APRM High-level stakeholder workshop, President Hotel, Bantry Bay, Cape Town, South Africa, 28th– 30th July 2003

Introduction

The High-Level Stakeholders Workshop was jointly organised by the Secretariat of the New Partnership for Africa 's Development (NEPAD) and the United Nations Development Programme [UNDP] and was held from 28 - 30 July 2003 at the Protea President Hotel in Cape Town , South Africa . The Workshop was one of the first activities focusing on the implementation of the APRM after its launching at the 6 th Summit of the NEPAD Heads of State and Government Implementation Committee [HSGIC]. The Workshop was also the first joint activity of the NEPAD Secretariat and UNDP under the partnership between The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) and the African Governance Forum (AGF). The AGF is a flagship programme of the UNDP and the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA).
The Workshop's target audience and participants were high-level and senior individuals/stakeholders from government, civil society, the private sector, the media, government and others from either public or autonomous organisations and institutions playing critical roles in the area of governance, including the African Union Commission, the UNDP, and UNECA. The countries that have acceded to the APRM were invited to nominate four persons from their respective countries. The UNDP facilitated and funded the participation of the delegates and the NEPAD Secretariat mobilized resources for the rest of the expenditures. The members of the APRM Panel of Eminent Persons were invited and several of them attended.
The following countries that have acceded to the APRM sent delegations: Algeria, Burkina Faso, Congo, Ethiopia, Gabon, Kenya, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, and Uganda. The following other institutions also attended: The African Union Commission, the United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), the United Nations Office of the Special Advisor on Africa (UNOSAA), the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), and the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS). The governance focal points in the UNDP Country offices in the participating countries also attended as resource persons to the country delegations. (Please refer to Annexure 1 for the full Participants' Register)
The Workshop had the following objectives and participants were expected to:
- become more familiar with the APRM base documents and the accession instrument, and have a working knowledge of the operational guidelines so that they will be able to transmit this knowledge to their country partners and create broader understanding of the APRM among stakeholders at the national level;
- obtain a deeper understanding of what is required at the country level and how the country could organize, manage and implement processes to achieve the country contribution to the effective implementation of the APRM;
- develop a better understanding of the role of the technical assessments and how these could be managed as part of the country preparations for the Country Review Visit;
- get a clear overall understanding of how the country processes and the technical assessments relate to each other and how these could be synergised with the Country Review Visit;
- come to a wide range of conclusions and recommendations covering all aspects of the conduct of the APR processes at the country level that could serve to orient and guide country teams and their partners in the implementation of the APRM;
- agree on next steps to build on the results of the workshop, make them widely available in the participating countries and provide further support to these countries, including through the APRM-AGF Partnership.
The overall principles of presentations and facilitation of the workshop were guided by the principles of balance in regional, country, gender, and, stakeholder participation. The participants would play a vital role in the facilitation of the Workshop, acting as Chairpersons and rapporteurs. The format of the meeting would be in breakout sessions and report back sessions would take place in the plenary. The NEPAD Framework document, the two Base documents of the APRM, the MOU and the operative guidelines were provided as background material (Annexure 5). The documents specially prepared for the Workshop included the Concept Paper (Annexure 2), Programme and Programme Notes (Annexure 3), and Guidelines for Country Preparation for and Participation in the APRM (Annexure 4).
Session One - Opening & Welcome
Chairperson - Dr. Mulu Ketsala, State Minister for Economic Planning & Finance, Ethiopia
The Chairperson welcomed all the delegates, noting the broad spectrum of representatives, which included government, private sector and civil society. Dr Ketsala emphasised the opportunity the delegates have in contributing towards the implementation of the APRM. She also noted that the APRM will go a long way in assisting in the overall stability and development of Africa .

Welcoming Remarks - Dr. Frene Ginwala, Speaker of the National Assembly of the Parliament of South Africa
Dr. Ginwala expressed her privilege in welcoming the High-Level Stakeholder Workshop delegates. She especially welcomed the Members of the APR Panel, who started their work only a day after their inauguration. Dr. Ginwala noted that the challenge is to take what has been a lot of work on the APRM, and to see how to implement it in the participating countries. She remarked that Member States are in the Peer Review together. She expressed the view that a country that has been democratic for twenty years will be reviewed in a different manner to a country that has just come out of violent conflict. The Speaker emphasised the need for an entire country's political buy-in on the African Peer Review Mechanism for it to be successful, including the people.

