at regional strategic planning and joint work plan meetings Support national host country government entities to reform policies, pass legislation, develop regulations, etc., as necessary for implementation and alignment with REC regional trade agreements Promote and support public-private sector dialogue as an input into the process of improving the business enabling environment Maintain critical country specific planning and programming ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE 57 ANNEXES ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex A- 1 Annex A. List of Individuals Interviewed INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED BOTSWANA Bridget Chilala Southern Africa Global Competitiveness Hub Trade Capacity Building Director Brebner Mhango Southern African Development Community (SADC) Transport Infrastructure Advisor Evangelist Loago Raditedu Botswana Exporters & Manufacturers Association (BEMA) Executive Director Godwin Punungwe Southern Africa Global Competitiveness Hub Transport Advisor Judith Nwako Southern African Development Community (SADC) Infrastructure Coordinator, Transport, Infrastructure and Services Directorate Kedikilwe Maroba Botswana Institute for Development Policy Analysis (BIDPA) Programme Coordinator Lena Sund European Union First Counselor Mapolao Rosemary Mokoena Southern African Development Community (SADC) Senior Programme Manager, Transport Infrastructure and Services Directorate Margaret Nyirenda Southern African Development Community (SADC) Director, Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Directorate Mikael Melin European Union Economic Attaché Mupelwa Sichilima Southern African Development Community (SADC) Programme Officer, Regional Trade Policies Norman Moleele Botswana Confederation of Commerce Industry & Manpower Deputy Executive Director Paul Kalenga Southern African Development Community (SADC) Trade Policy Advisor Ranga Munyaradzi Southern Africa Global Competitiveness Hub Senior Customs Advisor Roman Grynberg Botswana Institute for Development Policy Analysis (BIDPA) Senior Research Fellow Sadwick Mtonakutha Southern African Development Community (SADC) Senior Programme Manager, Macroeconomic Policies and Convergence, Trade Industry Finance and Infrastructure (TIFI) Simon Mwale Southern African Development Community (SADC) Senior Program Manager, Crop Development Stilwell Dambuza Southern African Development Community (SADC) Programme Officer, Multilateral Trade ETHIOPIA Abdissa Adugna Ethiopian Leather Industries Association Secretary General Abeb e Abebayehu WTO Accession Plus Project, Booz Allen Hamilton Senior Attorney, Acting Chief of Party Abi Woldemeskel Ethiopia Investment Agency Director General Addis Alemayehu AGOA Plus Project Chief of Party Allyson Wainer USAID/Ethiopia/Program Office Acting Office Chief Asfaw Alemayehu The American Chamber of Commerce General Manager Ato Asfa Mulugeta Ministry of Agriculture Director, Agricultural Marketing Bruck Fikru ATEP (Agribusiness and Trade Expansion Program) Investment and Markets Advisor ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex A- 2 INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED Bryn Saxe WTO Accession Plus Project, Booz Allen Hamilton Economic Adviser Dr. David Tommy UNIDO Director, Regional Office, UNIDO Representative to Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, African Union, and Economic Commission for Africa Endalkachew Sime Ethiopian Textile and Garment Manufacturers Association Secretary General Fasika Jiffar USAID/BEAT Office Senior Micro-Small and Medium Enterprise Specialist Fassil Yilma U.S. Embassy: Political/Economic Section Commercial Specialist Haile Kibret U.S. Embassy: Political/Economic Section Economic Specialist Hussein Hassan Hussein African Union Commission, Department of Trade and Industry Head of Industry Division Jean Noel Francois African Union Commission, Department of Trade and Industry Head, Customs Cooperation Division Kary I. Hintz-Tate U.S. Embassy: Political/Economic Section Second Secretary, Economic/Commercial Officer Kassaye Mekuria Ethiopian Textile and Garment Manufacturers Association President Menbere Taye Tesfa World Bank Senior Private Sector Development Specialist Michael C. Gonzales U.S. Embassy: Political/Economic Division Political/Economic Counselor Nadir Merah African Union Commission, Department of Trade and Industry Director, Trade Division Salpi Nalbandian Ethiopian Women Exporters Association Board Member, and Managing Director for Taytu and Bale (private businesses) Sammy Mohammed Negist Ethiopia Marketing Director Semunish Demetros USAID/BEAT Office Senior Trade Specialist Tadesse Haile Ministry of Trade and Industry State Minister Tamiru Woubbie Ethiopian Chamber of Commerce and Sectoral Associations Head, Trade and Investment Promotion Department Teshome Kebede Redie ATEP (Agribusiness and Trade Expansion Program) Deputy Chief of Party, Hides/Skin/Leather Sector Manager Thomas Carr ATEP (Agribusiness and Trade Expansion Program) Chief of Party GHANA Andy Cook West Africa Trade Hub (CARANA Corporation) Transport Advisor Belien Tadesse USAID/Ghana Economic Growth Officer Bob Hellyer USAID/Ghana Mission Director Brian App Ghana TIPCEE (Chemonics) Deputy Chief of Party Christian Dahm West Africa Trade Hub (CARANA Corporation) Cashew Advisor David Atteberry USAID/Ghana Deputy Mission Director Edwin Afari USAID/Ghana M&E Specialist Fenton Sands USAID/Ghana Economic Growth Officer Henderson Patrick USAID/West Africa Mission Director ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex A- 3 INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED Jeff Cochrane USAID/West Africa Chief, Office of Trade and Investment Jennifer Otwell Ghana TIPCEE (Chemonics) Writer and Editor John Mullenax USAID/Ghana IEHA Advisor, Economic Growth Office Joshua Glover-Tay USAID/Ghana Environment and Agriculture Specialist Matt Burton USAID/West Africa Economic Growth Officer Matthew Armah Ghana Millennium Development Authority (MiDA - MCC) Chief Operating Officer Megan Tweed West Africa Trade Hub (CARANA Corporation) Business Advisor (Food and Investment) Michael Brown Ghana TIPCEE (Chemonics) Chief of Party Niels Rasmussen West Africa Trade Hub (CARANA Corporation) Transport Director Rudiger Behrens GTZ Value Chain Advisor, Market Oriented Agriculture Programme Vanessa Adams West Africa Trade Hub (CARANA Corporation) Chief of Party Yakubu Iddrisu West Africa Trade Hub (CARANA Corporation) Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist KENYA Andrew Ngone COMESA Sr. Trade and Policy Advisor Chris Degnan FHI Family Health Sr. Program Officer Contantine Kandie East Africa Grain Council Executive Director Corinne Abbas Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands Trade and Private Sector Daniel Dianga USAID/Kenya Dairy Sector Competitiveness Program (Land o Lakes) Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist David Featherston COMPETE Sr. Advisor Customs David Mwangi Njuru European Union Rural Development Officer David Ongolo Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands Economist Dr. Mussolin Kithome Ministry of Agriculture Coordinator, Agricultural Sector Coordination Unit Dr. Esther Kimani Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services (KEPHIS) Head, Phytosanitary Inspections Elizabeth Shackelford Booze Allen Hamilton Associate Finn Holm-Olsen USAID/East Africa COMPETE Project (The Competitiveness and Trade Expansion Program) Director, East and Central Africa Trade Hub Gitau Mburu European Union Private Sector Development and Tourism Harrigan Mukhongo USAID/Kenya/ABEO Business and Organization Development Advisor James Sullivan U.S. Embassy Commercial Officer, U.S. Commerce Jane M. Ngige Kenya Flower Council Chief Executive Jerome Ntibarekerwa Port Management Association of Eastern and Southern Africa Secretary General Julius K. Kilungo USAID/Kenya/ABEO Program Specialist/Economist, Kenneth Kambona USAID/EA/REGI Regional Agricultural Trade Policy Advisor ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex A- 4 INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED Kenneth Murimi Export Promotion Council Manager, Market Research and Trade Points Kevit Desai BizClir Meeting, Kenya Business Environment Assessment Presentation CEO Kenya Private sector Alliance Larry Meserve USAID/EA Deputy Regional Director Lisa Y. Whitley USAID/Kenya Program Economist Mary Mathenge Tegemeo Institute Acting Director Matthew Troniak COMPETE Sr. Sector Advisor, Finance Michael Ingram BizClir Meeting, Kenya Business Environment Assessment Presentation Associate BAH Michael Warui USAID/EA/REGIC Global Development Alliance Specialist Musabi Muteshi World Bank, IFC Private Sector Development Specialist Nzuki Mwania USAID East Africa Regional Mission Regional Trade Policy Specialist Pharesh Ratego USAID/Kenya/ABEO Project Management Specialist, Agriculture, Business and Environment Office Phillip Gitao Eastern Africa Fine Coffee Association Executive Director Raphael Gitau Tegemeo Institute Research Fellow Reimund Hoffmann GTZ Programme Manager, Promotion of Private Sector and Development in Agriculture Samwel Rutto East Africa Grain Council Program Officer, Structured Trading Systems Sandra Uwera East African Business Council Liaison Officer Sebastian Wanjala Oggema USAID/Kenya, Kenya Maize Development Programme, (ACDI/VOCA) Deputy Chief of Party Shem Simuyemba USAID/East Africa COMPETE Project (The Competitiveness and Trade Expansion Program) Senior Transit Facilitation Advisor Stephanie Wilcock USAID EA/REGI Regional Trade Advisor Stephen Walls USAID/East Africa COMPETE Project (The Competitiveness and Trade Expansion Program) Chief of Party Steve Collins USAID/Kenya, Kenya Maize Development Programme, (ACDI/VOCA) Country Director, Chief of Party Walter Knausenberger USAID/EA/REGI Senior Regional Environmental Officer NIGERIA Abdulkadir Gudugi USAID/Nigeria Economic Growth Officer Alfred Braimah ECOWAS Head of Private Sector Directorate Jason Villar USAID/Nigeria Economic Growth Officer Rick McLaughlin USAID/Nigeria Advisor Ron Greenberg USAID/Nigeria Director, Economic Growth and Environment Wandra Mitchell REFORMS Program Chief of Party SENEGAL Aaron Brownell USAID/Senegal Environment Officer Abdrahmane Diallo USAID/Senegal Dep. Program Officer ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex A- 5 INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED Aliou Faye Centre d'Etudes de Politiques pour le Développement (CEPOD) Director Aminata Niane Badiane USAID/Senegal Economic Growth Office Andy Keck SAGIC – USAID Senegal Economic Growth Program Policy Reform and Communications Advisor Dick Cook SAGIC – USAID Senegal Economic Growth Program Sr. Value Chain Manager Fallou Dieye Senegal Investment Promotion Agency (APIX) Advisor to the Director General and Doing Business Coordinator Gilles Abraham Mbaye Ministère de l’Economie et des Finances – Direction de l’Appui au Secteur Privé Director Ibrahima Dia MCC/MCA Senegal Director General Ibrahima Wade Stratégie Croissance Accélérée (Accelerated Growth Strategy)– Secrétaire Permanent Secretary General Jim Billings SAGIC – USAID Senegal Economic Growth Program Chief of Party M. Ngane ONAPES (Organization of Agricultural Producers and Exporters) Director Makhtar Thiam West Africa Trade Hub Office Director and Seafood Advisor Mamadou Diagne Ministère de l’Economie et des Finances – Direction de l’Appui au Secteur Privé Deputy Director Mme Sagar Diouf Traoré ASEPEX - Agence sénégalaise de promotion des exportations Director General Ousmane Sane USAID/South Africa Sr Economic Growth Officer Patrick Nugawela (interviewed in DC) SAGIC – USAID Senegal Economic Growth Program BDS Advisor Peter Trenchard USAID/Senegal Economic Growth Office Director Richard Slacum SAGIC – USAID Senegal Economic Growth Program Financial Services Advisor Tim Stein West Africa Trade Hub Communications Advisor SOUTH AFRICA Allan Hackner USAID/ South Africa Financial Sector Program Manager Ann Marie Chiappetta United States Embassy, Economic Section Trade and Investment Officer Bruce Neuling United States Embassy, Economic Section Economic Officer Cleveland Thomas USAID/ South Africa Regional Energy Specialist Craig Allen U.S. Commercial Service Counselor for Commercial Affairs Elikana Maroge USAID/ South Africa Program Economist Jason Nagy U.S. Trade & Development Agency (USTDA) Africa Business Development Manager John James South Africa International Business Linkages Project (SAIBL) – USAID Chief of Party Lolette Kritzinger-van Niekerk Department for International Development (DFID) – UK Regional Trade & Integration Advisor Nomfundo Maseti Republic of South Africa, Department of Trade and Industry, Consumer & Corporate Regulation Division Chief Director, Policy and Legislation Section Phillip Palmer USAID/ South Africa Deputy Program Economist Scott Sindelar U.S. Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) Counselor for Agricultural Affairs Terri Kristalsky Financial Sector Program – USAID Chief of Party Tina Dooley-Jones USAID/ South Africa Director ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex A- 6 INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED WASHINGTON, DC Eric Loken USAID/AFR/SD/EGEA Division Chief Bruno Cornelio USAID/AFR/SD/EGEA Senior Economics Officer, Economic Growth Team Leader, AGCI Program Director Stafford Baker USAID/AFR/SD/EGEA Senior Implementation Coordinator, KSA Activity Manager Jeff Malick USAID/AFR/SD/EGEA Program Officer Tom Hobgood USAID/AFR/SD/EGEA Senior Technical Advisor, Deputy Team Leader, Agriculture and Food Security Jeff Humber USAID/AFR/SD/EGEA Sr. Infrastructure Advisor, Director of Africa Infrastructure Program Jeff Jackson USAID/AFR/SD/EGEA Sr. Private Sector Advisor, Activity Manager for the Africa Entrepreneurs Facility Chris Barltrop USAID/EGAT Sr. Financial Markets Advisor, AGCI Financial Sector Activity Manager Georgia Sambunaris USAID/EGAT International Trade Specialist, AGCI CTO for intellectual property rights PASA with the Dept. of Commerce Judith Payne USAID/EGAT e-Commerce, e-Business Advisor Steve Silcox USAID/EGAT Senior Enterprise Development Advisor Wade Channel USAID/EGAT Senior International Trade Advisor ZAMBIA Adolph Sailas Musonda Cropserve Zambia, Limited Herbicide Development Manager Andrew Ngone COMESA (Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa) Senior Trade Policy Advisor Ballard Zulu USAID/Zambia, Economic Growth Office Deputy Team Leader, Economic Growth Brad Magrath Mobile Transactions, Limited Managing Director Brian Tembo ZAMACE (Zambia Agricultural Commodities Exchange) Executive Director Charles Banda Cropserve Zambia, Limited Finance Manager Chola Kamaki Hygrotech Zambia, Limited Technical Sales Manager Dann Griffiths USAID/Economic Growth Office Team Leader, Economic Growth Evelyn Nguleka Vet Lab, Limited Managing Director Frank O’Brien Production, Finance and Technology (PROFIT) Project – USAID Dairy Component Advisor Friday Bwalya Vet Lab, Limited Microbiologist Gift Simwaka Africa Trade Insurance Agency Country Manager Joshua Munkombwe Production, Finance and Technology (PROFIT) Project – USAID Agricultural Input Coordinator Likando Mukumbuta ZATAC, Limited (Zambia Agribusiness Technical Assistance Centre) Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Chingambo Lloyds Financial, Limited Chief Executive Officer Mark Wood Production, Finance and Technology (PROFIT) Project – USAID Chief of Party ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex A- 7 INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED Maxas Bweupe CropLife Zambia, Limited Business Director, Mana Agrochemicals Zambia, Ltd. Midge Drakes FreshPikt, Limited Managing Director Mlotha Damaseke USAID/Economic Growth Office Agriculture and Natural Resources Specialist Perry Ngoma CropLife Zambia, Limited Coordinator ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex B - 1 Annex B. Bibliography African Development Bank. 2009. Africa and the Global Economic Crisis: Strategies for Preserving the Foundations of Long-term Growth. Bearing Point. 2008. East and Central Africa Global Competitiveness Hub: Close Out Presentation. USAID East Africa Mission, Nairobi, Kenya. Bearing Point. 2008. East and Central Africa Global Competitiveness Hub: Final Report. USAID East Africa Mission, Nairobi, Kenya. Bearing Point. Various quarters. East and Central Africa Global Competitiveness Hub: Quarterly by Performance Reports. USAID East Africa Mission, Nairobi, Kenya. Carana Corporation. 2007. Southern Africa Global Competitiveness Hub- 2008-2010 Option: Technical Proposal. Arlington, VA. Carana Corporation. Various quarters. West Africa Trade Hub: Quarterly Performance Reports. USAID, Washington, D.C. Carana Corporation. 2008. West Africa Trade Hub: Annual Report. USAID, Washington, D.C. COMESA (Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa). 2009. General Strategy Statement. COMESA (Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa). 1994. Treaty Establishing the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa. DANIDA (The Danish International Development Agency). 2007. Denmark in Africa, a Continent on its Way. DFID (Department for International Development). 2009. Trading for Peace: An Agenda of Reform. ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States). 1993. Revision of the Treaty the Economic Community of West African States. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Towards An African Common Market for Agricultural Products. Global Business Solutions Inc. 2006. Evaluation of Trade Hubs Located in Accra Ghana; Gaborone, Botswana; and Nairobi, Kenya Final Report. USAID, Washington, D.C. JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency). 2008. Annual Report. NEPAD (The New Partnership for Africa’s Development). 2002. Short-Term Action Plan Infrastructure. OAU (Organization of African Unity). 1991. Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community. SADC (Southern African Development Community). 1996. Protocol on Trade. SADC (Southern African Development Community). 1992. The Treaty of the Southern African Development Community, As Amended. Segura/IP3 Partners. 2008. AGCI Budget by Mission. USAID Africa Bureau, Washington, D.C. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex B - 2 Segura/IP3 Partners. 