Dear Friends

I am sharing here a presentation I made today at Kaleb University in Lagos, Nigeria on Innovations in International Development – Agendas 2030 and 2063.

I was recently invited by the Washington DC-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) to suggest what the Biden Administration could do in Togo.
I mostly focused on the importance of Job Creation for the youth in the Framework of the National Development Plan of #Togo . This can be done by promoting agriculture and agribusiness as well as tackling the Illicit Financial Flows (IFF)in order to generate more money for investment.

Listen to the podcast here: https://www.csis.org/node/62064

Cheers

The African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD) has published my article titled “Will the Restructured African Union meet the Continent’s Urgent Challenges?”, written from the notes bellow. You can read it here.

I have used the same notes below as talking points to speak at the Seminar hosted jointly by the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) and the Institute for Peace and Security Studies (IPSS) on the 16^th February 2021 following the 34^th Session of the Assembly of the Heads of State and Government of the African Union.

Talking Points:

To answer the question above, I propose we analyze 3 key elements against the reform agenda proposed by President Kagame and adopted by the Assembly of the Union.

• The New setting of the AU
• The Leadership and Management
• The Resources needed to do the job  

Let’s look back into the reform agenda:

1^st : The new setting, including the scope of intervention of the AU

The African Union should focus on a fewer number of priority areas, which are by nature, continental in scope, such as political affairs, peace and security, economic integration, and Africa’s global representation and voice: this has not happened enough in the new structure of the commission. Basically, we find every issues/thematic that were in the previous structure with 8 departments, squeezed within new 6-department Commission, sometimes under different names. There are even new items added. I believe we failed here…

On the positive side we have the merging of Political Affairs with the Peace and Security Department. This will catalyze a stronger synergy and, the Commissioner will have a unique opportunity to effectively work on the root causes of the conflicts (the political Affairs side), and not just to embrace the conflicts when they happen with their, already devastating consequences and implications. That was a missing link in the previous setting of the AU Commission.

There is an unfinished business: The Peace and Security Council (PSC) needs to be reformed with a focus on results.  We can’t continue evaluating the PSC just by counting the number of meetings they have had. They should be judged by how many conflicts they have helped to stop, or to prevent.

Also, the situation where countries in conflict continue to be member of the PSC or even chairing the PSC need to be resolved in the new setting because it has had negative influence on the work of the PSC and on its credibility.

2^nd: The Leadership/Management

The Kagame Report called for managing the African Union efficiently at both political and operational levels. This is not only directed to the AU Commission. It is for the entire African Union System, including Member States:

• We now have the Operational leadership of the Union just elected, with 2 more commissioners to be found.
• Member States need to get into the game. Looking at the most serious challenges of the continents it is imperative to ensure a better governance based on our agreed shared values (which include democracy, human rights, credible elections, accountability), a fair sharing of our natural resources and a better management of our diversity in the continent. If we succeed in doing these, the “silencing the guns target” will rather be an easy one, and of course peace and security will pave the way for our development projects.
• The newly elected leadership seems up to job. The business plan proposed by the Chairperson Moussa Faki put a strong emphasis on these issues. He promised to facilitate a conflict-free continent, he promised to interrogate some of the ongoing situations, to ask some of the hard and sensitive questions.  I believe he can build on his lifelong experience on conflicts and fragility as well as his last 4 years learning, to take us there if political will follows from member states.

• The new Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security, has a strong profile matching the portfolio.  Also, the unprecedented political support that he enjoyed by having been voted for by all the 55 member states, is definitely a big asset.

• The Deputy Chairperson in charge of the Administration and Finance is coming from a related background. She is from a rigorous and disciplined political environment, Rwanda. We are also good here.  In fact, there are a lot of internal matters on her plate right now at the Commission to look at urgently fix:

  Following are a few facts from a recent forensic and performance Audit of the AU Commission covering the period 2012- 2018:

• For the period reviewed, more than 70% of AU Commission Staff are with short time contract. 
• In terms of quota related to how many nationals of each member state work in the AU organs, some member states have passed their quota by up to 500% while some countries have 0-5%
• 200+ staff have passed retirement age and were still employed by the AU during the period considered  
• More than 100 staff at the AUC are relatives to other staff
• More than 100 staff’ qualifications could not be verified by the audit team…

  Political Efficiency at member States level: the need to embrace our shared values

• When we talk about Managing the African Union, we should not forget the political level! The African Union is, and will be, as good as Member States are. It is not the job of the AU Commission to implement decisions at national level. It is the responsibility of member states.