Opening Statement - Mr. Abdoulie Janneh, Assistant Administrator and Director, Regional Bureau for Africa, UNDP
Mr. Janneh also welcomed all delegates, in particular the APR Panel. He remarked that good governance lay at the heart of the UNDP's programme. Mr. Janneh indicated that the UNDP was enthusiastic about NEPAD as a programme to ensure the meaningful reduction of poverty in Africa . NEPAD values and principles and vision lie at the core of ensuring that Africa meets its millennium development goals, as it is based on the principle of African ownership and leadership. He reiterated UNDP's support for the NEPAD Secretariat and APRM, through the African Governance Forum (AGF), its regional programme and the country programmes it develops jointly with African countries.
Mr. Janneh gave a broad outline of the AGF and its objectives, which are:
- To strengthen development cooperation process and partnerships for improved governance;
- To raise awareness and exchange information, share experience and best practice on governance;
- To stimulate the development of concrete measures that respond to governance-related issues within countries; and
- To create an environment in support of resource mobilization for follow-up programmes in African countries.
The AGF acts as a support mechanism for institutionalising and improving national, regional and continental co-operation. Underlying these objectives is the improvement of governance. Mr. Janneh insisted that the AGF is not in competition with NEPAD and the eventual APRM Secretariat, but could instead assist and support these processes, in the spirit of the principle of African ownership and mutual accountability.
Mr. Janneh concluded that Africa eagerly awaits the overall implementation of both NEPAD and the APRM and that UNDP considers itself privileged to be a partner in it.

Opening Statement - Prof. Wiseman Nkuhlu, Chairperson of the NEPAD Steering Committee
Professor Nkuhlu introduced the Members of the APR Panel, namely, Prof. Adebayo Adedeji, Dr. Dorothy Njeuma, Ms Marie-Angelique Savane, Dr. Chris Stals and Mr. Mourad Medelci, and conveyed the apologies of Dr. Graca Machel and Ambassador B. Kiplagat, who had to leave after the APR Panel Working Session due to prior commitments. Professor Nkuhlu underscored the critical role of the Panel in the APRM and he thanked the UNDP for supporting NEPAD and partnering with the APRM through the AGF, indicating that NEPAD looks forward to future collaboration and cooperating with the UNDP and other UN Agencies.
He outlined the history of NEPAD, and its vision and objectives for Africa 's development. He emphasised that the objectives and principles of the Constitutive Act of the African Union are the foundation of NEPAD and the African renaissance and that NEPAD, as a programme of the African Union, focuses on socio-economic development. He emphasised that the vision of NEPAD was to ensure that Africa was self-reliant by creating the conditions for sustainable development. However, he noted that development of programmes is not enough, since effective implementation is essential in ensuring sustainability. He pointed out that lack of progress would only foster pessimism. The vision is to ensure that as Africa effectively implements NEPAD and shows that Africans are committed to good governance and the eradication of poverty optimism about Africa will grow.
Professor Nkhulu pointed out that the NEPAD Framework document identifies the preconditions for sustainable development as peace and security and good economic and political governance and that the APRM was the programme designed to ensure steady progress in these areas, as well as in socio-economic development. The APRM, effectively implemented, will turn Africa pessimism into optimism. He stated that although there are major capacity limitations and challenges in Africa , the APRM will help to overcome these and its success will create the stability required for accelerated sustainable development to overcome poverty.
He underscored the need for NEPAD principles to be incorporated into the national agendas of the respective countries.
He concluded by wishing the Workshop well in their discussions and reminding delegates that their deliberations are eagerly awaited as they begin to create a roadmap for the actual implementation of the APRM at the country level.

Presentation & Outline - Mr. Smunda Mokoena , NEPAD Secretariat Of Workshop Programme
Mr. Mokoena added his voice in welcoming delegates and outlined the objectives of the workshop and the programme, as well as the process that will be followed.