2009. AGCI-Funded Project List by Mission and AGCI Components. USAID Africa Bureau, Washington, D.C. Segura/IP3 Partners. 2009. AGCI Points of Contact: Africa Bureau Economic Growth Officers List for AGCI. USAID Africa Bureau, Washington, D.C. Segura/IP3 Partners. 2009. AGCI Points of Contact: Implementing Organizations List for AGCI. USAID Africa Bureau, Washington, D.C. Segura/IP3 Partners. 2009. AGCI Project Level Reporting for FY 2008 through Supplemental Forms. USAID, Washington, D.C. Seguar/IP3 Partners. 2009. Comparison of AGCI Planned Funding Versus Actual and Projected Expenditures by Component. USAID Africa Bureau, Washington, D.C. Segura/IP3 Partners. 2009. A Comparison of Presidential Trade Initiatives in Sub- Saharan Africa Funded by the United States Agency for International Development between 1991-2009. USAID, Washington, D.C. The Services Group and Carana Corporation. 2008. Southern Africa Global Competitiveness Hub: Annual Report. USAID Southern Africa Mission, Gaborone, Botswana. The Services Group and Carana Corporation. Various quarters. Southern Africa Global Competitiveness Hub: Quarterly Performance Reports. USAID Southern Africa Mission, Gaborone, Botswana. USAID. 2006. Action Memorandum: Activity Authorization for African Global Competitiveness Initiative (AGCI) of Strategic Objective 698-029. USAID. 2005. Action Memorandum: Africa Global Competitiveness Initiative Strategies Statement, Operational Plan, Trade Hub Budgets and Summary Results. USAID. 2009. African Global Competitiveness Initiative: Compendium of Trade-Related Success Stories. USAID. 2005. African Global Competitiveness Initiative: Strategic Framework. USAID. 2007. 2007 Compendium of Trade-Related Success Stories: African Global Competitiveness Initiative. USAID. 2003. East and Central Africa Global Competitiveness Hub Award Document. East Africa Mission, Nairobi, Kenya. USAID. 2006. Information Memorandum: Status of the African Global Competitiveness Initiative. USAID. 2006. Record of Discussion Memorandum: African Global Competitiveness Initiative (AGCI): Concurrence in Approach to Unified Management of AGCI. USAID. 2008. Securing the Future: A Strategy for Economic Growth. Washington, D.C. USAID. 2007. Southern Africa Global Competitiveness Hub: Request for Revised Proposal for Option. Southern Africa Mission, Gaborone, Botswana. USAID. 2008. Statement of Work: The Competitiveness and Trade Expansion Program (COMPETE). East Africa Mission, Nairobi, Kenya. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex B - 3 USAID. 2006. Strategic Framework for Africa. Washington, D.C USAID. 2006. Strategy Discussion Papers: USAID Economic Growth. Washington, D.C. USAID. 2008. USAID Assistance to the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMES). East African Mission, Nairobi, Kenya. USAID. 2008. USAID Assistance to the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). West Africa Mission, Accra, Ghana. USAID. 2006. West Africa Global Trade Competitiveness Hub: Solicitation Document. West Africa Mission, Accra, Ghana. World Bank. 2000. Can Africa Claim the 21st Century? World Bank. 2005. Meeting the Challenge of Africa’s Development: A World Bank Group Action Plan. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex C - 1 Annex C. Scope of Work Knowledge Sharing and Analysis Project for the African Global Competitiveness Initiative: Assessment of the African Global Competitiveness Initiative I. Introduction A. Objectives of the Knowledge Sharing and Analysis Project The Knowledge Sharing and Analysis (KSA) project, supporting the African Global Competitiveness Initiative (AGCI), is a three-year effort funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The project is implemented by a partnership between Segura Consulting and the Institute for Public-Private Partnerships. KSA is intended to improve USAID/Africa’s collection, analysis, and dissemination of data and program information related to AGCI projects with a focus on four technical areas – trade development, overcoming infrastructure constraints, enabling environment policy reform, and enterprise development. KSA supports AGCI’s overall goal of boosting African competitiveness and trade-led, economic growth by analyzing and disseminating best practices, resources and toolkits, and other program information to key audiences including Sub-Saharan African country governments, USAID missions, USAID’s African Global Competitiveness Hubs, regional trade organizations, relevant USG agencies, international donors, and others. A Presidential Initiative, the African Global Competitiveness Initiative was conceived in 2005 to support African policymakers in reducing poverty and raising living standards by advancing trade-led economic growth. In this way, AGCI is able to help African countries take better advantage of open trade and the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). The AGCI program is funded at a level of $200 million over five years. AGCI is implemented by the three regional USAID missions in Africa, more than ten bilateral USAID missions, several USG agencies, and USAID/Washington. The largest individual beneficiaries of AGCI funding are the four African Global Competitiveness Hubs located in Botswana, Kenya, Ghana, and Senegal. B. Priority Focus Areas for the Knowledge Sharing and Analysis Project KSA’s priority focus areas include: 1) Improving AGCI’s knowledge sharing strategy, practices, and tools; 2) Strengthening USAID/Africa’s performance monitoring and reporting on AGCI activities; 3) Analyzing and disseminating best practice information, including through periodic Knowledge Sharing and Analysis Briefs (KSABs), best practice events, and other tools; and 4) Improving on the management and content of USAID’s portion of the annual AGOA Forums. C. Context for KSA within the African Global Competitiveness Initiative AGCI’s primary objective is to improve export competitiveness of African enterprises in order to expand African trade with the U.S. and other international trading partners, including through implementing ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex C - 2 better trade-led economic policies and increasing the capacity for African firms to compete in the global marketplace by: Improving the business and regulatory environment for private sector-led trade and investment Strengthening the knowledge and skills of African private sector enterprises to take advantage of market opportunities Increasing access to financial services for trade and investment Facilitating investments in infrastructure Under AGCI, competitiveness will be defined as the ability to achieve success in stimulating trade and private sector-led growth, and better standards of living for all.33 As such, AGCI builds on the Trade for African Development and Enterprise (TRADE) Initiative. TRADE was a four-year, $70 million Presidential Initiative implemented by USAID in 2001 to help African countries improve their competitiveness and gain greater access to global markets. To implement the TRADE Initiative, the three Regional Missions in Africa established the regional African Global Competitiveness Hubs in their respective regions in 2002. The East and Central African Global Competitiveness Hub is overseen by USAID/East Africa in Nairobi, Kenya; USAID/Southern Africa manages the Southern African Global Competitiveness Hub in Gaborone, Botswana and USAID/West Africa oversees the West Africa Global Competitiveness Hubs, with offices in Accra, Ghana, and in Dakar, Senegal. These three Regional Missions and selected USAID bilateral missions will implement AGCI in partnership with their respective host country governments, African institutional counterparts, private sector firms, civil society organizations and other donors in any of the AGOA-eligible countries in Africa. The AGCI interagency process is lead by the Department of State. USAID serves as the AGCI implementing agency and Secretariat for interagency executive and working groups along with technical committees. USAID’s Africa Bureau provides the required management oversight of implementation given the broad scope of this Presidential Initiative. D. African Global Competitiveness Initiative A major component of USAID's economic growth and trade program is AGCI, a $200-million, five-year Presidential Initiative (signed and authorized by George W. Bush in 2005) aimed at promoting the export competitiveness of enterprises in Sub-Saharan Africa to expand African trade with the United States and other international trading partners. AGCI builds on the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and works with other donor initiatives, including the World Bank's Making Finance Work for Africa and the multilateral Infrastructure Consortium for Africa. AGCI Funding by Fiscal Year FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 $30 Million $35 Million $40 Million $45 Million $50 Million AGCI's overall objective is to promote export competitiveness of enterprises in Africa. To achieve this objective, AGCI has two main strategies, to: 1) provide technical assistance that advances export competitiveness; and 2) support complementary activities that contribute to the objectives of AGCI. AGCI seeks to leverage its resources with those of other USAID-funded programs and programs financed 33 Definition taken from the National Competitiveness Council (U.S.). ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex C - 3 by other international financial institutions as well as with investment resources from the private sector; AGCI strives to achieve a greater development impact through a multiplier effect. Managed by the respective USAID Regional Missions, Global Competitiveness Hubs are the regional focal points and primary implementers of AGCI. They are located in Ghana and Senegal for West Africa, Botswana for Southern Africa, and Kenya for East and Central Africa. They provide information and technical assistance to African organizations, USG agencies, donor and civil society organizations, and the private sector on trade, investment, and business activities in the region, including training opportunities. Hub programs are designed to reinforce regional and bilateral efforts to strengthen Africa's economic competitiveness and assist the nations of the area to take greater advantage of the trade opportunities provided by the AGOA and other global trade initiatives. Hub program themes include trade capacity building, improvements to the private sector enabling environment, better market access and opportunities, trade facilitation, lower business costs, food safety programs, and export promotion of higher quality, profitable African agricultural produce. The Hubs also provide support to the Initiative to End Hunger in Africa (IEHA). E. Central Challenge and USAID’s Efforts of Increasing Economic Growth and Trade in Sub-Saharan Africa The central challenge facing African economies is to reduce poverty through higher levels of economic growth. Long-term, broad-based economic growth is essential for Africa to increase incomes and reach its potential to become a significant trade and investment partner in the world economy. Although Africa has historically had the slowest growth of any region, its performance is improving substantially, lending hope for the future. African economies have continued to sustain the growth momentum of the 1990s, recording an overall real GDP growth rate of 5.8 percent in 2007. More than 30 Sub-Saharan African countries recorded higher economic growth rates in 2007 than 2006. But these growth rates must be sustained and accelerated in order to have a significant impact on poverty and increase living standards. Furthermore, the increase in HIV/AIDS infection rates is taking its toll on Africa's workforce and has become a serious threat to Africa's economic well being. To build on the progress made by many African economies, USAID supports efforts to broaden and strengthen economic reforms to increase economic growth. USAID seeks to strengthen the policy environment for effective economic reform by working with African policy analysts and policymakers to increase the knowledge needed to manage open, free market economies. USAID also supports research networks to strengthen African countries' capacity to improve and implement economic policies. USAID concentrates its economic growth efforts in Africa on expanding openness to trade and investment, improving the enabling environment for the private sector, increasing agricultural productivity and trade, strengthening African capacity to manage economic and natural resources, and increasing rural incomes. USAID magnifies its impact by collaborating with other USG agencies, donors, and development partners. Appropriate trade policies offer opportunities for African countries to build free markets and increase foreign investments that promote economic growth, create jobs, and raise living standards. USG assistance in helping African governments implement good policies has supported African efforts to reduce poverty through sustained, private sector-led economic growth. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex C - 4 II. Assessment Purpose, Questions, and Schedule A. Purpose of the AGCI Assessment The objective of the assessment is to test whether the design of AGCI has led to the development and implementation of activities that effectively supported economic growth in Africa and, looking forward, how USAID/Africa’s future trade and competitiveness efforts should be shaped to support economic growth The assessment shall identify improvements that Africa Bureau can incorporate into the management of its trade and competitiveness portfolio that will bring an increased strategic focus to programming, and lead to improved communication and efficiency with partnering USAID Operating Units implementing interventions that support rapid and long-term increase in trade-led economic growth for African countries. B. Primary Assessment Questions 5. How has Africa Bureau’s management of the Initiative impacted AGCI’s effectiveness, achievements, failures, and communication and coordination internally within the Agency and externally with other USG partners? 6. Have the four AGCI components – enabling environment, enterprise development, access to finance, and infrastructure – and their sub-components been the best focus of USAID resources to bring about their development objectives and growth in African economies? 7. In looking to future USAID/Africa programming, should the same focus areas be applied or should USAID consider different elements or sub-elements for its future trade and investment portfolio? Also, should the mix of funding between these focus areas be adjusted in order to reflect intervention types that have proven most successful under AGCI, take advantage of USAID’s comparative advantage within specific sectors, or complement other donor activities within Africa. 8. How can the AGCI performance monitoring and reporting system be improved for both management of AGCI activities at both the Initiative and the activity levels and for reporting across the Initiative? 9. What lessons can be learned in terms of: a) which intervention types can be applied to Africa in the future to best promote economic growth; b) what improvements can be made in the management of the Initiative that would lead to improved coordination and communication among the various regional, bilateral, and DC-based USAID operating units; and c) how does USAID ensure that its future efforts result in sustainable achievements? C. Schedule It is anticipated that the assessment will commence in mid-April 2009 and be completed by the end of August 2009. For a detailed schedule refer to “Appendix I: AGCI Assessment Illustrative Work Plan and Schedule.” In order to be relevant to current and upcoming Africa Bureau planning and program development, the assessment team should take advantage of both utilizing and informing upcoming USAID meetings and United States-Africa trade forums, such as Africa Bureau EG Planning Session (Nairobi, May 6-8, 2009) and the AGOA Forum (Nairobi, August 4-6, 2009), respectively. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex C - 5 III. Methodology, Phases, and Deliverables A. Methodology The assessment is meant to utilize a mixed-methods approach where the assessment team can use the following data collection methods: document reviews, key respondent interviews, stakeholder meetings, group interviews, surveys, site visits, and observation protocols. KSA is not limited to these methods. The assessment team will designate an assessment team (subject to the approval of USAID/Africa) to conduct a background document review and a limited literature review to inform the assessment design; develop a detailed assessment work plan; carry out data collection based from Washington; carry out data collection in Africa where three sub-teams (two members each) will each conduct field research at one of the USAID/Africa regional missions/Global Competitiveness Hubs (two weeks) and one AGCI-active bilateral mission in the same region (one week); analyze the data and prepare an assessment report that clearly presents findings, conclusions, and recommendations; and deliver a presentation in Washington that emphasizes lessons learned and recommendations. B. Assessment Phases The four-phase approach to the assessment is meant to provide the assessment team with a flexible yet demanding schedule that will allow for real-time learning to be absorbed and integrated into the assessment on a rolling basis. This will not only allow the assessment team to pursue examinations of unanticipated issues and incorporate analysis from each of the phases into upcoming tasks, but also will allow the team to work cooperatively and responsively with USAID/Africa while the Bureau will be developing its own plans for upcoming trade and investment programming. Below is a brief overview of each of the four assessment phases. Phase I: Document Review and Assessment Plan During this phase, the assessment team will gather with USAID/Africa to conduct a preliminary team￾planning meeting and will conduct initial key respondent interviews with USAID staff primarily responsible for the management and implementation of AGCI. Then the team will perform a background document review and a targeted literature review that will contribute to the team’s submission of a detailed assessment work plan. USAID will provide KSA with the relevant background materials (refer to Appendix II: List of Pertinent Background Materials) and a list of guiding materials to be included in the literature review (refer to Appendix III: List of Documents to be included in the Literature Review) at the outset of the assignment. Please note that the assessment team is not limited to only the materials listed in Appendix III to serve as the basis for the literature review, but in an effort to assist the assessment team in identifying important documents germane to other multilateral and bilateral donor agencies’ economic growth, trade, and investment strategies USAID/Africa has compiled the attached list. USAID/Africa will be required to approve the assessment work plan before the assessment team can begin the data collection phases. The assessment team will also take advantage of the collective presence of many USAID officers managing AGCI activities at Africa Bureau EG Planning Session scheduled for the beginning of May 2009 in Nairobi. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex C - 6 Phase II: Data Collection – Washington Component At this stage, the assessment team will begin by conducting more far reaching interviews with USAID staff and other AGCI partners and stakeholders. Then the assessment team will apply what it has learned from Phase I data collection and Phase II interviews by developing, testing, and implementing data collection instruments, such as online surveys, that can be conducted from Washington. An analysis summarizing preliminary findings based on the document review and DC-based data collection will be submitted to USAID/Africa. This analysis will also serve to guide lines of inquiry and examination for the Africa component of data collection. USAID/Africa will be required to approve the summary analysis report before the assessment team can begin the data collection phases. Phase III: Data Collection – Africa Component Data collection instruments, such as key respondent interview protocols and group interview guides, will be designed for fieldwork in Africa. Fieldwork will involve three sub-teams of two persons each, where one sub-team will work in Western Africa, one in Eastern Africa, and one in Southern Africa. The sub￾teams will be in-country for three weeks and each sub-team will visit their respective USAID/Africa regional mission/Global Competitiveness Hub as well as one other bilateral mission in the region. The three sub-teams will be required to discuss progress and challenges through two conference calls during the in-country fieldwork. Before departing the regional missions, the three sub-teams will present brief debrief presentations highlighting preliminary findings and conclusions. Phase IV: Data Analysis, Report, and Presentation After the fieldwork has concluded, the assessment team will reconvene to complete data analysis and prepare the draft assessment report. Please note that the report should comply with the guidelines presented in Appendix IV: Components of an Evaluation Report. The report will include a complete set of findings, conclusions, and recommendations at the activity level, as well as discussing broader lessons learned across the Initiative and specific recommendations directed to USAID/Africa on how these lessons should feed into future trade and investment programming. After receiving feedback from USAID/Africa, the assessment team will revise the draft report and submit the final assessment report. In addition, the assessment team will deliver a presentation in Washington that emphasizes lessons learned and recommendations. The assessment team will also take advantage of the upcoming AGOA Forum by working cooperatively with USAID/Africa to prepare a briefing that will be delivered (presumably by USAID/Africa or KSA staff) at the Forum. The Forum is scheduled for early August 2009 in Nairobi. C. Deliverables In order to complete this assignment, the assessment team will need to submit and receive approval on the following deliverables to USAID/Africa before continuing to the next assessment tasks. Phase I: Document Review and Assessment Plan d. Detailed Assessment Work Plan – The assessment plan will be delivered electronically and explained through an oral presentation. The plan will include a discussion of the overall assessment approach, secondary data findings, data collection methods, data analysis plan, fieldwork plan, bilateral mission criteria, proposed bilateral mission selection, and an assessment report preparation plan. Please note that the assessment work plan will also include the “Getting to Answers” and “Guide for Summarizing an Evaluation Plan by Question” worksheets. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex C - 7 Phase II: Data Collection – Washington Component e. Summary Analysis Report – This report will briefly summarize the preliminary findings based on the background document review, the literature review, and the DC-based data collection. The main body of the report is limited to eight pages. Phase III: Data Collection – Africa Component f. Chain of Evidence Form – This form shows the causal linkages from findings to conclusions to recommendations. Phase IV: Data Analysis, Report, and Presentation g. AGCI Assessment Briefing – This briefing will be for distribution and/or presentation at the AGOA Forum. h. Assessment Report – The assessment report should comply with the guidelines presented in Appendix IV. The main body of the report should be limited to 50 pages. IV. Roles and Responsibilities The contractor, KSA, will work under the general direction of Mr. Stafford Baker, Africa Bureau AGCI Activity Manager. KSA has been tasked with carrying out the assessment of AGCI and it is envisioned that Mr. Dennis Marotta will serve as the Technical Director presiding over this assignment. KSA will work in collaboration with its GBTI II-approved subcontractor Management Systems International (MSI) to carry out the assessment. This assignment supports CLIN 11 of the KSA project, “Performance Monitoring and Reporting.” V. Team Composition and Qualifications A. Team Composition The technical director (Level II) will provide overall guidance and direction during all phases of the assessment, paying particular attention to the development of the methodological aspects of the assignment, including: assessment methodology, work plan, field site criteria and selection, data collection instruments, data synthesis and analysis, and the assessment report. The technical director will also serve as one of the three mid-level M&E specialists that conduct African fieldwork during Phase III of the assessment. The team leader (Level I) shall be responsible for the daily operations of the assessment and for the direct management of the assessment team. In addition, the team leader will also be responsible for coordinating all assessment activities and ensuring the production and completion of all assessment deliverables as conforming to the scope of work. The senior M&E advisor (Level I) shall provide limited assistance in ensuring that the assessment design and data collection efforts will produce sound conclusions and recommendations that address the assessment questions as contained in the scope of work. The two senior trade capacity building specialists (Level I) shall play important roles in the assessment as it will be their combined technical expertise that will, in large part, determine the lines of ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex C - 8 inquiry and examination to pursue and their analyses will also be vital in formulating conclusions and recommendations. The three mid-level M&E specialists (Level II) will participate in Phases III and IV of the assessment to assist the team leader and two senior TCB specialists in collecting and analyzing data in Africa. The research assistant (Level III) will contribute by organizing the background document review, indexing and classifying data sources, instrument programming (i.e., generation of internet-based survey instruments), and other support functions as required. AGCI Assessment Team Organization Chart B. Qualifications The team leader and two trade capacity building specialists will be composed of three senior-level specialists (Level I) with combined expertise in program and portfolio evaluation, economic reform, trade policy, investment promotion, and private sector competitiveness. All three team members should have extensive experience implementing and/or evaluating development projects in Africa and it is preferred that at least one member is fluent in French. Team Leader (Level I) The team leader should have a minimum of 15 years experience designing and conducting program/impact evaluations of USG programs; demonstrated experience serving as team leader of large￾scale, complex evaluations examining broad USAID-funded initiatives; preferably, possessing experience designing and evaluating economic growth and trade capacity building programs; and extensive regional experience in Africa. Two Senior Trade Capacity Building Specialists (Level I) The two senior trade capacity building specialists should each have a minimum of 15 years relevant experience with combined expertise in economic reform, trade policy, investment promotion, and private sector competitiveness. The two specialists should have prior experience working on USAID-funded assignments and should have extensive regional experience in Africa. Senior TCB Specialist II Senior TCB Specialist I Research Assistant Mid-Level M&E Specialist I Mid-Level M&E Specialist II Mid-Level M&E Specialist III Technical Director Team Leader Senior M&E Advisor ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex C - 9 Three Mid-Level M&E Specialists34 (Level II) The three mid-level M&E specialists should each have a minimum of 10 years relevant experience with expertise in evaluation and, preferably, trade capacity building development initiatives. The M&E specialists should have prior experience working on USAID-funded assignments and should have prior regional experience in Africa. In addition, one member would ideally be fluent in French. 34 The technical director from the KSA project presiding over the assessment will fill one of the three mid-level M&E specialist positions. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex C - 10 Appendix I: AGCI Assessment Illustrative Work Plan and Schedule Phase and Brief Description Time frame Calendar Phase One: Document Review and Assessment Plan Weeks 1 – 5 April 13 – May 15 4. Conduct a preliminary team planning meeting with the participation of AFR/SD/EGEA 5. Conduct initial key respondent interviews with USAID staff primarily responsible for the management and implementation of AGCI 6. Review all pertinent background materials provided by USAID and oversee literature review (list provided by USAID) 7. Based on interviews with USAID key respondents and the background document/literature review, develop and present a detailed assessment work plan 8. Develop criteria and propose which bilateral missions should be included in fieldwork Phase Two: Data Collection – Washington Component Weeks 6 – 11 May 18 – June 26 9. Conduct additional interviews with USAID staff and other AGCI partners and stakeholders 10. Develop and test the data collection instruments based on findings from interviews and the background document/literature review 11. Data collection through interviews, online surveys, and other rapid appraisal techniques 12. Draft a summary analysis compiling preliminary findings based on interviews, background document/literature review, and DC-based data collection Phase Three: Data Collection – Africa Component Weeks 12 – 15 June 29 – July 24 13. Based on findings from the prior assessment phases, develop and test the data collection instruments, such as key respondent interview protocols and group interview guides 14. Conduct fieldwork in Africa where three sub-teams will each visit one regional and one bilateral mission 15. Coordinate two teleconferences for the three sub-teams while conducting fieldwork to discuss progress and challenges 16. Present debrief presentations highlighting the sub-teams preliminary findings and conclusions Phase Four: Data Analysis, Report, and Presentation Weeks 16 – 20 July 27 – August 31 17. Review and analyze data from fieldwork when the three sub-teams reconvene 18. Conclude data analysis and submit the draft assessment report complete with findings, conclusions, and recommendations 19. After AFR/SD/EGEA has had adequate time to review the deliverable and provide feedback, the assessment team will incorporate these comments into the final report and submit for final approval 20. Prepare and deliver a debrief presentation in Washington outlining lessons learned and recommendations for a follow-on to AGCI ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 1 Annex D. AGCI Assessment Workplan ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 2 ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE DRAFT WORKPLAN MAY 29, 2009 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Pat Vondal, Team Leader, Management Systems International, and Dennis Marotta, Assessment Technical Director, SEGURA-IP3 Partners. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 3 ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE DRAFT WORKPLAN EEM-I-00-07-00001-00, TO 01 Knowledge Sharing and Analysis Project SEGURA/IP3 Partners DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 4 CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 5 Assessment Purpose.............................................................................................................. 5 Work Plan............................................................................................................................. 5 II. PRIMARY ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS........................................................................... 6 III. ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES, DELIVERABLES, AND TIMELINE................................ 6 IV. DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND ANALYSIS PLANS ....................................... 12 V. SELECTION CRITERIA AND PROPOSED FIELD SITES ............................................ 15 Field Site Selection Criteria ............................................................................................... 15 Proposed Field Sites........................................................................................................... 16 Note: Many of the Annexes to the original Work Plan have been removed from the Work Plan and cannow be found as Annexes to the main Assessment Report ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 5 I. INTRODUCTION The African Global Competitiveness Initiative (AGCI) was conceived in 2005 to support African policymakers in reducing poverty and raising living standards by advancing trade-led economic growth. In this way, AGCI is able to help African countries take better advantage of open trade and the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). The AGCI program is funded at a level of $200 million over five years. AGCI is implemented by the three regional USAID missions in Africa, more than ten bilateral USAID missions, several USG agencies, and USAID/Washington. The largest individual recipients of AGCI funding are the four Global Competitiveness Hubs located in Botswana, Kenya, Ghana, and Senegal. The Initiative is schedule to end at the end of fiscal year 2010. Assessment Purpose The objective of the AGCI assessment is to ascertain whether AGCI has led to the development and implementation of activities that effectively supported growth in trade in participating African countries and, looking forward, how USAID/Africa’s future trade and competitiveness efforts should be shaped to support economic growth. The assessment will identify improvements that Africa Bureau can incorporate into the management of its trade and competitiveness portfolio that will bring an increased strategic focus to programming, and lead to improved communication and efficiency with partnering USAID Operating Units implementing interventions that support rapid and long-term increase in trade-led economic growth for Sub-Saharan African countries. The Knowledge Sharing and Analysis (KSA) Project, implemented by SEGURA-IP3 Partners, is responsible for managing this assessment and is working in partnership with GBTI II-approved subcontractor Management Systems International (MSI). The core assessment team is comprised of professionals from SEGURA/IP3 Partners and MSI . The core assessment team includes Dennis Marotta, SEGURA/IP3, as the technical director, Patricia Vondal, MSI, as the team leader, and Bechir Rassas and Keith Sherper from Segura as the senior trade capacity building experts. The core team is supported by two research assistants/project managers: Nazrawit Medhanie from MSI, and Gulzada Nurumbetova from SEGURA/IP3. Keith Brown, from MSI, provides technical evaluation advisory assistance to the core team. The core team will later be joined by three economic growth/trade specialists for the purposes of data collection in Africa. Work Plan This Work Plan has been developed to provide a detailed roadmap of activities that the AGCI assessment team will be engaged in for the duration of the assessment. The assessment began on April 20 and will conclude in mid-September. In addition to providing a scheduling of activities, it also details the assessment team’s current thinking regarding approach, methods, and deliverables. The work plan will be used to: Guide the activities of the assessment team Provide oversight capability for the assessment by the USAID/SD/EGEA AGCI Activity Manager, Mr. Stafford Baker Help the AGCI Working Group monitor the progress of the assessment ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 6 We take the position that this Work Plan is a “living document” that can be revised as necessary with approval from the AGCI Activity Manager as needs occur to make changes in scheduling, field site locations, or as particular opportunities arise. II. PRIMARY ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS The SOW originally listed five primary questions for the assessment. Following the assessment team planning meeting, the team members decided to hold discussion meetings with key AGCI stakeholders to obtain their opinions on how this assessment could provide information that would be most useful to them as managers of the Initiative. The assessment team subsequently held a discussion meeting with the AGCI Working Group in AID/Washington, and two separate telecom meetings with AGCI managers from Burundi, Nigeria, Ghana, Mali and Botswana. As a result, these five questions were altered as follows: 1. What has AGCI achieved to date as an initiative when compared to its goals? What has worked, what hasn’t, and why in terms of the four focus areas that can be addressed for future programming? Are the achievements sustainable? 