• On peace and security for example, we all know what the root causes of most of the conflicts in Africa are. They are actually well articulated in the AU Roadmap on silencing the guns by 2020, now moved to 2030 just a few weeks ago… We currently have deadly conflicts still going on in C.A.R., in the Lake Chad Basin, in Cameroon… It is not over in DRC, Burundi, Somalia, South Sudan. There are risks in Ethiopia, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea, Uganda… and we can go on… How can we trade for economic development within the continent in such a situation?

3^rd: Financial Resources

It is one of the pillars of the reform agenda. The African Union should be financed by resources from within the continent. Progress have been very weak on this:

Current average contribution of the 55 AU member states all together is still less than 40%!!!

Development partners continue paying more than 60% of the African Union budget. This is happening despite all the talks, the scenarios, the decisions many years back, from President Obassanjo’s proposals in 2013 to President Kagame’s recommendations in 2017.

Lack of an Accountability Mechanism for the Implementation of AU Decisions at National Level

There is no practical accountability mechanism to track progress in the implementation at national level, of AU decisions, policies standards, treaties etc, adopted. There is no sanction for the lack of the implementation of these decisions by member states. AU Policy organs have been even trying to weaken the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, as the Banjul based body questions member states’ behaviors that go against AU human rights policies.   

The only sanction mechanism in the reform agenda is the sanction imposed to members for not paying their contributions to the AU. We need to do more on this. I believe a comprehensive sanction project need to find it way to the table at some point, but in the meantime the Commission’s leadership could come up with a few innovative ideas to have at least, a certain system of political pressure on members who violate AU principles in their countries. This could be championed by a group of Heads of State.

Maybe, it is time to start talking about an eventual safety guaranty for Heads of State who stayed too long on power and may be concern for their life if they are out. There should not be a taboo in terms of proposals that can bring peace in the continent.

So…. back to the main question: Is the African Union and its Commission ready to meet the challenges of the continent? Not yet!

I believe we are getting somehow on the track…. we have a potential to make it if we are courageous enough. It is looking a bit better than before, but we are not there yet!

Generating knowledge and evidence to support inclusive & sustainable development: I recently made the case, during a key note speech in the Hague, Netherlands, for different stakeholders – academia, researchers, NGOs, practitioners policymakers, UN bodies etc – to work together. The seminar was on  ‘Knowledge and Research: Theory and Practice for Dialogue and Dissent’. Participating researchers came from various countries working on the research programme ‘New roles of CSOs for inclusive development’, staff of CSOs and NGOs, and staff of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the Netherlands involved with the policy framework for Dialogue and Dissent came together to discuss and reflect on knowledge and experience concerning the role of civil society in influencing pro-poor policies.

The original article was published here.

Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen!

Today, we aim to have a conversation about building bridges between different stakeholders – including academic researchers, researchers working in non-governmental organizations (NGOs), practitioners and policymakers – and we seek linkages and collaboration among those different actors when it comes to generating knowledge and evidence in support of civil society taking up its role in pro-poor policies. Under the ‘New roles of CSOs for inclusive development’ (the Assumptions Programme), we reflect on the following three sub-themes:

• Evolving relationship between global, regional, national and local civil society actors
• Legitimacy and effectiveness of civil society organizations (CSOs) in influencing
• Stretching civic space in practice

While discussing this, we should be deliberately guided by how we generate, use and integrate evidence from academia, practitioners and NGOs in order to increase impact.

Evolving relationship between global, regional, national and local civil society actors

There are many reasons for universities and NGOs/CSOs to explore working together to influence policy and practice. NGOs and CSOs can build on the trust enjoyed by university research, while universities can capitalize on NGOs and CSOs’ success in reaching policy and practice.

