Monitoring regional integration in the ACP: The case for a coordinated approach

Discuss this publicationShare your views with other visitors, and read what they have to say

In November 2008, the ACP Secretariat launched the “ACP Monitoring Regional Integration” (MRI) project[1]. The MRI project, which is supported financially by the European Community and managed by the ACP Secretariat[2], is intended to design and implement a system of regional integration indicators that can be applied to twelve ACP Regional Integration Organisations (RIOs)[3], with the African Union as an additional institutional project partner.

There is yet no standard RI indicators system commonly used worldwide, and the results derived from different systems can be difficult to compare. It is notable, therefore, that the ACP MRI project will permit the twelve RIOs to undertake regular monitoring of their own regional integration process, while also allowing stakeholders and observers to undertake comparative analyses.

A framework for a system of RI indicators has been developed based on the following methodological principles: (a) multidimensionality; (b) capacity to measure both the degree of regional integration and the regional integration policy effort; (c) capacity to conduct both interregional (comparative) and intraregional (reflexive) analyses; (d) relevance to the ACP context; (e) comprehensiveness; and finally (f) user friendliness.

This framework is based on a Three-Level Tree Structure, which allows for classification of all possible future regional integration indicators along data clusters. The upper level of this structure is made up of the system “dimensions”, which represent the multidimensional nature of the regional integration process. At this top level, four dimensions have been identified: regional governance, economic integration, functional cooperation, and social integration. The next two levels refer to “domains” and “areas”, as illustrated below.

DIMENSION (e.g. Economic Integration)

DOMAIN (e.g. Trade Integration)

AREA (e.g. Goods Trade)

This framework also allows for a useful two-tiered approach, distinguishing between one Central System of RI Indicators (CSRI) and several potential Extended Systems of ACP RI Indicators (ESRIs), both based on the same tree architecture. The CSRI will consist of a limited set of core indicators commonly applied by all ACP RIOs, therefore allowing for comparative analyses of integration processes. The ESRIs, meanwhile, will be tailored to the needs of each ACP RIO, reflecting the unique policy agendas of each organisation through the selection of additional indicators to complement the CSRI core ones.

This ACP project, if successful, could prove timely in the field of monitoring ACP regional integration, since many ACP RIOs have already established Monitoring and Evaluation Units within their institutional framework but have yet to develop a comprehensive and integrated monitoring system based on a full set of RI indicators. However, while all ACP RIOs are welcoming of the ACP initiative in principle, some question why they should spend some of their limited resources to the development of the MRI project, considering that its CSRI is not directly designed for a full monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of their individual work programmes[4]. Indeed, there might be a natural temptation for RIOs to focus back on the development of a fully home grown M&E indicators system, while not dedicating sufficient time and effort to a system aimed inter alia at providing some more general information on the RI processes.

Nevertheless, the MRI project offers a clear win-win opportunity in which the ACP RIOs would support the implementation of the central system, while benefitting in return from the project expertise, as well as from the inter-regional dialogue it provides, with a view to developing their own fully fledged M&E system. In this regard, given the fact that the project requires focusing first on the development and implementation of the central system, the challenge ahead is to identify the ways and means to ensure that the RIOs’ own practical needs can be satisfied, given the project resources and its limited lifespan. Ultimately, the ACP RIOs ownership of the system will be of utmost importance for the project’s success, both in terms of effective operational results in the short run and in terms of its sustainability.

[1] EuropeAid/126170/D/SER/Multi.

[2] The ACP Secretariat is managing the project through a service contract with Landell Mills Ltd and ADE S.A. who provide two long-term project experts: Jean-Michel Salmon (Team Leader) and Adrien Akanni-Honvo (Senior Expert), who can be contacted respectively at lml@landell-mills.com, stradevco@wanadoo.fr and adrien.akanni-honvo@orange.fr. The project website address is www.acp-regional-integration.org.

[3] These are listed within the project ToRs as CEN-SAD, ECCAS, ECOWAS, IGAD, COMESA, SADC, EAC, IOC, CEMAC, UEMOA, CARICOM, PIFS.

[4] This comes from the fact that the CSRI, in its very design, must cover not less than 26 subject areas while remaining as light and user-friendly as possible. This implies that for each subject area, the number of core indicators has to remain quite limited. Therefore, only well designed RIOs’ specific extended systems would provide for the more numerous indicators per activity the RIOs need so as to undertake the more in-depth investigations that a monitoring exercise requires at the individual project/programme level.