2. Has AGCI assistance reflected the priorities of host country governments and the major Regional Economic Communities (RECS)? 3. In what ways have AGCI bilateral and regional efforts been able to link up with national and/or REC approaches to build more effective regional economic and trade outcomes? 4. Based on learning from questions one, two and three above, what are the implications for Africa Bureau/SD programming for economic growth and trade? 5. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of Africa Bureau’s management of AGCI? 6. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the AGCI Performance Monitoring and Reporting System? 7. What lessons can be learned in terms of: a. How the interagency approach to AGCI and how it has been implemented in the field can inform the “whole of government” mandate for U.S. Foreign Assistance; b. How AGCI bilateral activities assisted African countries and RECS to integrate an increasingly regional approach to economic growth and trade; and how these efforts supported and been supported by AGCI regional activities; and c. How AGCI can inform the increasing emphasis on regional approaches to development in Africa? III. ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES, DELIVERABLES, AND TIMELINE In order to maximize the team’s learning and efficiency, the SOW called for developed a plan comprised of four phases. Below is a brief overview of each of the four assessment phases. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 7 Phase I. Document Review and Assessment Plan April 22-May 29, 2009 Deliverables: Work Plan, Criteria for Selecting Bilateral Missions for Data Collection, Recommended Field Sites Key Activities Team Planning Meeting Document collection and review Workshop with AGCI Working Group Teleconferences with field-based AGCI managers Key Respondent Interviews Development and submission of a detailed work plan Develop criteria and method for selecting field sites for data collection in Africa Prepare recommendations for countries where data collection will be conducted Phase II. Data Collection – Washington Component June 1 – July 9, 2009 Deliverables: Analysis report summarizing preliminary findings to date Key Activities Key Respondent Interviews continued in USAID/Washington Key Respondent Interview with KSA Performance Monitoring Specialist Key Respondent Interviews with Interagency Initiative Partners Interview authors of the 2006 evaluation of AGCI Trade Hubs Prepare a list of individuals the team wishes to interview in the missions selected for the assessment Contact selected missions for approval to conduct assessment activities Design and test data collection instruments, interview protocols, group discussion guides for each category of stakeholder in Africa (e.g., Mission staff, contract implementers, African partners, ministries, beneficiaries) Review documents related to AGCI activities in missions selected and approved for assessment Review AGCI performance monitoring system, Results Framework, and performance reports from field missions Design and distribute online survey to all bilateral missions in Sub-Saharan Africa Analyze all findings from Phase I and Phase II data collection Prepare a summary report of preliminary findings ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 8 Phase III. Data Collection – Africa Component July 10 – July 31, 2009 Deliverables: Debriefings for Regional and Bilateral Missions (as appropriate) Key Activities Data collection in assessment locations in western, southern and eastern Africa through interviews with key respondents, group interviews, direct observation, and document reviews Conduct debriefings at regional and bilateral missions where data were collected Phase IV. Data Analysis, Report, and Presentation August 3 – September 11, 2009 Deliverables: AGCI Assessment briefing, Assessment Report Key Activities Conduct an analysis based on data collection activities from Phases I, II and III Prepare key findings Prepare conclusions Prepare recommendations and lessons learned Prepare a draft and final assessment report Prepare and deliver an AGCI assessment briefing in Washington The Timeline Table on the following page illustrates the timing of activities during each of the four phases and the deliverables associated with each phase. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 9 APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPT Phase I: Document review and Assessment Plan Activities Initial Team Planning Meeting 29-Apr Document Review Assessment purpose teleconference with field 19-20 May Assessment purpose teleconference with the USADI AGCI Working Group 30-Apr 21-22 May; 27 May Interview guides and list of key informants in USAID Conduct interviews with USAID/W key informants Develop critreia for selection of field sites Prepare recommendations for field sites and rationale for selection Complete Assessment Workplan Deliverables Detailed Assessment Workplan 29-May Criteria for field site selection and reccommended field sites 29-May Phase II: Data Collection - Washington Component Activities Develop and test an on-line survey for all bilateral Mission in Africa that participate in AGCI (Target date: June 15) 15-Jun Begin approval and country clearance process for selected field sites Transmit survey to Missions Draft, test, and finalize all data collection instrucments. Conduct further interviews in USAID/W, and with other USG agencies that participate in AGCI: USDA, USTDA, USC Begin analysis of data from surveys, literature review and interviews (Week of June 29) Wk of June 29 Prepare report summarizing preliminary findings (Week of July 6) Wk of July 6 Deliverables Summary Analysis Activities and Deliverables per Phase Monthly Targets/Deadlines April 28 - May 29 June 1 - July 10 ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 10 Phase III: Data Collection - Africa Component Activities Hub Level: Regional Missions (COTR, Finance Officer, Econ Advisor, Contracts Officer, Program Officer); Bilateral Mission (same country) AGCI Hub Implementer (COP and Staff) 13-Jul Key hub partners US Embassy Trade Rep Reps from USG Agencies (USTDA, USC, USDA) Selected Ministries Regional Associations/Organizations, both private and semi-private Present debrief presentation highlighting the sub-teams' preliminary findings and conclusions to hubs Teleconference among sub-teams Country Level : Bilateral Missions (COTR, Finance Officer, Econ Advisor, Contracts Officer, Program Officer) Project Implementer (COP and Staff) Key Partners US Embassy Trade Rep Reps from USG Agencies (USTDA, USC, USDA) Other donors and international organizations (AfDB, World Bank, DIFD, CIDA, as appropriate) Selected Ministries Regional Associations/Organizations, both private and semi-private Export Ready Firms Assisted Emerging Businesses Assisted Finance Institutions One stop shops, cargo shipment and delivery points, harbors, railways, ect. Present debrief presentation highlighting the sub-teams' preliminary findings and conclusions to bilateral Teleconference among sub-teams Deliverables For both rgional and bilateral missions, present debriefing of preliminary findings and conclusions July 13 - August 7 Begin data collection in hubs, regional Missions and selected bilateral Missions using selected instruments as appropriate to stakeholder category. Collect relevant documents and other data not available at USAID/W. Coordinate two teleconferences for the three sub-team while conducting fieldwork to discuss progress and challenges. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 11 Phase IV: Data Analysis, Report, and Presentation Activities Data Analysis; review and analyze data from fieldwork and from phases 1 and 2 when the three sub-teams reconvene Prepare Draft Report Prepare Presentation; prepare and deliver a debrief presentation in Washington outlining lessons learned and recommendations for a follow-on AGCI Deliverables Draft Report; conclude data analysis and submit the draft assessment report complete with findings, conclusions, and recommendations Formal presentation Final AGCI Assessment Report; after AFR/SD/EGEA has had adequate time to review the deliverable and provide feedback, the assessment team will incorporate these comments into the final report and submit for final approval 11-Sep August 10 - Sept 11 ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 12 IV. DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND ANALYSIS PLANS The primary methods the assessment team will use to collect data will consist of a review of selected AGCI documents and data from Washington and from field location sites, a review and analysis of the AGCI performance monitoring plan and data reports, group discussions, key respondent interviews, other individual interviews on specific topics, direct observation and an online survey. Our selection of data collection methods is based on an analysis we conducted using MSI’s “Getting to Answers” table related to each of the seven assessment questions (see Annex III). Data collection instruments for use in Washington during Phase II and in the field during Phase III will be included in the Annex of this Work Plan as they are designed and approved during Phase II. A complete list of persons interviewed by location and date will be included in Annex II of this Workplan as interviews are arranged. The Annex currently contains a list of individuals interviewed during Phase I. The overall design of the AGCI Assessment calls for continual analysis at each phase. The benefit of this continual analytical work from synthesizing data collected from each phase is that it will inform the development of more in-depth and relevant questions as well as more in-depth learning at each subsequent phase. A more thorough description of the analytical methods that will be used for each assessment question is also found in the “Getting to Answers” Table. The team’s responses to Questions 1-6 will each include principal findings, conclusions based on findings, and recommendations based on the conclusions. Lessons learned documented for Question 7 will be based on the findings, conclusions and recommendations as appropriate to Question 7. A brief description of data collection and analysis methods that will be used by Assessment Phase is provided below. Phase I - Data Collection in Washington Document Review. Data collection in Phase I begins with a review of AGCI related documents. Documents from AID/Washington, the regional trade hubs, and KSA were provided to the team at the start of the assessment. They were reviewed toward getting an overview of AGCI, its history, and its overall performance to date. Group Discussions. The team began the assessment following an AGCI team planning meeting by meeting with the AID/Washington AGCI Working Group. The purpose of this meeting, while not particularly for data collection, was to obtain points of view on the types of questions that should be asked in order to maximize the assessment’s utility for learning and management purposes. To provide a balance to viewpoints from AID/Washington, the assessment team held similar discussions by teleconference with staff that could make themselves available from African missions. These discussions were held on two separate days in order to talk with as many mission staff as possible. On the basis of the feedback obtained from USAID staff in Washington and the field, the assessment team reviewed the five assessment questions and made some revisions. Key Respondent Interviews. Key respondent interviews were conducted by the full team with AID/Washington staff holding current and past responsibilities for AGCI management and component leadership. Interviews were also conducted with individuals who were involved in the initial design of ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 13 AGCI. The primary purpose of these key respondent interviews was to obtain an overview of AGCI’s history; and insights on issues and viewpoints related to the design of AGCI, and AGCI management, coordination, funding and budget allocations, communications, and Interagency participation. The team also interviewed KSA staff for a description of the AGCI knowledge management system, as well as for their views on AGCI management, communication processes, and coordination of the initiative between the field and AID/Washington. Analysis – The team will conduct a content analysis of issues covered by the literature review, group discussions, and key respondent interviews to see if trends in key factors and issues emerge. Outlier views will also be recorded. The data from this analysis will inform questions used in interviews conducted in Washington during Phase II, and for the development of the online survey. Phase II - Data Collection in Washington Online Survey. A very brief online survey will be designed and administered to staff with AGCI management responsibilities in all bilateral missions in Sub-Saharan Africa in mid-June. This short survey will ask no more than five questions related to preliminary findings from the literature review and key repondent interviews. The questions will primarily refer to management, communication, and performance monitoring and reporting issues. Individual Interviews. During Phase II, the team will interview other AID/Washington staff related to specific AGCI components and AFR/DP staff involved in budget allocations for regional and bilateral missions. Key Respondent Interviews. The team will also conduct interviews with representatives from agencies that are involved in the AGCI Interagency Team (State, UST R, Commerce, USDA, and Treasury). Interagency representatives will be interviewed regarding their view points on AGCI coordination in Washington and in the field, their sub-team work with their AID/Washington counterparts in AFR/SD and EGAT, the AGCI reporting system, and how they see the effectiveness and sustainability of their agency’s work in Africa AGCI countries. Document Reviews. The team will continue to collect AGCI documents that are referenced or recommended by key respondents and other individuals. We will also review secondary data from performance monitoring reports and financial documents related to budget allocations. Analysis – Responses from interviews conducted in Washington will be subject to a content analysis, again to see if trends in key factors and issues emerge as related to questions regarding AGCI management (Assessment Question #5) and AGCI achievements (Assessment Question #1). Different perspectives by agencies involved in the Interagency Group will be noted, as well as any convergence in opinion. The team will also analyze survey response data for patterns in key factors and issues. The analysis of these data will be compared to the analytical findings from Washington interview data. The analysis of responses from Washington and the field will together inform the framing of questions that we will ask during interviews in Africa. The team will do an analysis of the AGCI performance monitoring system and data reports from bilateral and regional missions. A separate analysis of online survey responses related to performance monitoring and reporting issues will be conducted. This analytical work will help us to begin answering Assessment Question #6, and will be used to shape more in-depth questions on the subject of the AGCI performance monitoring and reporting system at the assessment field sites in Africa. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 14 Phase III - Data Collection in Africa. Key Respondent Interviews. While in Africa, the sub-teams will collect data during fieldwork in their respective regions. Each team will begin collecting data at the regional mission and then at the bilateral mission in that country. Sub-teams will then travel to an additional bilateral mission in the region to repeat the same protocol. At the Mission, team members will conduct key respondent interviews with the AGCI/EG CTO and/or EG Trade Advisor, Program Officer, Contracts Officer, and Finance Officer. Outside of the Mission, the teams will hold interviews with the COP from the Trade Hub implementing contractor, and with key implementation partners in selected ministries and RECS. Individual interviews and group discussions. Individual interviews will be conducted with a range of stakeholders from private and semi-government associations, businesses, trade points, financial and other regulatory institutions, etc. When it appears that it will be possible and more profitable, the team will hold group discussions. This will be left up to the judgment of the team leader at each location. Document and Data Review. The team will collect and review country- and region-specific documents, and review mission performance reporting data, country trade data, etc. as relevant to the assessment. Direct Observation. Structured direct observation techniques may be used in selected locations such as one-stop-shops, harbors, and other major transit hubs along key shipping routes for primary trade goods. Analysis – As in the analytical work done at the conclusion of Phases I and II, the team will conduct a content analysis to see if trends in key factors and issues emerge from data obtained through interviews, data and document reviews, and direct observation in Africa. Again, we will also note outlier issues. Because of the range of categories of respondents in Africa, we expect to find differences between types of respondents (mission, project contract implementers, host country counterparts, organizational partners, private sector participants, etc.) It is important to document differences and similarities of perspectives and opinions between these respondent categories. The online survey findings from Phase II will be compared with findings from an analysis of interview data collected during Phase III in Africa as a means of corroborating the more in-depth interview data. The more in depth information collected in each African country the team visits will also be used to provide a greater understanding of online survey data. Phase IV – Final Analysis Our final analysis will combine key issues and factors affecting AGCI outcomes that serve as the basis for findings during Phases I, II, and III. From these data, we will combine the key findings, denoting differences of perspectives by location and position, including differences between regions in Africa, between USAID/Washington and missions in Africa, AID/Washington and other USG agencies involved in AGCI, and between Missions, host country governments, and private sector actors, etc. Our analysis and findings conducted during the first three phases of this Assessment will be used to answer Assessment Questions #1, # 2, # 3, #4 and 5. The findings from these five questions will be used to develop findings, conclusions, recommendations and to develop lessons learned on which types of processes and interventions can be applied to the USG Foreign Assistance mandate to utilize a “whole of government” approach (Assessment Question 7a), and to strengthen and increasingly promote sustain regional development approaches in Africa in the future to best promote economic growth (Assessment Questions 7b. and 7c.) ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 15 Analysis and findings developed to answer management issues (Assessment Question #5) will be used to develop findings, conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations on what type of improvements can be made in AGCI management that would lead to effective outcomes. The analysis of data from the first three phases related to the AGCI Performance Monitoring and Reporting System will be used to produce findings, conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations to improve this system for management of AGCI activities at the initiative and activity levels, and for reporting across the initiative (Assessment Question #6). The analysis of data and findings conducted during the first three phases of the Assessment will be used to develop findings, conclusions and recommendations on how USAID can ensure that its past and future investments result in sustainable achievement (Assessment Question #7c.) Each finding will be clearly backed up by our data analysis. The team will then conduct an analysis of these findings and come to our principal conclusions. These conclusions will also be developed into a primary set of lessons learned. Based on the conclusions the assessment team develops, a set of primary recommendations will be made to assist Africa Bureau to develop future trade and competitiveness programming. V. SELECTION CRITERIA AND PROPOSED FIELD SITES Field Site Selection Criteria The core team members developed criteria and a scoring system (see Criteria Table in Annex) for selecting field sites to collect assessment data in Africa as an addition to the data collection that will be conducted where the trade hubs are located and the regional and bilateral missions in those countries. The approach that the assessment team employed to determine which Sub-Saharan African locations to conduct fieldwork in was largely rooted in attentive listening to our USAID AGCI key respondents in Washington and AGCI managers in the field. During Phase I individual and group interviews, the first meeting of the Washington-based AGCI assessment working group, and two group teleconferences with field-based AGCI managers and program officers, the assessment team asked for factors that should be considered when developing an approach for field site selection. Based on a synthesis of this input from USAID and the assessment team’s own analysis, the following criteria have been utilized: 1. Geographic coverage across USAID’s three African sub-regions, 2. Coverage of Global Competiveness Hubs, 3. AGOA eligibility, 4. Active AGCI-funded programs being implemented during the proposed fieldwork period, 5. Sectoral coverage across all four AGCI components, 6. Sustained participation with AGCI (measured through years of involvement with the 5-year Initiative), 7. High AGCI funding levels (measured through annual average AGCI funding levels), 8. Other presences such as the, and ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 16 9. Designated AGCI focus countries. 35 The first five criteria are to a greater or lesser extent written into the assessment design as framed by the SOW. The assessment is meant to be comprehensive in nature and, as a result, the assessment team has three groups going to East, Southern, and West Africa for the same duration to ensure geographic coverage. The SOW actually specifies that each group should visit the regional mission/Hub and a bilateral mission. A review of AGCI-funded activities was examined on a mission-by-mission basis to ensure component coverage. In addition, countries had to be eligible to participate in AGOA and have active AGCI-funded programs in place during the anticipated period of assessment team fieldwork. Given the relatively limited timeframe for data collection in Africa, the next two criteria were considered of primary importance to learn from missions that have had key roles in the Initiative. The two criteria focused on time and funding levels as measures to gauge missions’ level of involvement in AGCI: sustained participation with AGCI (i.e., the number of years that a mission received AGCI funding) and AGCI funding levels. Additional criteria considered in the selection of field site locations include whether missions were co-located with regional trade hubs and/or Regional Economic Communities. Proposed Field Sites A primary consideration for selection of the field sites was that a maximum of three locations per sub￾region shall be visited to ensure that there is adequate time to collect data. The meaning of location in this context specifically refers to: a regional mission (and its AGCI-funded activities apart from the Hub), a bilateral mission (and its AGCI-funded activities), or a Hub. Despite the fact that they may be co￾located, sufficient time needs to be allotted so that the assessment produces reliable findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Based on the approach to field site selection as described above, the proposed missions to conduct fieldwork are presented by geographic sub-region. For East Africa, the proposed missions include the regional mission based in Nairobi, the Global Competiveness Hub also based in Nairobi, and either the Ethiopia or Uganda bilateral mission. The Ethiopia mission’s EG team is expected to experience high turnover by the proposed fieldwork period with staff transferring to other posts, which could affect the utility of data collection there. For Southern Africa, the proposed missions include the regional mission based in Pretoria, the Hub located in Botswana, and either the Mozambique or Zambia bilateral mission. There are some questions as to whether language will be an issue for the team should they go to Mozambique. For Western Africa, the proposed missions include the bilateral missions in Ghana and Senegal and the Hub based in Accra. Missions that could serve as alternate should there be some difficulties with the first proposed missions could include the regional mission based in Accra or the Nigeria bilateral mission. There is uncertainty as to the utility of conducting fieldwork at the regional mission due to expected shifts in personnel. The assessment team expects to have a dialogue with USAID/AFR to solidify these proposed missions in which to conduct fieldwork. In addition, after an anticipated introduction by Washington to the field, the team will have discussions directly with the missions to ensure their willingness to participate in this 35 While the value of learning from both the high performers and the low performers (or those that for one reason or another were not as engaged by the Initiative) is recognized, this approach has concentrated on focusing on the USAID missions that have had the most sustained involvement and activities with AGCI given the limited time available for data collection in the field. Other data collection methods are meant to target input from those missions that have had more limited roles in contributing to the Initiative. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 17 study, ensure the availability of key staff during the proposed timeframe, and also determine other AGCI stakeholders suitable to interview. A number of selected annexes from the work plan follow below. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 18 Annex 1. Getting to Answers Table Getting to Answers for the AGCI Assessment Evaluation Questions Type of Answer/Evidence Needed Method Data Source Sampling or Selection Approach Data Analysis Methods 1.What has AGCI achieved to date as an initiative when compared to its goals? What has worked, what hasn’t and why in terms of the four focus areas that can be addressed for future programming? Are the achievements sustainable? Intervention details within each component; and evidence from evaluations and analytical documents Expenditure data by component and year with an emphasis on bilateral and regional missions selected for this assessment Results data on trade volume and value within region, with USA, and with other international markets such as the EU, Asia, etc. Document reviews Document reviews and analysis Document reviews Bilateral and regional mission and implementing partner strategy and reporting documents at assessment field locations. AGCI statement documents. Evaluation documents. KSA analysis documents, best practice and success stories. Planning and budget documents from AFR/SD and EGAT AFR DP budget allocation documents, bilateral and regional mission budget documents related to AGCI Trade data from relevant ministries and RECS from countries where Africa data Documents from each field site location selected for assessment; all KSA documents and Web site review; all existing analytical/evalua tion reports All planning and budget allocation and budget request documents from AFR/SD, AFR/DP, EGAT, and from bilateral and regional missions and hubs selected for assessment All trade data from countries where field work is conducted. All We will conduct a content review and analysis for trends in responses from all key respondent, individual interviews and group discussions for each region noting outlier responses, and then conduct a comparison of trends across regions. Perspectives from host country counterparts, RECs, and private sector associations will be compared with perspectives on achievements, factors related to achievements and lack of achievements, and sustainability of achievements etc. with those from bilateral and regional staff and representatives from other USG agencies in country field locations. Findings from this analysis will be compared with the findings from an analysis of online survey data to see if they corroborate each other. Again, outlier responses will be recorded and analyzed to understand key differences in findings from these different sources. Descriptions and analysis from direct observations made at key locations will be reported, and an analysis will be conducted to see if these observations corroborate with findings from interview and survey data. An analysis will be conducted of trade ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 19 Evaluation Questions Type of Answer/Evidence Needed Method Data Source Sampling or Selection Approach Data Analysis Methods Responses from key respondents and other stakeholder interviews in Washington and from the field on achievements, what has and hasn’t worked and on sustainability issues Online survey Key respondent interviews Small group interviews Other individual interviews collection conducted. Performance monitoring reports from missions and KSA Individuals involved in AGCI management, design of trade and competitiveness initiatives, donor activities from selected bilateral missions, AGCI analytical and evaluation work, performance reporting. Africans in countries where AGCI trade hubs located and in the selected bilateral missions who are either implementing partners for AGCI or actual/potential AGCI beneficiaries. These will include individuals associated with RECS, selected ministries, private sector, semi￾private, or go. associations, NGOs, and actual actors participating in trade activities. performance monitoring and results documents from bilateral and regional missions Survey total universe of African bilateral missions While at field locations, interviews to be conducted with all individuals with primary associations with AGCI activities volume and value data, trade partner data with USA, with other international markets and in the three regions where the field work was conducted. Analysis of interview and discussion data will be compared with trade data, results reporting data to see if the analysis from interview data and trade and results data corroborate each other. If not, an analysis will be conducted to determine differences between interview, survey and quantitative data. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 20 Evaluation Questions Type of Answer/Evidence Needed Method Data Source Sampling or Selection Approach Data Analysis Methods Visual and audio evidence Direct observation techniques employing 2 team members at each location selected for observation Varies according to judgment of AGCI field team. May include one￾stop trade locations, shipment points, harbors, trade entrepreneur business locations, etc. Selected according to relevance as judged by team members at each location 2.Has AGCI assistance reflected the priorities of host country governments and the major RECs? Responses and information related to incorporation of host country go. and REC opinion on collaboration , inclusion and implementation of priorities from joint planning with missions; and opinions on same from bilateral and regional missions, hubs, implementing partners Planning documents, agreements, MOUs and other related reports that demonstrate collaboration and inclusion of priorities with USAID bilateral and regional missions reflecting views and priorities of ministry and REC partners Key respondent interviews, individual interviews, small group discussions Document reviews Interview data from African field site locations from host country ministry partners and RECs; private sector associations, mission staff, implementing contract staff, USG reps Host country government strategy documents, USG field rep documents, Mission planning documents, MOUs between USAID and host country ministry partners and USG offices, and/or RECs At field locations, will select all individuals for key respondent, individual, and small group discussions associated with AGCI All relevant documentation available at each field site selected for assessment Conduct a content analysis of responses from each category of respondent (USAID, other USG reps, African government, RECS, Hub Managers) per country and per region where field work conducted, and then across regions because response may vary between countries and regions. Compare responses between USG and African actors to see if perspectives are the same or differ, and why. Analysis from document reviews for an independent determination as to whether AGCI assistance has reflected opinions of host country governments and major RECS. Determine if there are differences among countries and among the three regions. Determine if these findings corroborate findings from analysis of interview responses. If not, analyze why. 3. In what ways have AGCI bilateral and Interview responses and data that demonstrate regional linkages with host country government partners and Key respondent and individual interviews; Online survey response data; Interview data from African field site Total universe of African bilateral missions; At Same basic analysis as described above, but with a focus on how AGCI bilateral and regional efforts have been able to ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 21 Evaluation Questions Type of Answer/Evidence Needed Method Data Source Sampling or Selection Approach Data Analysis Methods regional efforts been able to link up with national and/or REC approaches to build more effective regional economic and trade outcomes? associated RECS related to trade and economic growth.. small group discussions, online survey to all African bilateral missions Document review locations from host country ministry partners and RECs; private sector associations, mission staff, implementing contract staff, USG reps MOUs between African governments, associated legislation, rules, regulations; Results reporting data and narrative from bilateral and regional missions selected for field work for the assessment USG documents from Commerce, USTR, State KSA success documents describing how regional and/or country to country agreements related to trade have been accomplished Key respondents t hat were involved in making links; field locations, will select all individuals for key respondent, individual, and small group discussions associated with AGCI All relevant documentation available at each field site selected for assessment support and/or strengthen national and or REC approaches for more effective regional economic and trade outcomes. Use performance reporting data and trade data as well as official documents from African countries where the assessment was conducted to determine whether the findings from trade and results reporting data support the findings from the analysis of interview data. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 22 Evaluation Questions Type of Answer/Evidence Needed Method Data Source Sampling or Selection Approach Data Analysis Methods implementing partners that provided assistance to host country governments, RECs, trade associations, etc. 4.Based on learning from questions one, two and three above, what are the implications for Africa Bureau/SD’s AGCI programming? Evidence-based findings, conclusions, recommendations on results related to questions one, two, and three above Review and analysis of findings, conclusions and recommend￾tins from 3 questions above, disaggregated by region and then compared across the three regions Reports authored by team members on findings, conclusions and recommendations Team reports from each region Conduct a regional comparison review and analysis of the findings, conclusions and recommendations from the three questions above. Hold an Assessment Team workshop to distill and discuss key findings, conclusions and recommendations that are appropriate for informing AFR/SD AGCI programming. 5.What are the main strengths and weaknesses of Africa Bureau’s management of AGCI? Responses/information on these questions from past and current AGCI managers at the Initiative level and activity level in Washington from USAID and Interagency participants, and from KSA staff. Documented descriptions of AGCI design, management and communications and coordination approach – both historical and current Evaluation evidence on the topic of management Responses from field/mission regarding AGCI management , Key respondent interviews Individual interviews Document review KSI Web site review Evaluation document review, interviews with evaluators In Washington, current and past AGCI managers and component leaders; and individuals involved in AGCI design; AGCI managers in regional missions, COPs implementing trade hub activities. Current and past managers of AGCI activities in other involved USG agencies and State. Interviews with KSA Staff, USAID/AFR/SD IAEA Staff, AFR/DP Purposeful selection for individual interviews and key respondent interviews with USAID AGCI management responsibility, and for interagency counterparts at State, USTR, Commerce. Same approach for selecting individuals for individual Analysis of data will focus on getting perspective from the field, from AID/Washington, and from interagency actors in Washington and their reps in selected countries. We will look for trends in responses from each perspective as they emerge through a focused content review of interview notes. Outlier issues/perspectives and discrepancies in information within either Washington or Field responses/information will receive equal attention and followed up with key respondents selected for their appropriateness as regards the issue. Data from the online survey will be analyzed to 1) inform questions asked in the field at selected bilateral missions and at regional missions and trade hubs; and ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 23 Evaluation Questions Type of Answer/Evidence Needed Method Data Source Sampling or Selection Approach Data Analysis Methods communication and coordination issues Online survey for Africa bilateral Missions, slotted to AGCI managers on staff Key respondent and individual interviews in Africa located in regional missions, trade hubs, and bilateral missions selected for in￾depth investigation staff Interviews with African implementing partners in countries where regional trade hubs located, and in selected bilateral mission countries Evaluation of trade hubs document (2006), evaluation authors Trade hub newsletters KSA Web site AGCI Annual Reports AGCI PMP Data interviews and key respondent interviews in Africa. Online survey will use a universal sample. All missions in Africa. Will review all AGCI documents and information on KSA Web site and performance monitoring data that exists to date 2) give greater weight to findings derived from interviews, annual and quarterly reports and performance data. 6.What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the AGCI Performance Monitoring and Reporting system? Opinions from individuals who receive/review and use AGCI PMP data; individuals who report under the current system; individuals who took a role in developing t he system Evidence from a review and analysis of the AGCI PMP plan and PMP reporting data Key respondent interviews Other individual interviews PMP document review and analysis USAID/AGCI managers, component leaders AFR/SD management AFR/DP management Online survey responses KSA staff AGCI managers and program officer and those responsible for data collection and analysis in regional and Purposeful selection of individuals for interviewing that receive/review AGCI performance data Analyze responses from interviews for patterns in opinions given, compare with analysis of responses from online survey. Compare field vs. Washington responses. Conduct review and analysis of the system and its indicators as well as data reported from bilateral and regional missions. Analysis to be done on data collection and reporting on the initiative and activity levels as well as for reporting across the initiative. Compare analysis done on responses ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 24 Evaluation Questions Type of Answer/Evidence Needed Method Data Source Sampling or Selection Approach Data Analysis Methods selected bilateral missions Trade Hub CTOs Interagency participant managers AGCI Performance Monitoring Plan from interviews and online survey with analysis done from document reviews of the performance monitoring system and data that have been collected and reported. Temper what is theoretically best with analysis of actual conditions related to data collection and reporting experience/opinions. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 25 Evaluation Questions Type of Answer/Evidence Needed Method Data Source Sampling or Selection Approach Data Analysis Methods 7.What lessons can be learned in terms of: a.How the interagency approach to AGCI and how it has been implemented in the field can inform the ―whole of government‖ mandate for US Foreign Assistance. b.How AGCI bilateral activities assisted African countries and RECS to integrate an increasingly regional approach to economic growth and trade; and how these efforts supported and been supported by AGCI regional activities c. How AGCI can inform the increasing emphasis on regional approaches to development in Africa. a. Analysis derived from answering questions 1 and 2 above. b. Analysis derived from answering questions 2, 3, 4 and 5. c. Analysis derived from answering questions 1, 4, and 5. Analysis of findings Analysis of findings Analysis of findings Findings from the analysis of questions 1 and 2. Findings from questions 2,3,4 and 5. Findings from questions 1,4, and 5. Not applicable Review, analyze and reflect on findings from questions 1and 2. Discuss with Assessment Team members to distill lessons learned. Develop lessons learned and recommendations. Review, analyze and reflect on findings from questions 2-5. Discuss with Assessment Team members to distill lessons learned. Develop lessons learned and recommendations. Review, analyze and reflect on findings from questions 1, 4, and 5. Discuss with Assessment Team members to distill lessons learned. Develop lessons learned and recommendations. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 26 Annex 2. Criteria Table for Selecting Assessment Sites in Africa Region and Country AGOA Eligible AGCI Active (2008 or 2009) AGCI Focus Countries Length of AGCI Involvemenmt Allocation Levels of AGCI Funding Trade Hub Regional Economic Community Total Score EA Regional Mission (Nairobi) - 1 1 3 3 1 9 Burundi 1 1 2 1 5 Central African Republic 0 Comoros 1 1 Congo DRC 1 1 2 1 5 Congo ROC 1 1 Djibouti 1 1 Eritrea 0 Ethiopia 1 1 1 2 3 1 9 Kenya 1 1 1 2 2 1 8 Madagascar 1 1 Mauritus 1 1 Rwanda 1 1 1 3 Seychelles 1 1 Somalia 0 Sudan 0 Tanzania 1 1 1 1 1 5 Uganda 1 1 2 1 5 SA Regional Mission (Pretoria) - 1 1 3 3 8 Angola 1 1 1 3 Botswana 1 1 1 3 Lesotho 1 1 Malawi 1 1 2 1 5 Mozambique 1 1 1 3 3 9 Namibia 1 1 1 3 South Africa 1 1 2 1 5 Swaziland 1 1 Zambia 1 1 1 3 2 1 9 Zimbabwe 0 WA Regional Mission (Accra) - 1 1 3 3 1 9 Benin 1 1 Burkina Faso 1 1 Cameroon 1 1 Cape Verde 1 1 Chad 1 1 Cote d'Ivoire 0 Equatorial Guinea 0 Gabon 1 1 Gambia 1 1 Ghana 1 1 1 2 3 1 9 Guinea 1 1 Guinea-Bissau 1 1 Liberia 1 1 1 2 2 7 Mali 1 1 1 3 Mauritania 0 Niger 1 1 Nigeria 1 1 1 2 3 1 9 Sao Tome and Principe 1 1 Senegal 1 1 1 3 2 1 9 Sierra Leone 1 1 Togo 1 1 West Africa Region East Africa Region Southern Africa Region ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 27 Gambia 1 1 Ghana 1 1 1 2 3 1 9 Guinea 1 1 Guinea-Bissau 1 1 Liberia 1 1 1 2 2 7 Mali 1 1 1 3 Mauritania 0 Niger 1 1 Nigeria 1 1 1 2 3 1 9 Sao Tome and Principe 1 1 Senegal 1 1 1 3 2 1 9 Sierra Leone 1 1 Togo 1 1 ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 28 Annex 3. AGCI Component Coverage by Activity Mission Projects Enabling Environment Enterprise Strengthening Finance Infrastructure Period of Performance Bilateral Angola Financial Sector Program (FSP) 04/15/08 to 04/14/10 Burundi Burundi Agribusiness Project (BAP) 10/01/07 to 9/30/12 Ethiopia AGOA+ 04/07/06 to 04/07/11 Ethiopia Agribusiness Trade Expansion Program (ATEP) 04/07/06 to 04/07/11 Ethiopia WTO Assession Program 11/26/07 to 11/26/10 Ghana Trade and Investment Program for a Competitive Export Economy (TIPCEE) 10/1/04 to 11/30/09 Kenya Kenya Horticulture Development Program (KHDP) 9/19/03 to 3/31/09 Liberia Liberia Community Infrastructure Program (LCIP) 02/01/08 to 4/30/10 Liberia TBD* 3/17/09 to TBD Malawi Captive Fisheries for Income and Strengthened Households (C-FISH) 10/01/07 to 10/01/10 Malawi Deepening Microfinance Sector Project (DMS) 12/01/03 to 10/01/10 Mali Economic Growth Initiative N/A Mozambique Trade and Investment Program-Mozambique (TIPMOZ) 09/11/03 to 09/30/10 Mozambique Agribusiness and Trade Competitiveness (ATC) Program 02/01/09 to 01/3/14 Mozambique Confederation of Mozambican Business Association 09/30/04 to 09/30/09 Nigeria Restructured Economic Framework for Openness , Reform and Macroeconomic Stability (REFORMS) N/A Rwanda FinA Software Project N/A ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 29 Mission Projects Enabling Environment Enterprise Strengthening Finance Infrastructure Period of Performance Senegal Support for Accelerated Growth and Increased Competitiveness (SAGIC) 12/12/05 to 12/11/10 South Africa Financial Sector Program (FSP) N/A South Africa South African International Business Linkages (SAIBL) N/A Tanzania Agricultural Credit Authority N/A Tanzania Tanzania Air-Freight Project (TAP) N/A Uganda Agricultural Productivity Enhancement Program (APEP) 7/9/03 to 7/8/08 Zambia Market Access, Trade and Enabling Policies Project (MATEP) 04/18/05 to 03/17/10 Zambia Production, Finance and Technology (PROFIT) 04/01/05 to 03/31/10 Regional East Africa East Africa Global Competitiveness Hub 10/1/03 to 9/30/08 East Africa Regional Agricultural Trade Expansion Support 10/1/02 to 3/30/08 East Africa COMESA Support 10/1/06 to 9/30/10 Southern Africa Southern Africa Global Competitiveness Hub AECOM: 9/23/04 to 9/22/10, CARANA: 9/28/2005 to 9/27/2009 West Africa West Africa Global Competitiveness Hub 11/21/02 to 09/30/11 West Africa West African Power Pool 09/18/05 to 09/16/10 ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex D - 30 Mission Projects Enabling Environment Enterprise Strengthening Finance Infrastructure Period of Performance Washington/AFR AFR/SD Africa Entreprenuers Fund (AEF) - PPP N/A AFR/SD AEF - Overseas Private Investment Corp. N/A AFR/SD AEF - Ghana DCA N/A AFR/SD Africa Infrastructure Program N/A AFR/SD Global Quilt and AVOIR N/A AFR/SD Financial Sector Quick Response Bankworld 09/29/08 to 09/29/12 AFR/SD Business Climate, Legal and Institutional Reform (BizCLIR) N/A AFR/SD Central African Power Pool N/A AFR/SD Communications Cooperative International N/A AFR/SD COMPETE Support N/A AFR/SD Department of Commerce-Intellectual Property Rights (DOC-IPR) N/A AFR/SD EGAT Support N/A AFR/SD Field Energy Specialists N/A AFR/SD Intel PPP N/A AFR/SD International Real Property Foundation 9/30/06 to 9/30/11 AFR/SD KSA-AGCI 06/12/07 to 06/11/10 AFR/SD SAGCH Support N/A AFR/SD U.S. Dept. of Agriculture N/A AFR/SD WATH Support N/A AFR/SD Misc. Admin N/A AFR/SD U.S. Trade Development Authority N/A ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex E - 1 Annex E. Online Survey Questionnaire Survey of African Bilateral Missions that have received AGCI Funding This survey is being conducted as part of an assessment of the African Global Competitiveness Initiative (AGCI). The assessment is being conducted by SEGURA-IP3 Partners and Management Systems International under contract to Africa Bureau’s Office of Economic Growth, Environment, and Agriculture. The survey will be open from Thursday, 18 June, through Friday, 26 June. The survey has been designed for individuals at the African bilateral missions that have received AGCI funding. The survey is appropriate for all mission individuals that are directly involved with AGCI. All responses will be anonymous as the survey does not ask for the respondent's name. The answers you provide in this survey will be used, in combination with other information, to assess the effectiveness of various aspects and components of AGCI. This information will also serve as a basis for developing recommendations to improve AGCI and to inform future trade-related programming for Africa. This survey should take approximately 15-25 minutes to complete. If you have any questions regarding the Survey Monkey instrument, please contact Naz Medhanie at nmedhanie@msi-inc.com. If you have any technical questions regarding the survey questions, please contact Dennis Marotta at dmarotta@segura-ip3.com. Thank you very much. 1. Please identify the mission /country where you are presently assigned. (Drop-down menu) Angola, Burundi, DRC, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Other 2. Please identify the capacity(ies) in which you interact with AGCI-funded activities. (Check all that apply.) a. Economic Growth/Trade/equivalent Team Leader b. Economic Growth/Trade/equivalent Team Member c. Cognizant Technical Officer (CTO) of an AGCI-funded activity d. Activity Manager of an AGCI-funded activity e. Program Officer f. Other (Please specify) 3. Which of the four components of AGCI does/did your activity(ies) focus on? (Check all that apply.) a. Component I: Enabling Environment b. Component II: Enterprise Strengthening c. Component III: Access to Finance d. Component IV: Infrastructure ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex E - 2 4. In regard to your mission’s/country’s relationship with AFR/SD, to what extent are you/were you satisfied with the following matters pertinent to AGCI? (Scale is 1 to 5, where: 1 = Very unsatisfied, 2 = Unsatisfied, 3 = Satisfied, 4 = Very satisfied, 5 = Neither satisfied or unsatisfied. Other selection: 6 = Do not engage in this type of interaction.) a. Communication of AGCI’s purpose, objectives, and goals b. Assisting the mission to understand how to best contribute to/participate in AGCI c. Technical assistance provided d. Regular communications meant to inform you of AGCI results and achievements e. Regular communications meant to inform you of AGCI best practices f. Process for attribution of funds to AGCI g. Other (Note: make room for them to write in a specific area) 5. In regard to your mission’s/country’s relationship with EGAT, to what extent are you/were you satisfied with the following matters pertinent to AGCI? (Scale is 1 to 5, where = Very unsatisfied, 2 = Unsatisfied, 3 = Satisfied, 4 = Very satisfied, 5 = Neither satisfied or unsatisfied. Other selection: 6 = Do not engage in this type of activity. ) a. Process and procedures for requesting technical assistance and support b. Quality of technical assistance provided c. Regular communication meant to exchange ideas and/or keep each other abreast of issues and activities relevant to AGCI 6. In regard to your mission’s/country’s relationship with the regional mission, to what extent are you/were you satisfied with the following matters pertinent to AGCI? (Scale is 1 to 5, where: 1 = Very unsatisfied, 2 = Unsatisfied, 3 = Satisfied, 4 = Very satisfied, 5 = Neither satisfied or unsatisfied. Other selection: 6 = Do not engage in this type of interaction.) a. Quality of technical assistance provided in designing a trade related program strategy b. Quality of technical assistance provided in designing specific trade related activities c. Process and procedures for requesting technical assistance from the regional trade hub d. Regular communication meant to exchange ideas and/or keep each other abreast of issues and activities relevant to AGCI 7. In regard to your mission’s/country’s relationship with the regional trade hub, to what extent are you/were you satisfied with the following matters pertinent to AGCI? (Scale is 1 to 5, where: 1 = Very unsatisfied, 2 = Unsatisfied, 3 = Satisfied, 4 = Very satisfied, 5 = Neither satisfied or unsatisfied. Other selection: 6 = Do not engage in this type of interaction.) a. Quality of technical assistance provided b. Coordination of regional trade actions involving your mission c. Regular communication meant to exchange ideas and/or keep each other abreast of issues and activities relevant to AGCI d. Other 8. In your opinion, to what extent has/was your mission been able to coordinate efforts and/or partner with the following organizations relevant to AGCI? (Scale is 1 to 3, where 1 = No coordination, 2 = Ad hoc coordination, 3 =Well coordinated) Host country government counterparts a. Regional Economic Communities (RECS) ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex E - 3 b. Bilateral donors c. Multilateral donors d. Trade associations and other nonprofit organizations e. Private sector organizations 9. In your opinion, what is/was your mission’s level of satisfaction with the following aspects of the AGCI performance monitoring and reporting system managed by Washington? (Scale is 1 to 5 where 1 = Very unsatisfied, 2 = Unsatisfied, 3 = Satisfied, 4 = Very Satisfied, 5 = Neither satisfied or unsatisfied) a. Pertinence of AGCI performance indicators to the mission’s AGCI-funded activities b. Level of data collection requirements c. Level of reporting requirements d. AFR/SD feedback Note to respondents: Questions 10 and 11 below are designed to help us better understand the factors that both positively and negatively impact progress toward trade-related program objectives. Accordingly, many of the factors listed are similar in both questions. 