NGO research is rooted in real life – the experiences of partners and communities. NGOs are pioneers in participatory methods and their media teams are quick to make their findings noticed by policymakers. NGO people are ‘doers’ and activists, with little time for theorizing. They think in terms of guidelines and toolkits. They tell stories that stick in the minds of policymakers. On the other hand, research from universities is better structured. As academics, they have the education to make research smarter and they enjoy more credibility. They can take a more long-term reflective perspective, which activists often lack. Research from universities is the most trusted, but the least used, source of evidence. NGO research is generally less trusted than university research, but their output is far more likely to be read than that of academia. On a timescale, the focus of NGOs is urgent, immediate and often in response to events. Academics work to a different rhythm, both in terms of the issues they address and the way they respond to them.

So, there is a strong need for more ‘knowledge brokers’, not only to bridge the gap between science and policy, but also to synthesize and transform evidence into an effective and usable form for policy and practice. We should talk to each other early on: academics should not wait until they have written a paper before looking for an NGO or knowledge broker to help disseminate its message. At the same time, NGOs (or donors) should not decide their policy line, then commission an academic to do policy-based evidence making. We should create research ideas together. Donors, could also help by encouraging collaboration through 50/50 funding, half for action and half for research. Better cooperation among those actors would lead to better policies – policies that meet the most important and urgent needs of the people.

I have spent 15 years of my career seeking to promote impactful citizen’s participation at national and Pan African levels. I would like to share a few stories on how the actions of NGO actors have had a serious influence on policies. In 2007, Oxfam, the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) and Safer World published a report titled Africa’s Missing Billions1, showing how Africa suffers enormously from conflict and armed violence, costing the continent around USD 18 billion per year and seriously derailing its development. It was the fruit of a collaboration by NGO researchers, then later used by NGO advocates to influence important policies at the continental and regional levels. That report catalysed a Summit of African Union (AU) heads of state and governments in Tripoli, Libya in 2009. The report of the Summit, drafted by the African Union Commission, is extensively quoted this report.2 At the Summit, a detailed plan of action3 was adopted, including institutional reforms, to deal with the conflicts in Africa. This was a direct result of the action by NGO/CSO researchers and activists at various levels. The report has also been a strong catalyst for the signing and ratification of the Arms Trade Treaty by many African governments.

However, the publication of a report in the media is not enough to bring about policy impact. Activists have to create an influencing space, but also use existing invited space, to showcase their findings. Local organizations have identified victims and survivors of violations, convinced one or two progressive states to put the issue on the agenda, and brought the victims and survivors to speak directly to the Peace and Security Council of the AU. I have seen an ambassador crying when a Somalian woman brought by a local partner described to the Council how she was raped. Personal stories such as this can have great impact. But these reports are usually strongly criticized by academia, because of lack of academic rigour. Publishing NGOs have recognized the issues linked to research methodology. But, despite this, the policy impact is there.

In 2014, Oxfam published a global inequality report4 with concreate suggestions for action by policymakers in order to tackle inequality. This report catalysed a special session of the AU Peace and Security Council on the issue and its links to conflict and humanitarian challenges. The session gave important policy guidance to other organs of the AU and its member states on how to tackle the issue, including dealing with Illicit financial flows.

Here again, the findings were not kept on the shelves of libraries or merely uploaded onto a website. Activists had to co-create space ‘conspiratorially’ with friendly governments, and the result is that the AU and its member states have become aware of the findings. Several ambassadors have formally written to receive copies of the report. Once this happens, then local civil society can follow up at the national level. In addition, the recommendations from the reports made it into the AU’s strategic plan of action. In a similar case, a paper by NGOs promoting universal health coverage during the Ebola outbreak convinced a number of governments to come on board and support the agenda. So research by NGOs/CSOs can have a powerful impact.

Legitimacy and effectiveness of influencing by CSOs

I would like to say a few words on the legitimacy and effectiveness of influencing by CSOs, but also on the relationship between global national and local civil society. Civic space is defined as the set of conditions that determine the extent to which members of society, both as individuals and in informal or organized groups, are able to freely, effectively and without discrimination exercise their basic civil rights. Civic space is the foundation of any open and democratic society. When civic space is open, citizens and their formations are able to organize, participate and communicate without hindrance. In doing so, they are able to claim their rights and influence the political and social structures around them. Civic space enables citizens to participate and hold governments and the private sector to account. Civic space is, therefore, a critical enabler in the fight against poverty and pursuit of social justice.