Session Two - What is the APRM?
Chairperson - Mr. Claver Gatete, Member of NEPAD Steering Committee, Rwanda
Mr. Gatete chaired the Second Session of the Workshop. He mentioned the wide variety of programmes on the Continent. He remarked that NEPAD is African-owned and African-led and the meeting, in the same spirit, should complement this sentiment and take ownership of the Workshop objectives and process.

Presentation - Mr. Smunda Mokoena, NEPAD Secretariat
Mr. Mokoena acknowledged the presence of Mr. Alhaji Bamanga Tukur, the Executive Director of African Business Forum, who donated 100, 000 USD to NEPAD during the last World Economic Forum Summit in Durban.
Mr. Mokoena outlined the philosophy, purpose and principles of the APRM. He gave an overall and detailed account that covered the following two areas, ‘What is the APRM?' and ‘How it will be implemented.' On the first, he presented an outline of the Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance, the APRM Base Document as policy documents, and the Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) as a bridging document between the policy documents and the operative guidelines. He summarised the ‘Objectives, Standards, Criteria, and Indicators' and the ‘APRM Organisation and Processes', and outlined the ‘MOU on Technical Assessments and the Country Review Visit'.

Plenary Discussion
Some delegates mentioned a lack of dissemination and sensitisation of information on NEPAD, and a lack of clarity with regard to their own country's role and implementation of NEPAD. The delegates concerns were noted, however, the purpose of the Workshop was to deepen the knowledge base on the APRM.
After lively discussion it was agreed that the workshop would break into four (4) groups, where they would tackle the issues raised in the presentation, the Concept Paper, and the various documents at their disposal. The Workshop further agreed that Sessions Three will consist of breakout groups working on the issues in Session 2 and that Session Four will be a plenary session for report back by the groups and discussion.

Session Three - Four breakout groups met to address the issues.

Session Four - Group Reports
All Four Groups reported to the Plenary (Please see the Group Reports in Annexure 6).

Plenary Discussion on the Group Reports
The Workshop commended all the groups on the excellent work they had achieved, and noted that all their Reports should be distributed. It was noted that there was a lot of agreement amongst the groups.
The Groups expressed strong support for the APRM as an initiative that could have a significant impact in Africa . They also indicated that the APRM brings collective action to bear, reinforces partnership and joint responsibilities and reinforces trust in and credibility of the governance institutions within society and also with external partners. It also promotes regional integration and enables Africa to address problems in a structured way. The Groups also found the list of criteria, with some exceptions, to be appropriate and relevant in guiding the countries. Concern was expressed about not receiving reading material sufficiently in advance and it was requested that this be avoided in the future.
The Group Reports contended that Resource Mobilisation and Financing was critical for the success of the APRM, as well as ensuring effective participation. Nonetheless they observe that the APR Panel was only inaugurated yesterday. The Group Reports also cautioned that the mobilisation of resources should not compromise the African ownership and the independence of the APR panel. They further cautioned that steps should be taken to ensure that the financial resources to fund the APRM are managed independently of the countries to be reviewed.
All the Group Reports further elaborated on the need for better Communication and Participation. They suggested that if there was better and more consistent communication on the APRM (as well as NEPAD) participation shall be broadened to include all the partners. The Groups further remarked that better communication and dissemination of information, would also be able to bring all partners up to the same level. It was suggested that there should be balance between participation and leading, but it should be noted that the consistent dissemination of information results in better accountability and greater participation by the broader society.
The Group Reports indicated that the National Arrangements, particularly the National Focal Point, were of high importance for effective implementation of the APRM. It was necessary that the NEPAD and APRM arrangements in each country should be broadly similar, but allow for country specificity. Although the difficulty of creating country specific criteria was well understood, they underscored the necessity to develop indicators and benchmarks that are country specific within the common standards and norms of the APRM.
It was noted that usually it is only the Executive arm of the State that dealt with the APRM and NEPAD at the expense of the Legislative arm. Therefore to create proper national arrangements there should be a synergy between the Executive and Legislative arms of the State. Further, the designated partner institutions, like the ADB, ECA, etc. are at the continental level, hence there may be a need for national or regional mechanisms for assessment to complement the APRM. Group Two made a concrete suggestion that before an external review takes place the country to be reviewed should make known the processes for participation to the APRM Secretariat.
One of the major cross-cutting issues for all the Groups was that there must be Prioritisation of Key Elements in the APRM Process. Some cautioned that the five stages in the Base document may be too long, and therefore they would need to be prioritised and phased. Further, in as much as that the process must be prioritised, the national process must be given enough time so as to make a meaningful contribution to the Continental review. One of the major priorities would be the composition of the Country Review Team, particularly the issue of competence. The Country Review Team must also reflect the broad in-country stakeholders.
The Group Reports also highlighted the need for creating an Enabling Environment for the APRM. It was suggested that an analysis be done of the reasons why the sixteen countries have voluntarily acceded to the APRM, which could assist in convincing the other countries to join. They further recommended that the APRM be presented as an incentive rather than a burden. It was further suggested that over and above the already existing political will, there should also be a legal and political environment that encourages the APRM. The Groups also requested if there could be further discussions on the issue of constructive peer dialogue and persuasion versus sanctions, as well as the voluntary versus obligatory nature of the mechanism, as a means of ensuring accession to the APRM and its promotion.