10. In your opinion, what are the three most important factors contributing to the achievement of your mission’s AGCI related program? (Check the top three factors.) a. Trade is a significant priority of the host country government b. Active support from the host country government agencies and/or institutions c. Supportive policy and regulatory environment d. Trade and economic growth expertise in the mission e. Adequate mission support staff for trade activities f. Partnership and coordination with the major REC operating in your region (ECOWAS, COMESA, SADC) g. Donor coordination pertaining to trade programming and technical assistance h. Communication and support from AFR/SD i. Communication and support from EGAT j. Communication and support from the regional mission k. Communication from the regional Trade Hub l. Support and technical assistance from other USG agencies m. Communications on AGCI lessons learned n. AGCI funding levels o. Other: 11. In your opinion, what are the three most important factors related to constraints challenging the mission’s AGCI related program? (Check the top three factors.) a. Trade is not a priority of the host country government b. Lack of support from the host country government agencies and/or institutions c. Policy and regulatory environment not fully supportive of trade d. Lack of sufficient trade and economic growth expertise in the mission e. Inadequate mission support staff for trade activities f. Inadequate partnership with the REC in your region g. Poor capacity of the REC in your region h. Insufficient donor coordination around trade programming and technical assistance ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex E - 4 i. Insufficient communication and support from AFR/SD j. Insufficient support from EGAT k. Insufficient communication and support from the regional mission l. Insufficient communication and support from the regional Trade Hub m. Insufficient/conflicting support and technical assistance from other USG agencies n. Insufficient communications on AGCI lessons learned o. Insufficient AGCI funding levels p. Other ______________ 12. Briefly state or list what types of program activities are most important for advancing trade in your host country. 13. Please provide any suggestions you have to improve or strengthen mission trade￾related programs. 14. Do you think that Africa Bureau should continue some type of AGCI program in the future? 15. If yes, what elements of the current AGCI program are worth keeping, and what new elements would you like to propose? 16. If no, why not? Do you have any suggestions for alternatives to AGCI activities to support trade-related objectives? 17. Please feel free to write any comments you would like to make related to AGCI. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex F - 1 Annex F. Interview Guides Assessment of the African Global Competitiveness Initiative Interview Guide: Bilateral Missions Phase III: African Data Collection – July 2009 1. Does the USAID mission have a strategy or annual program plan? If so, does it reflect AGCI? 2. What is the extent of your participation in AGCI? Which of the four components are you involved with? Are there other AGCI activities outside of these components? (Note to interviewer: The interviewer should provide an explanation of the four AGCI components so that interviewees understand how AGCI has defined these areas.) 3. *How was a program decision made on which components of AGCI to support? 4. *What is the relative importance of each component to your program? 5. Are you satisfied with the AGCI budget allocation process? Are AGCI-related activities something you would have pursued without AGCI? 6. Is the AGCI budget a net resource addition to the mission OYB? 7. *Do you get support from the Regional Mission, Trade Hub or RECs regarding AGCI? Please describe the nature of this support. 8. How would you rate the quality of support from the Regional Mission and Trade Hub? 9. Please describe the extent and frequency of communications with AFR/SD, the Regional Mission and the Trade Hub on AGCI. Are you satisfied with that level of communication? 10. Have you had any communication or coordination with DOC/USTR or the Embassy Commercial Attaché regarding AGCI activities? 11. To what extent are AGCI activities coordinated with bilateral and multilateral donors? 12. Are performance indicators on AGCI activities relevant and helpful to the country program? Is measuring them overly burdensome? 13. *Do you have any recommendations on how the AGCI performance monitoring and reporting system could be improved? 14. *Do you have any suggestions on how to better harmonize bilateral and regional approaches and support? 15. What views do you have on how AGCI could be improved for future Africa trade programs? *Priority questions. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex F - 2 Assessment of the African Global Competitiveness Initiative Interview Guide: Regional Missions Phase III: African Data Collection – July 2009 1. Can you give us an overview on your regional AGCI program? 2. Which bilateral missions are part of your AGCI program? 3. How is their participation determined? 4. *Which components of AGCI are emphasized in your program and why? 5. *Which components of AGCI are least relevant to your program and why? 6. How does the Trade Hub fit into your overall regional program? If you have other regional trade related programs, are they coordinated with the Trade Hubs? 7. How closely do you work with the local governments in the countries you are supporting? 8. *How closely do you work with the regional economic community? 9. To what extent do REC development priorities reflect the regional mission’s priorities, and vice￾versa? 10. How is the AGCI budget determined? 11. *Are you satisfied with the AGCI budget allocation process? 12. Are you satisfied with the level and predictability of funding allocated to your AGCI program? 13. How regularly do you communicate with AFR/SD and EGAT regarding AGCI? 14. Are you satisfied with the level of communication and coordination with Washington regarding AGCI? 15. Do you have any recommendations for improving communication and coordination with Washington regarding AGCI? 16. *Is AGCI coordinated with DOC/USTR activities at the regional level? 17. To what extent are your AGCI initiatives coordinated with other relevant USG initiatives? (TDA, Commercial Attaché) 18. *To what extent is your AGCI program coordinated with the bilateral missions’ AGCI program? 19. *How closely do you work with bilateral and multilateral organizations on issues with relevance to AGCI? ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex F - 3 20. How successful has the AGCI performance monitoring and reporting system been in capturing program results and their development impact? 21. *How burdensome is AGCI’s performance monitoring and reporting? Do you have any recommendations for improving AGCI’s performance monitoring system? 22. *Any final thoughts on how AGCI can be improved if there is any follow on trade program in the future? *Priority questions. Assessment of the African Global Competitiveness Initiative Interview Guide: Trade Hubs Phase III: African Data Collection – July 2009 1. Does your Trade Hub have a strategic program plan? If so, does it reflect AGCI? 2. What is the extent of your participation in the AGCI? Which of the four components are you involved with? (Note to interviewer: The interviewer should provide a brief explanation of the four AGCI components at the outset of this question so that interviewees understand how AGCI has defined these areas.) 3. *What is the relative importance of each AGCI component to your program? 4. Please estimate the extent of support provided through each component. 5. Which bilateral missions do you assist and in what manner? How do requests from bilateral missions come to you? 6.Are you in regular communication with the bilateral missions in the region? Is there any sharing of lessons learned and best practices? 7. Apart from budgetary support, do you get any other kind of support from the Regional Mission concerning AGCI? If so, Please describe the nature of this support. 8. *Do you provide AGCI related assistance to the REC? If so, what is the nature of this assistance? 9. To what extent do you communicate with the REC? 10. *Since you provide technical assistance to bilateral missions, do you have any suggestions on how to better harmonize bilateral and regional approaches and support? 11. *Do you coordinate with Washington-managed AGCI activities (infrastructure/finance)? If so, is this done directly or through the Regional Missions? 12. *Do your performance monitoring indicators reflect AGCI activities? Do you have any ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex F - 4 suggestions for improving the AGCI performance monitoring and reporting system? 13. Has there been increased investment in the region as a result of Trade Hub assistance and promotion? 14 *What thoughts do you have on how AGCI can be improved for the development of future support to a trade program? *Priority questions. Assessment of the African Global Competitiveness Initiative Interview Guide: Regional Economic Communities Phase III: African Data Collection – July 2009 1. *Please provide a brief overview of your organization including a discussion of its priorities and objectives. Does your organization have any informal or formal strategic/action plans? If so, please explain. (Note to interviewer: Please ask if copies of their strategic/action plan could be made available to us.) 2. Which USAID missions do you work with? 3. What is the nature of your partnership with these missions and how frequently do you communicate/partner? Specifically, what types of support do you receive from USAID? 4. *In terms of the support that you receive from USAID/AGCI, how relevant and sufficient is it to your REC, how would you rate the quality of the assistance provided, and is it provided in a predictable and timely fashion? 5. To what extent do you communicate with other USAID regional and country missions? 6. What is your knowledge, if any, of the African Global Competitiveness Initiative? 7. Are you aware of the different USAID funding sources for support the REC receives (i.e., AGCI funding versus other funding sources)? 8. *In your opinion, please rank the four AGCI components – enabling environment, enterprise strengthening, access to finance, and infrastructure – relative to REC priorities. (Notes to interviewer: 1) The interviewer should provide a brief explanation of the four AGCI components at the outset of this question so that interviewees understand how AGCI has defined these areas. 2) It is important to note the pros and cons of each component as they discuss each component in order to rank them, as well as note the applicability of these components to the regional work that they are engaged.) 9. Where might additional USAID support be most helpful to the REC? (Note to interviewers: Please make clear that our assignment will not directly influence funding and support levels to the RECs at the beginning of the interview, as well as reiterating this message at this point as well.) 10. *In your opinion, has USAID assistance reflected REC (1) priorities and (2) approach? Do you have any recommendations how USAID can be more useful in assisting the REC in promoting trade? ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex F - 5 11. *Do you have any other thoughts on improving the USAID/AGCI trade program? *Priority questions. Assessment of the African Global Competitiveness Initiative Interview Guide: Host Country Ministry/Agency Phase III: African Data Collection – July 2009 1. *We understand that you receive assistance from the (X) project of USAID. What kind of support have you received? Please describe. 2. *Has USAID support been helpful to you? Please describe. 3. Have you received enough support relative to your needs? Please describe. 4. *What other trade development support do you think would be helpful to your development program (examples: strengthening market linkages, legislative assistance, export policy)? 5. Is your country giving greater attention to increasing regional trade or trade beyond the region? 6. *Are you familiar with the Trade Hub in (city/country)?* 7. Have you used any services from the Trade Hub (examples: technical assistance, Web site, trade promotion assistance)? 8. If so, how would you rate the quality of assistance from the Trade Hub? 9. What do you think are the major barriers to trade in the region? 10. *Do you have any other recommendations on how USAID support can be more responsive to the needs and priorities of the trade sector? *Priority questions. Assessment of the African Global Competitiveness Initiative Interview Guide: Trade Associations Phase III: African Data Collection – July 2009 Notes to interviewers: Trade Associations may be the recipient of support from the bilateral mission’s trade program contractor as well as from the regional trade hub, albeit to a lesser extent. Questions around support should elicit responses about both of these sources of assistance. The trade association may only know the name of the trade project contract funded by the bilateral mission. 1. Please provide a brief overview of your trade association including a discussion of its priorities and objectives. (Note to interviewer: Please ask if the organization has a strategic/action plan, and if so, ask for a copy.) ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex F - 6 2. Who are the members of the association? 3. Do you receive any support from USAID? (Note to interviewer: Probe for support from bilateral mission contractor as well as from the regional trade hub) 4. *What is the nature of USAID support? How frequently do you receive this support? 5. *In terms of the support that you receive from USAID/AGCI, how relevant is it to your association? Is it sufficient for your organization’s needs? (Note to interviewer: Probe the differences between the kind of support received from the Mission’s trade program implementer and that received from the regional trade hub.) 6. How would you rate the quality of assistance that you receive from USAID/AGCI? Is it provided in a predictable and timely fashion? (Note to interviewer: Again, probe the differences between the kind of support received from the Mission’s trade program implementer and that received from the regional trade hub.) 7. What has your association been able to achieve on behalf of its members as a result of USAID/AGCI support? 8. To what extent do you communicate with USAID? (Note: Cover the bilateral mission, the trade program contractor, and the regional trade hub) 9. What is your knowledge, if any, of the African Global Competitiveness Initiative? 10. What other sources of assistance do you receive (REC, regional mission trade hub, other bilateral donors, other African organizations)? What type of assistance do they provide that is different from the support you receive from USAID/AGCI? 11. *What do you see as the primary trade opportunities in this country? Does the support from USAID/AGCI help you in any way to take advantage of these opportunities? 12. *What are the most important barriers to trade in this country? Does USAID/AGCI support help lower or remove these barriers? What remains to be done? 13. Where might additional USAID/AGCI support be most helpful to your trade association? (Note to interviewers: Please make clear that this assessment will not directly influence funding and support at the beginning of the interview, as well as reiterating this message when asking this question.) 14. *In your opinion, has USAID/AGCI assistance reflected a) your association’s priorities, and b) the approach the association takes? 15. *Do you have any recommendations on how USAID/AGCI can be more useful in assisting trade associations in promoting trade? 16. *Do you have any final thought on improving the USAID/AGCI trade program? *Priority questions. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex F - 7 Assessment of the African Global Competitiveness Initiative Interview Guide: Private Sector Phase III: African Data Collection – July 2009 11. *We understand that you receive assistance from the (X) project of USAID. What kind of support have you received? Please describe. 12. *Has USAID support been helpful to you? Please describe. 13. Have you received enough support relative to your needs? Please describe. 14. Can this support be relied upon to understand the U.S. export market? 15. Can this support be relied upon to understand other export markets? 16. Can this support be relied upon to understand regional export markets? 17. *What other trade services you think would be helpful to your business (examples: market linkages, trade show participation, export policy change)? 18. Has USAID support been visible and has it reached most of those who have needed support? 19. If not, could it become more visible? How could it best reach more clients? 20. *Are you familiar with the Trade Hub in (city/country)?* 21. Have you used any services from the Trade Hub (examples: technical assistance, Web site, trade promotion assistance)? 22. If so, how would you rate the quality of assistance from the Trade Hub? 23. What do you think are the major barriers to trade in the region? 24. *Do you have any other recommendations on how USAID support can be more responsive to the needs and priorities of the trade sector? *Priority questions. Assessment of the African Global Competitiveness Initiative Interview Guide: Donors Phase III: African Data Collection – July 2009 Notes to interviewers: 1) It may be better to begin the interview with a broad overview of the assessment emphasizing the approach and leaving a more detailed discussion of AGCI as an introduction to some questions. 