The legitimacy of civil society participation at the international level was affirmed by the UN Charter5, which states that the United Nations Economic and Social Council may consult with NGOs on matters within its competence. In a prosperous and democratic society, the state and a vibrant civil society are two sides of the same coin and complement each other. Civil society must be seen as a reservoir of social capital capable of contributing to all aspects of a country’s development including health, education, peace and security.

The influence of civil society in national and continental policy making does not diminish the relevance of governmental or inter-governmental processes, but rather enhances it. If we look at the area of peace and security, for example, because of its immersion in society, civil society is able to contribute to peace-building initiatives and social cohesion. Civil society has shown its capacity to organize, collect, analyse and evaluate first-hand information, allowing the identification of the sources of potential tension as well as emerging conflicts. Although ‘traditional’ conflicts are usually well understood by diplomats and specialists in political science, addressing new conflicts requires a much more on-the-ground knowledge, new skills in  social and cultural analysis, the active involvement of communities and their leaders, links to vulnerable groups, bridges into mainstream development processes, and new ways of working. Many civil society organizations have unique capacities in all these areas.

But, is this picture still the same today and everywhere that CSOs operate? That is the question. Are today’s CSOs really linked to the grassroots where the directly affected populations live? How much our are elite, frequent travellers working on the rights of marginalized people in touch with those affected people living in rural areas? How much of the donors’ money accounted for in global statistics actually reaches the beneficiaries?

In January 2010, I met with the then Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi, who introduced one of the most restrictive CSO laws in Africa. On that subject, he indirectly referred to the instrumentalization of national CSOs by big international NGOs, as well as the lack of capacity development of local actors, whose agenda is defined by western NGOs. In this way he partly justified some aspects of his NGO law. However, shouldn’t we consider a more genuine solidarity between national and international CSOs and make a deliberate plan for capacity building, leading progressively to the ‘localization’ of interventions by CSOs?

Stretching civic space in practice

Around the globe there is a proud history of civic activism that is under threat today. Social movements and activists has been a vital component in most independence struggles, and civil society a driving force behind state formation. It has also been instrumental in the affirmation and realization of human rights and dignity.

Civil society across Africa has played a central role in the continent’s history and development. Today, however, the gains brought about by citizen participation are being reversed by increasing restrictions on civic space. The consequences of this have not only been felt by the activists, social movements and civil society groups at the sharp end of these restrictions, but by society at large.

Without CSOs and the independent voices they represent, the ability to address abuses of power and build responsive, accountable institutions is severely constrained. In almost every constitution, there are commitments to allow citizens’ participation in one form or another. However, these commitments to protect civic space are being eroded as many governments across the region characterize civil society more as political opponents than organizations making a positive contribution to social change. While exceptions exist, the current trend is for citizens, activists and the organizations that represent them to have less space to operate in.

We have talked about shrinking space, but there is also shifting space: space can be open for some time and closed at other times or for other people. It can also open for some issues, while blocking others. Sometimes, in order to enforce their restrictions, governments create their own NGOs (GONGOs), which only pretend to speak for the people.

Looking at the current geopolitical trends with the rapidly growing influence of China in Africa promoting the idea of a development state, it is not expected that civic space will reopen again just like that. This is the moment to invest strategically in promoting active citizenship, nationally, but also regionally. Regional civil society and coalitions targeting regional and Pan African institutions have an important role to play, complementing and backing up national groups.

Interventions at the regional level are less exposed to risks, compared to those by national CSOs. In many cases regional CSOs can really contribute, influence and pressure member states through regional and continental bodies on regional policy issues. For example, the Regional Economic Communities (RECs) forum reacted differently to CSO/non-state actor engagement. Another example is, ECOWAS, which seems to be more open to CSOs than the RECs. But the general trend is more encouraging at the regional than at the national level.

I thank you.