Minutes of AIR Steering Committee Meeting

Transcription

1 Date: 6 March 2012 Time: 15:00 hrs Place: EC, Brussels Participants: Minutes of AIR Steering Committee Meeting 1. Dr. Olawale I. Maiyegun, AUC (Chair) 2. Philip Bob Jusu, AUC 3. Charles Kwenin, IOM 4. Anna Platonova IOM 5. Prof. Bernadette Dia Kamgnia, African Development Bank. 6. Ron Hendrix, EC 7. Helene Bourgade, EC 8. Barbara Rossi, EC 9. Constance Motte, EC 10. Soheyla Mahmoudi, World Bank (Via Audio) 11. Don Terry, World Bank (Via Audio) 12. Richard Cambridge, World Bank (Via Audio) Agenda 1. Report of the Technical Committee Meeting of 29 February Roadmap of the AU EC Decision on AIR 3. Financial Implications for the Establishment of AIR 4. AOB Item 1: Report of the Technical Committee Meeting 1. Ms. Mahmoudi reported on the Technical Committee meeting that was held on 29 February. She noted that the meeting highlighted all the important issues as well as the activities implemented in 2011 and those in the pipeline for implementation during the remaining phase of the preparatory project. According to her, other issues discussed include the Consultant s report on the cost-benefit analysis, draft report on the organizational structure, criteria of AU host agreement and the upcoming side events. She also informed that the WB requested a one year extension to the project closing date of April 30, Mr. Kwenin queried if the one year programme extension has flexibility to undertake new activities or reinforce some of the activities in workplan with particular reference to diaspora engagement. 3. There was a discussion about some aspects of the report which Ms Mahmoudi informed had been deleted from the minutes of the meeting. The meeting decided to delete the SWOT analysis from the draft report on cost benefit analysis.

2 Item 2: Roadmap of the AU EC Decision on AIR 4. Reporting on the July Consultative and Experience Sharing Forum which took place in Addis Ababa in July 2011, the Chair informed that the result of the July meeting was significant as it gave the AUC a roadmap in terms of developing a structure for the AIR, the host for the institute, and the role of the AU. The Chair recalled the robust discussion during the Consultative Forum on whether the AIR should be a technical institute of the AU or a specialised agency. According to him, both options have different legal implications and noted that what emerged from the consultative process was that the AIR should be a technical institution of the AU with its membership including all AU Member States; whereas if it is going to be a specialized agency it would need its own constitution and would require ratification by certain number of AU member states for it to be functional. The implications of the AIR being a technical institute, according to the Chair, is that the salaries of professional staff of the institute will be the responsibility of the AUC, whereas programmes and activities would be another issue in terms of budgeting. 5. Moreover, the Chair informed that the next major step taken by the AUC in line with the Forum s recommendations was to submit the report to the AU policy organs, including the Permanent Representative Council (PRC), and Executive Council. According to him, the report generated a lively and interesting discussion at the PRC and the Executive Council. The Executive Council in its decision requested the AUC to submit the report and recommendations on the structure and nature of the institute to the Ministers of Finance and Economic Development for their endorsement, the Chair noted. 6. Speaking on the upcoming Joint AUC-ECA Ministers of Finance Conference on March 2012, the Chair informed that as part of the sensitization campaign, there would be two side events on 24 March and 25 March respectively. The former would be an Experts Panel Discussion made up of experts from Asia, Latin America and EU to share experiences on remittances and activities that the institute would perform upon establishment, while the latter would be a High-Level Ministerial Panel Discussion to discuss how remittances can be leveraged for social development in Africa. 7. Furthermore, the Chair reported that should the Ministers of Finance endorse the establishment of the AIR, the proposal for the AIR Structure would be submitted to the PRC Sub-Committee on Structure and the Sub-Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Matters for them to examine the cost so that they can put it as part of the AUC s budget. He, however, observed that by the