Summary of the Chairperson
The Chairperson highlighted and summarised the following points of the discussion:
Session Five - How will the APRM be implemented at country level?
Chairperson - Senator Robert Koleoso, Nigeria
The Chairperson thanked the UNDP, the NEPAD Secretariat and the country delegations. He emphasised that both NEPAD and the APRM signify a new path for Africa . He congratulated the APR Panel, and stressed that their collective wisdom and integrity shall bear on the work of the APR. He reminded the meeting that African Parliamentarians must be brought within the APR process. He concluded by stating that the APR must strive to be as inclusive as possible.

Presentation Mr. Smunda Mokoena , NEPAD Secretariat
The Draft Guidelines for Countries to Prepare for and Participate in the African Peer Review Mechanism document and the outline of Draft Memorandum of Understanding on the Technical Assessments and the Country Review Visit in the Workshop files are the basis for the discussion.
He proceeded to propose an outline of how the APRM would be implemented at country level, as envisaged in the Guidelines for Countries document, which remains a discussion document. There was no single blueprint on how the APRM should be implemented, as long as it does not contradict the core principles and objectives of the APRM.

Summary of the Chairperson
The discussion was summarised by the Chairperson to highlight the following:
- The Workshop recommends confirming the role of Parliamentary democracy as an essential part of good governance. Parliament is a decision-making body, and a filtering body, and should not be limited to its oversight role, which is performed by Committees. The Executive cannot deal with the APRM alone; therefore both NEPAD and the APRM should be discussed as a substantive matter in the Parliaments. It is important to involve opposition parties and legislative assemblies at sub-national levels.
- The private sector is important and must be one of the key stakeholders. It should adopt standards and should comply with the standards and cooperate with the decision-making bodies.
- The APRM is a gigantic task with a plethora of institutions, agencies, etc. involved in these areas at the country level. The challenge is to identify the appropriate country structure or institution that can provide a bridge between the APRM and this complex mix of role-players and stakeholders.
- There is a need to create synergy and avoid duplication by harmonising the Programme of Action with other strategies and plans of action at the national level. The NEPAD initiative, including the APRM, needs to be mainstreamed in the existing frameworks, legislation, and institutions at national level to improve effectiveness and accelerate development in their respective areas.
- There is a greater need for clarity of NEPAD and the APRM in simpler language, so that ordinary people can understand it and that it can be easily translated into other African languages to strengthen sensitisation, communication and the promotion of NEPAD and the APRM.
Session Six - How will the technical assessments by designated continental institutions be conducted?
Chairperson - Mr. Raj Makoond, Joint Economic Council , Mauritius
The Chairperson opened the session by providing the context for the work lying ahead for the Workshop in this Session. In this context, he referred to the relevant sections in the APRM: Organisations and Processes operative guidelines. In particular the Workshop shall receive presentations from the designated continental institutions, and it is important that all participants are able to suggest and recommend concrete ways to ensure proper implementation of the APRM.