2) Since donors may not be familiar with AGCI the discussion may need to be framed by using ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex F - 8 language relevant to USAID versus AGCI to avoid confusion. This will become apparent during the course of the interview. 1. Please provide a brief overview of your organization’s assistance to trade development, including a discussion of its priorities and objectives. Does your organization have any informal or formal strategic/action plans? If so, please explain. (Note to interviewer: Please ask if copies of their strategic/action plan could be made available to us.) 2. *Do you coordinate with the USAID mission on trade related assistance? Are there scheduled meetings and/or informal contacts? 3. Are you familiar with AGCI? (Provide an explanation of the AGCI purpose and its four components.) Do these areas fit into your program activities? 4. *Are you familiar with the USAID-funded regional Trade Hub? Do you interact with it or use any of its services? If so, how would you rate the quality of assistance provided? 5. Has there been increased investment in the country/region as a result of trade related assistance programs? 6. In your view, what are the major obstacles to advancing trade in the region and beyond? 7. *How might national trade programs be better integrated regionally to gain efficiencies in order to better compete in the international marketplace? 8. *Do you have any thoughts on how USAID, through its AGCI trade program or a similar future program, can be more useful in assisting trade development? *Priority questions. Assessment of the African Global Competitiveness Initiative Interview Guide: U.S. Embassy Commercial Attaché (and/or anyone else that touches on AGCI and/or AGOA in the U.S. Embassy) Phase III: African Data Collection – July 2009 1. Please describe the nature of your office’s involvement in promoting trade between Kenya (or whatever country) and the United States. What is your specific involvement in promoting trade in relationship to AGCI? 2. *Do you have any interaction with USAID regarding AGOA and AGCI? (If so, please describe; if not, what is the reason for this) 3. *What degree of coordination is there between your office and USAID regarding AGCI? 4. Do you work with any specific ministries or trade organizations in the country for the promotion of trade? Which are these? What is the nature of that work? 5. To date, what has been the result of the Embassy’s trade-related assistance to country X? ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex F - 9 6. *What is your opinion on the effectiveness of trade assistance provided through USAID? Through the Regional Mission? 7. In terms of fulfilling the letter and spirit of AGOA, how well has country X been doing to date? 8. Going forward, what are the major trade opportunities with the United States for country X? Does assistance from the USG help support country X to successfully take advantage of these opportunities? Which USG agencies are providing this? 9. In your opinion, what are the major barriers for country X to be able to increase trade with the United States? Is there any USG support to eliminate or lower these barriers? Which USG agencies are providing this? 10. *In your view, what type of additional USG assistance /support is needed going forward to help increase country X’s trade with the United States? *Priority questions. Assessment of the African Global Competitiveness Initiative Interview Guide: USG Representatives in Country Phase III: African Data Collection – July 2009 1. Please describe the nature of your office’s involvement in promoting trade between Kenya (or whatever country) and the United States. What is your specific involvement in promoting trade in relationship to AGCI? 2. *Do you have any interaction with USAID regarding AGCI? (If so, please describe; if not, what is the reason for this) 3. *What degree of coordination is there between your office and USAID regarding AGCI? 4. Do you work with any specific ministries or trade organizations in the country for the promotion of trade? Which are these? What is the nature of that work? 5. To date, what has been the result of your office's trade-related assistance to country X? 6. *What is your opinion on the effectiveness of trade assistance provided through USAID? Through the regional Mission? 7. In terms of fulfilling the letter and spirit of AGOA, how well has country X been doing to date? 8. Going forward, what are the major trade opportunities with the United States for country X? Does assistance from the USG help support country x to successfully take advantage of these opportunities? Which USG agencies are providing this? 9. In your opinion, what are the major barriers for country X to be able to increase trade with the United States? Is there any USG support to eliminate or lower these barriers? Which USG agencies are providing this? ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex F - 10 10. *In your view, what type of additional USG assistance /support is needed going forward to help increase country X’s trade with the United States? *Priority questions. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex G - 1 Annex G. Recent Progress under AGCI in Enterprise Development Country Examples of Progress Being Made in Enterprise Development in 2009 Reported by: Kenya Our work with flower growers and chili growers over the past three years is sustainable now, as is the work with chili growers for trade. Work with small holder producers on passion fruit has also done well. USAID/ Kenya Kenya, under AGOA, is able now to export fresh produce to U.S. markets. Growers’ associations are helped by the Trade Hub with access to these markets. Kenya is now able to export carrots, corn, shelled peas, fresh beans to United States. Kenya has applied for consideration for 10 additional crops. GOK, Ministry of Agriculture, Agriculture Sector Coordination Unit One of the key innovations implemented successfully by the East Africa Grain Council (EAGC) is a trade portal where EAGC posts information from grower associations when they have completed grain harvests. Buyers access the trade portals and receive information on where to pick up the harvested grain. They can offer prices which will either be accepted or not by the grower association based on price data that is also posted on the trade portal. The portal provides farmers with access to markets by linking farmers to potential buyers through the Web site, and farmer groups will be trained to post data on grain harvests themselves. WFP very excited about their program and want to use their trade links system to roll out in other countries. East Africa Grain Council The Kenya Flower Council (KFC) received support from the USAID Trade Hub to exhibit at annual flower shows in the United States They produce tea roses and sweetheart roses after finding a market niche in the United States for these stems. KFC now provides flowers for the U.S. corsage industry (weddings, graduations, proms). 7% of GDP of Kenya is from flowers. 50,000- 60,000 directly employed and as spinoffs, there are at least 500,000 growers getting income from flower industry. Kenya Flower Council Kenya is the major producer of dairy products and producers export milk and other dairy products throughout East Africa. After the post-election violence in 2007, the dairy industry was severely harmed. Many of the farm groups the Kenya Dairy Sector Competitiveness Program worked with in the RIFT valley moved out of the region. Those who stayed lost many animals. The dairy processing sector was not operational either. After February 2008, the USAID project started and co-chaired a Dairy Task Force to bring back the industry. The Task Force includes organized farmer groups, Ministry of Livestock, processors, members of the Donors Working Group, and the Kenya Dairy Board. Dairy exports from Kenya are increasing once again. USAID/Kenya Dairy Sector Competitiveness Program Ethiopia ATEP is mostly focused on the agricultural sector through technical assistance for business capacity development for export. Previously Ethiopia was blocked economically and had little experience with trading and exports. Now the horticultural sector, supported by ATEP, is even able to penetrate the British market. Technical Assistance that was provided to traders was found to be essential. Through these activities, the project has contributed to the achievement of incremental national export sales in the four target sectors of $716,700,000. Furthermore, businesses have leveraged their resources and resources from private investors to equal $12,500,000 of new capital investments. “ATEP project works with us on market penetration in the United States in certain areas. … Exports to the United States are going up slowly but steadily.” “We are currently working with both USAID and EU on fine coffee marketing. The Ethiopian Coffee Association is also a USAID/Ethiopia GOE Ministry of Trade and Industry GOE Ministry ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex G - 2 Country Examples of Progress Being Made in Enterprise Development in 2009 Reported by: member of the Regional East Africa Coffee Association. They are developing facilities for coffee processing to increase the quality of coffee so that we can better compete.” “We’ve received good support from USAID’s ATEP project. It’s improved our outreach for exporting and our overall situation. Support was received in form of improving the quality of hides and skin, and strategies for improved marketing development. A USAID representative from USAID/ and ATEP both helped to develop their strategic plan by working with us closely. Our plan was just endorsed in 2008 by USAID, the GOE Ministry of Trade and Industry and other donors.” Agriculture and Rural Development Ethiopian Leather Industries Association Botswana The Botswana Export and Manufacturing Association received technical assistance from the Trade Hub on policy issues, and support for members to attend trade fairs. Botswana Export and Mfg Assoc. South Africa SAIBL has been working with black owned SMEs since 1998. Last year the mission has refocused SAIBL on policy and they have produced a series of about six sectoral studies to help support SAIBL II – which they have transformed to focus increasingly on value chains and clusters. The seven value chains that SAIBL supports are in alignment with the Department of Trade and Industry’s priority areas. SAIBL II activities have been aimed at selecting value chains, identifying where they operate geographically, and then supporting them. USAID/ South Africa Zambia USAID assistance through PROFIT has helped CropServe remove inconsistencies from their operations and programs as well as to help them become more effective. The capacity building, joint planning and implementation, and financial support has allowed the organization to appear increasingly professional to its clients and to offer a greater variety of support services. An area of potential growth within Zambia is pioneer seeds and CropServe has been able to develop this portion of their business with PROFIT support. Parmalat Milk Company noted that the largest constraint in smallholders’ contribution to Parmalat’s efforts was in finding a way for them to get their milk to market. Through a partnership between Parmalat and USAID/PROFIT, they solved this problem by creating milk collection centers. PROFIT funded the collection tanks and Parmalat donated a vehicle. Zambia Agricultural Commodities Exchange (ZAMACE) noted that historically, smallholder maize has been discounted automatically. This year, together with USAID’s PROFIT project, ZAMACE identified and certified the standards of 10 or 12 community storage facilities and asked farmers if they wanted to participate in a marketing program. The maize is stored under control of a shed manager in lots of at least 30mt until it is sold on the commodities exchange. The value of warehouse receipts affects the market. Currently, they are only accepted as proof of warehouse content. The Ministry of Agriculture soon will submit legislation to recognize warehouse receipts as a title and formalize a regulator of warehouse certification. This will greatly enhance trading across borders and domestically. The essence of the USAID/MATEP-ZATAC partnership is based on identifying businesses that are export ready and then helping those organizations through various capacity building activities such as developing business plans and other strategic planning exercises. As a result of this assistance, Zambian firms are more attractive to banks as their plans and research are more developed and well thought out. FreskPikt noted that USAID’s MATEP project has provided funding, help in connecting its growers with the South African market through trade shows and with German markets through a German trade show. They recently signed a large contract to CropServe Zambia Parmalat (Milk Company) ZAMACE Zambia Agricultural Technical Assistance Center (ZATAC) FreshPikt ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex G - 3 Country Examples of Progress Being Made in Enterprise Development in 2009 Reported by: supply a firm met at a South African trade show. Through USAID-supported ZATAC they can now get a reply on a loan application in 2 weeks and the loan 10 days later. “This is unheard of in Zambia.” MATEP also helped FreshPikt introduce bean production to smallholders. FreshPikt products are all exported regionally, except for one product that goes to Australia. There is a potential market in the United States MATEP is looking into teletrade for African products. Senegal USAID’s SAGIC project (Senegal Economic Growth) provides training, technical assistance in transport corridor improvement, and market information systems. SAGIC is collaborating with the Trade Hub on mapping Bamako-Dakar corridor as well as the North-South corridor. USAID/ Senegal and SAGIC Ghana MCC is working with USAID’s TIPCEE project and USAID/Ghana to identify areas of collaboration, and building on USAID progress and TIPCEE training in complementary areas. They are also focusing on production to support TIPCEE’s cutting-edge activities. The Ministry of Agriculture noted that USAID’s TIPCEE project provided support for their Trade Desk on the development of their capacity in obtaining market intelligence. MCC GOG Ministry of Agriculture Nigeria No interview data on this topic. ASSESSMENT OF THE AFRICAN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE Annex H- 1 PRIMARY GOAL: INCREASED REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE OF SELECTED SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRIES. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:  Value of non-petroleum exports of selected Sub-Saharan African countries.*  GDP per capita, adjusted for purchasing power parity, of selected Sub-Saharan African countries.* INTERMEDIATE GOAL: INCREASED COMPETITIVENESS OF SELECTED SSA COUNTRIES. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:  Ease of export index for selected SSA countries. (Derived from the World Bank Doing Business’ Trading Across Borders indicators.)*  Share of world, non-petroleum exports of selected Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries.*  Global Competitiveness Index for selected SSA countries.*  Percentage of intermediation margin (gap between like term deposit and lending rates).* IR 3: Increased access to financial services for trade and investment. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:  Credit to private sector as a percentage of GDP.*  Has an automated off-site surveillance system been installed and made operational this year with USG assistance? (EG 3.1)  Have lending institutions routinely accessed credit bureau reports as part of the credit investigation process as a result of USG assistance?  Have leasing companies been made operational as a result of USG assistance? RELATED OUTPUT MEASURES:  Number of analysts trained in off-site surveillance with USG assistance. (EG 3.1)  Number of financial sector supervisors trained with USG assistance. (EG 3.1)  Number of financial sector professionals trained on international standards this year with USG assistance. (EG 3.2) IR 4: Facilitated investment in infrastructure. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:  Total public and private dollars leveraged by USG for energy, communication, and transportation infrastructure projects. (EG 4.1, 4.2, 4.3)  Number of policy reforms/regulations/ administrative procedures passed/ approved to enhance sector governance and/or facilitate private sector participation and competitive markets as a result of USG assistance. (EG 4.1)  Number of people with access to ICT as a result of USG assistance. (EG 4.1, 4.2)  Number of public institutions with access to telecommunication services as a result of USG assistance. (EG 4.2)  Value of late-stage infrastructure investment transactions that have reached financial closure as a result of USG assistance. RELATED OUTPUT MEASURES:  Number of people receiving USG supported training in energy related policy and regulatory practices. (EG 4.1)  Number of people receiving USG supported training in energy related business management systems. (EG 4.1) IR 2: Improved market knowledge, skills and abilities of private sector enterprises to trade. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:  Value of AGOA exports from AGOA-eligible countries to the U.S. as a result of USG assistance. RELATED OUTPUT MEASURES:  Number of firms receiving capacity-building assistance to export. (EG 2.2)  Number of participants in USG supported trade and investment capacity building trainings. (EG 2.2) IR 1: Improved policy, regulatory, and enforcement environment for private sector-led trade and investment. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:  Number of countries that enact significant policy, legal, or regulatory reforms that expand trade as a result of USG assistance.*  Number of legal, regulatory, or institutional actions (not mentioned above) taken to improve implementation or compliance with international trade and investment agreements due to support from USG-assisted organizations. (EG 2.1) RELATED OUTPUT MEASURES:  Number of participants in trade and investment environment trainings. (EG 2.1) Annex H. African Global Competitiveness Initiative Results Framework