3 time the committee meets in April/May the budget for 2013 would have been finalized. 8. On the final decision on the establishment and nature of the institute, the Chair stated that he expected the decision to be taken during the June/July Assembly in Lilongwe. 9. Ms. Bourgade of the European Commission wanted to know if the final project report would include the Mission statement and role of the institute as it remained unclear to her, and whether the document would be discussed at the upcoming Ministerial meeting. She also stated that she was concerned about the financial contributions of AU Member States to the functioning of the AIR when established. 10. Responding to Ms Bourgade, the Chair noted that the report was a living document and would be improved upon as required, noting that the existing report nonetheless contained the role and activities of the institute. 11. Proff Kamgnia of the African Development Bank wanted to know what role the AfDB would play for the institution should the AUC decide to locate the Institute within the Bank, as one of the options in the report. She noted that the Bank requires more information in other to make proposals for hosting the AIR at the Bank. 12. The Chair reminded all that the AIR would be a technical institute/office, and three options have been proffered for hosting it. The first option was similar to CEMLA in Latin America where the AIR could be hosted by the Association of African Central Banks; the second option was to host it within the African Development Bank, while the third option was for an AU Member State to host it. According to the Chair, whoever hosts the institute would be required to cover some technical and administrative costs, while salaries for the professional staff approved in the structure would be the responsibility of the AUC. 13. However, Richard Cambridge of the World Bank advised that it was premature to speculate on the financial implications of the institute. Instead he recommended that efforts should be made to elucidate the objectives and activities, as well as proposals from countries to host the institute before the report is presented at the Ministerial conference. 14. Talking about the decision, the Chair informed that the key decision expected from the Ministers of Finance was to endorse the establishment of the AIR, but no decision on the host would be made. He informed that Rwanda, Kenya, Mauritius and Tanzania had expressed interest, albeit informally, to host the

4 AIR. The Chair was thrilled over the fact that Member States were becoming more interested in the institute compared to a year ago when the interest was low. 15. While acknowledging the different hosting options, Ms. Bourgade expressed concern about the inclusion of multidonors as members of the institute. According to her, there was no rationale for having multidonors, noting that partnership should be completely different from membership. She also expressed concern about the mandate of the Institute, stating that the activities should be different from the mandate. 16. Furthermore, Ms Bourgade called for the line management and accountability issue to be separated from the hosting requirement. In her estimation, the physical location is secondary in terms of sequencing compared to the issue of accountability and management. Regarding the financial requirement to host the institute, Ms. Bourgade expressed concern that this would place poor countries that are interested in hosting the institute in a disadvantageous position. 17. Mr. Cambridge, however, sought to allay Ms. Bourgade s fear by stating that the multidonors are not actual members of the institute. According to him, only AU Member States are actual members of the institute. He informed that the rationale for the inclusion of multidonors was for the institute to be involved in various partnerships, including partnership with multilateral organizations. Nevertheless, Mr. Cambridge requested the Committee to carefully review the entire document, including the organizational structure, and provide feedback on all reservations within 10 days. 18. Similarly, the Chair noted that there was no confusion about the mandate as the mandate comes from the Executive Council. 19. Commenting on the SWOT analysis of the report, Proff Kamgnia wanted to know why there should be limitations on the bank if it will only be required to host the AIR, which, according to her, is different from hosting by MS. 20. The Chair stated that the SWOT was mainly an analysis taking into consideration the advantages and disadvantages of whoever would end up hosting the institute. To this end, Mrs. Mahmoudi reminded that the Technical Committee had recommended for the SWOT analysis to be deleted. 21. However, Mr. Hendrix noted that no decision was taken in the Technical Committee meeting to delete the SWOT Analysis; instead members were advised to substantially revise it in order to avoid any misrepresentation. He