Presentation on Democracy & Political Governance by Dr. Jinmi Adisa of the African Union Commission
The AU Commission has broad responsibilities on Democracy & Political governance. The first task is to derive indicators. The Commission believes that the stakeholders in this Workshop can contribute to this process by checking the relevance of the indicative criteria. The second task is to call all the relevant AU Commission Units together to discuss the specific assignment of responsibilities to the units. In respect of this and the current transitional nature of the Commission, time frames needed to be sharpened. The third task of the AU Commission should be to set up the Co-ordinating Framework of Reference, a task that was assigned to the CSSDCA. The fourth task is to identify support capacity for which this workshop would be helpful. The fifth task is that of rationalisation to ensure that the process is cost-effective and efficient, and avoid duplication. Therefore, there is a need to harmonise the national mechanisms for NEPAD, APRM and CSSDCA.
He expected the workshop to provide a better idea of the methods and procedures at the national level and define the character and scope of APR co-ordination and activities at national level.

Presentation on Economic Governance & Management by Mr Ronald Hope of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa
The representative from the UNECA outlined the process undertaken by the UNECA. He covered the following issues, the Objectives, Applicable Codes & Standards, Organisational Arrangements & Processes, Supporting Products, and the Timeframe's for the APRM, and identified inherent Challenges and made proposals with regard to them:
- Data – Lag time of data. Countries to be peer reviewed need to be prevailed upon to provide up-to-date and accurate data
- Overburden – Too many Technical Assessment missions may prove to be too cumbersome and add to the overburden of countries in facilitating such missions. Technical Assessment missions that are complementary should be fielded together, for example, the economic and corporate governance TA missions should be combined
- Autonomy – Technical Assessment Missions should be independent
Presentation on Corporate Governance by Mr Ndungú Gathinji of Eastern, Central and Southern African Federation of Accountants (ECSAFA)
The representative gave a brief outline of ECSAFA and its objectives as an organisation of accountants, as well as its commitment to Africa and its development. He emphasised the issue of capacity development of the profession, and how this positively impacts on African development and governance. He noted that there are only twenty-one countries in Africa that have sworn to apply good accounting practices and codes. He also indicated that in the development of policies, especially the King Report 1 and 2, would be utilised. However, he cautioned that there is criticism of these reports since they concentrate on shareholders and capital markets. Therefore ECSAFA is developing a more relevant Code for Good Corporate Governance in Africa . The Code will not require a large bureaucracy to monitor the corporate sector, it will focus on labour, and both bribery-givers and takers. At national level there is a need for anti-corruption measures, consumer activism, insurance of risk and integrity of accounting processes.

Presentation on Socio-Economic Development by Dr Eddy Maloka of the Africa Institute of South Africa
The assessment of socio-economic development is a work in progress. The first challenge is to develop a consensus on what constitutes socio-economic development. The second challenge is to mainstream socio-economic objectives into the other aspects of the APRM, the political, corporate, and economic governance, with measurable targets, in particular in regard to women, the aged, and children. There is a need to expand the Millennium Development Goals. There is a need to address inequalities that are determined by factors such as location, ethnicity, etc. The countries that have acceded to the APRM to develop plans to meet their socio-economic goals and targets should be assisted. The countries need to be further assisted by institutions like the UNDP in setting targets. He highlighted the importance of ECCOSOC, the Pan-African Parliament and the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights of the African Union as platforms for civil society participation. It is also important to determine what are the different expectations of the private sector and civil society. The first task is to determine the socio-economic indicators.

Summary of Discussion
On democracy and political governance the participants commented as follows:
- The importance of the service delivery of the public sector and their crucial role in the successful implementation of the APRM and NEPAD. Indicators must be developed on the delivery of services by governments.
- The democratisation of the State is an ongoing task, and there is a need to further democratise development management so that people-centred and people-driven development is realised.
- Political peer review is a difficult matter and even our leaders are not sure how successful the review shall be, but we all recognise the centrality of peer review as a catalyst for development and its acceleration.
The following remarks related mainly to economic governance and management:
- There is an issue with regard to the confidentiality and limited distribution of technical assessment reports of external institutions.
- How is the APRM going to relate to the processes undertaken by the WTO, and conversely how shall these processes impact on the APRM? Trade policies have much to do with countries' capacity to reduce poverty and achieve the MDG's and negotiations on fair trade are continentally managed by African Ministries of Trade within the context of the AU.
- There needs to be an analysis of the role that national and regional research and policy institutions could play in the review processes.
The Workshop made the following comments on corporate governance:
- Corruption and inadequate corporate governance is linked.
- It is important that the private sector regulate itself within the legislative framework of their respective countries.
- Corporate governance includes responsibilities to society, the community and the environment.
On socio-economic development the Workshop strongly recommended that:
- In all stages of the implementation of the APRM there must be a systematic attention to the participation and the role of women, including in the technical assessment missions.
- There needs to be key objectives and targets for eliminating illiteracy.
The Workshop made the following comments on the communication and outreach :
- There is a need to increase and harmonise the flow of information between continental, regional and national levels.
- It is imperative, given the widespread illiteracy on the Continent, that we make materials available in non-technical form for wide dissemination.
- The technical assessment and the APR Country Visit are opportunities for sensitisation and promotion of NEPAD and the APRM.
Participants observed that there are various and numerous sources of data on the areas of the APRM. These data vary in currency and quality, which require careful assessment to determine their usefulness. They also pointed to the need for a heightened role for NGO's in the APRM.
A final observation was that the key challenge of this workshop remains in how to assist countries so that they are better prepared for the APRM, as well as increasing the participation of stakeholders in the country, assist in bringing together the various partners at the national level, and in total to ensure that the country is ready.

Summary of the Chairperson
The Chairperson concluded the session with the following summary:
- It was recognised that the process the APRM will follow is germane to the success of the mechanism. This process must be widely known and understood.
- It must be recognised that clarity of information is required, and thus, co-ordination of information remains imperative. As in previous sessions, the need for the harmonisation and coherence of the missions and processes was amplified.
- The Workshop also recognised the need for strategic partnerships at intra-country, inter-country and continental levels.
- There must be sensitisation of the grassroots.
- Gender issues need to be mainstreamed, in particular the equal participation of women.
- Illiteracy on the Continent remains a constraint affecting dissemination of information and increasing of participation.
- It should be recognised that the APR process and the technical missions can be used as opportunities to sensitise and promote both the NEPAD and APRM.
Session Seven - Breakout Session: How countries prepare?
In order to facilitate discussion and focus, the breakaway groups were requested to attempt specific questions as much as possible (Please refer to Annexure 7).
Session Eight - How countries prepare (CONTD)?
Chairperson - Mrs Aicha Barki, President of IQRAA, Algeria
The three Groups reported to the Plenary. (Please refer to Annexure 8)

Summary of Discussions
During the plenary discussion that was relatively short, the following points were registered:
- PRSP's in some countries could provide a model for consultations, and there could be synergies, but one must guard against losing African ownership. There is a concern that PRSP's should not replace what is to be established with the APRM.
- There may be a need for facilitators where the partnership is not developing or there is conflict in a country about the implementation of the APRM. UNDP was mentioned as a possible facilitator in certain countries.
- It was suggested that the reviews take place every 3-year, focusing on one of the four areas at a time – UNDP reports were quoted as examples.
Summary of the Chairperson
The Chairperson concluded and summarised the discussion:
- We must establish a single focal point with multi-stakeholder participation.
- There is a need for rationalization of the various elements and instruments within the country context.
- Mobilisation of resources will be necessary and must conform to the principle of African ownership.
- Countries must develop a strategy for communication to ensure the sensitisation and social mobilization of the entire population of the country.
Session Nine - Country presentations
Chairperson - Mr Martin Mabala, Minister, Gabon

Synthesis of Country Reports
The country delegations were invited to meet privately after the formal sessions on Tuesday to discuss and agree on the steps they would take to follow-up on the deliberations at the workshop in preparation for the APRM implementation. All fourteen of the country delegations present presented reports that revealed the different stages of preparedness of the countries. Following are highlights of the reports:
- All delegations are strongly committed to ensuring an effective country process in preparation for and participation in the APRM.
- There are significant variations in the situations for the countries, including the extent to which they have already taken steps to participate in NEPAD and in the APRM.
- All of them agreed that broad public participation in the preparations at all levels is essential for the effectiveness of the development of the Programme of Action and the implementation of the APRM.
- Most of them already have NEPAD focal points and Steering Committees and see these structures as playing a critical role in coordination of the country processes, with the necessary adjustments to make them more inclusive, representative and participatory. Other delegations intend to recommend that other existing structures be broadened to play this role. The Workshop cautioned against the creation of additional structures.
- Most delegations envisaged developing a sensitisation and communication campaign to ensure broad awareness and participation in the development of the Programme of Action.
- Although it was not expected that the delegations would develop concrete plans at this stage, they did plan follow-up strategies to share the information and experience of this workshop with their constituencies and the authorities of the countries to ensure effective follow-up in the preparations for the APRM.
The country reports were submitted to the Secretariat in hand written form. The NEPAD Secretariat is in possession of 12 of these reports. The country delegations have been asked to finalise their reports and submit the final version to the NEPAD Secretariat for editing, translation and distribution to the participating countries.