5 also noted that the SWOT analysis was good but needs to be amended in order to reflect the reality. 22. In the same vein, Mr. Kwenin stated that the SWOT was good by way of analysis. But given the requests by AU MS to host the AIR, he recommended that it might be good to come out clearly with what the Member States are prepared to offer i.e. by spelling out clearly what is needed or required from Member States in order to help the Ministers decide on the host. Secondly, he emphasized the need for issues of accountability to be made clear. 23. Concurring with the need for further information, the Chair stated that based on recommendations from Technical Committee and the Steering Committee, improvements that would provide the necessary ingredients for the Ministers to make the right decision could be made to existing AU guidelines/criteria/minimum requirements without contradicting the Commission s requirements. Moreover, depending on what the Steering Committee decides, the SWOT analysis would be removed from the main document but kept aside should a need arise for it, he added. 24. On the financial criteria for hosting AU institution, the Chair informed that these criteria have been in place since 2005 and no member states had expressed concern about it. Item 3: Financial Implications for the Establishment of AIR 25. The Chair began with a premise that members were somehow reluctant to discuss the financial issue into detail as it would end up being a guessing game. He recalled the Executive Council decision (EX.CL/683(XX) that acknowledged the role of partners in implementing the preparatory phase and also called on them to continue supporting the institute in making sure that it takes off. According to him, part of facilitating the decision was an assurance from the partners that they would not abandon their financial support for the institute at least in the foreseeable future. 26. Mr. Cambridge disclosed that the World Bank would be willing to support the AIR financially upon establishment. However, he emphasized that the institute must have a sustainability plan by undertaking sufficient activities that generate sustainable income within the shortest possible time. 27. Ms Bourgade reiterated an earlier position that the financial responsibility must be the responsibility of AU Member States and was therefore odd for the project proposal to look at the donor community first. While noting that there should be earmarked funding for specific activities but not the routine programme of work, she informed that the role of the EC was to help establish

6 the institute, and that any possible financial support afterwards would be of limited timeframe (maximum five years) and degressive to arrive at zero at the end of the fifth year period maximum. Further/other support will be only through earmarked funding for specific operations but for the core funding of the Institute for its routine tasks that should be secured by AU Member States. 28. Speaking on the activities of the institute, Ms. Bourgade estimated that the activities were somehow ambitious and proposed to limit them in the initial phase of the establishment in order to make the system work efficiently, especially in the areas of legal environment, transaction costs, data collection, etc., and also to give time to create confidence and trust in the institute. She argued that each country might have different needs but believed that every AU member state would require help in terms of better understanding of remittances flow, data collection on remittances flow, different corridors, legal environment, etc. 29. In line with Ms. Bourgade s position, Proff Kamgnia said it was imperative for AU Member States to take the first step to support the institute in terms of financing. She reported that there was a trust fund in the African Development Bank that might be available for the AIR, but stressed that no concrete interest would be expressed from the bank until detailed information is proffered. Nevertheless, she noted that the bank would support the AIR once it is established. 30. Similarly, Mr. Kwenin supported the sentiments expressed by EC and AfDB, but noted that what was required for the AIR was not only the financial aspect but also the technical expertise. Remittances being one of the direct products of migration, Mr. Kwenin informed that IOM would help in providing the necessary technical assistance and capacity building expertise for the establishment of institute. It takes the joint effort and complementarity from those who have the financial means and the technical expertise and data collection to make the process work, he noted. Item 4: A.O.B 31. Richard Cambridge called for more engagement with AfDB, IOM and Economic Commission for Africa (ECA). In this regard, he called for a separate and distinct discussion on how to enhance the partnership, as well as to get involve with remittance senders, remittance institutes government departments that deal with diaspora, central banks, etc. on a much broader scale in order to develop and implement concrete strategies and operational instruments to use remittances as development tools for poverty reduction.

7 32. Recalling the work of the Technical team on the status of implementation of the General Principles for International Remittance Services (GPs) legal and regulatory frameworks and market structure in Tanzania, Malawi and Liberia, the training of postal operators in six French-speaking West African countries, and the creation of a Remittance Price database, Richard noted that much more needed to be done to exploit these remittance-based relationships in the AU Member States especially during the extension phase of the project. This is in view of the fact that the Africa region of the World Bank (African Diaspora Program) which is executing the Trust Fund is engaged with government and Diaspora Agencies in numerous AU Member States e.g Senegal, Gambia, Ivory Coast, Benin, Togo, Mali, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Nigeria, DRC, Congo Republic, Mozambique, Lesotho, Zambia, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, and Ethiopia, with strong interest shown by Rwanda, Angola, Zimbabwe, etc. 33. The Chair welcomed the observations by Richard and called on the support of everyone to keep the partnership alive beyond these meetings. He conceded that the Commission had not done much in partnering with ECA on AIR but that the presence of AfDB was a renewed commitment on the part of the bank to support the institute, and a testament to the Commission s effort in reaching out of key partners. 34. A date for the next meeting was not fixed, but the WB agreed, albeit casually, to host the next SC meeting in Washington. 35. The meeting ended at 18:00 hrs.