Session Ten - Consideration of draft report and next steps
Chairperson - Mr. Claver Gatete, Member of NEPAD Steering Committee

Presentation of Draft Report on the Workshop by Mr. Smunda Mokoena, NEPAD Secretariat
Mr. Mokoena introduced the draft report that was distributed in both English and French and invited comments. Several corrections to the draft were requested and forwarded to the Secretariat for inclusion into the Final Report.

Presentation on NEXT STEPS by Mr. Timothy Bandora, UNDP, New York
Mr. Bandora outlined the success of the workshop in being able to achieve the following outcomes:
- The workshop has been a learning process and has facilitated awareness building;
- The workshop has provided an opportunity for exchange of views and experiences;
- The workshop has identified challenges of preparing for and participating in the national processes;
- The workshop has underlined the following to be addressed:
Based on the deliberations over the past two days Mr. Bandora proposed the following steps, categorized into four groups: process-related steps, institutional steps, finance-related steps and partnership building.
On Process he suggested the following:
- Strengthen and expand advocacy for APRM at national level and promote broader stakeholder involvement with the view to increasing awareness and reducing information gap in relation to APRM;
- Expand national consultations and where possible reach consensus on the guidelines for country APRM processes;
- Initiate a process of national consultations on APRM;
- Reach agreement on time-frame for national processes and prepare programme of action.
In terms of having an Institutional Framework to operationalise the APRM at national level the following steps were proposed:
- Establish national structures and framework for APRM within specified period;
- Undertake capacity assessment for implementing APRM in order to establish whether adequate capacity exists at national level;
- Designate institutions to conduct technical assessments at national level and sharing tasks;
- Link the national structures to the APR Secretariat for coordination.
On Financing the APRM he proposed the following two points:
- Identify sources of funds to finance and support national processes and institutions for APRM (a) primarily, at national level from both private and public sources, and, (b) leveraging partner financing;
- Initiate critical thinking on sustainable financing for long-term issue of capacity building for governance.
To assist in Partnership building, he proposed the following:
- Determine partnership most facilitative of APRM at national level – private sector, NGO's, CBO's and professional associations etc.
- Initiate and sustain inter-African co-operation for APRM for peer learning;
- Build bridges/partnerships with partner institutions
In concluding Mr. Bandora also suggested that the Sixth African Governance Forum scheduled for 02 nd – 05 th of December 2003 in Kigali , Rwanda with the theme ' NEPAD: Implementing the APRM ', could serve the following purposes:
- Review progress made with respect of preparations for stage one of the APRM;
- Propose a possible timetable for country reviews, subject to the work programme of the APR Panel.
Adoption Of The Report and Next Steps
The Workshop adopted the Report with the suggested amendments and the recommendations for Next Steps as the Report of the APRM-AGF High Level Stakeholders Workshop.

Session 11 - Closure
Chairperson - Mr. Claver Gatete, Member of NEPAD Steering Committee

Closing Statement - Mr. Abdoulie Janneh, Assistant Administrator and Director, Regional Bureau for Africa , UNDP
Mr. Abdoulie Janneh thanked the participants who are partners at both the national level and between countries. The discussions were useful and the country plans for follow-up and the development of programmes of action excellent and very encouraging. This was the first meeting on implementation of APRM after the inauguration of the APR Panel and UNDP considers itself privileged to be associated with it.
He thanked the Panel members who attended and participated and found it encouraging that they were ready to start implementation. He noted that there was consensus on the next steps: National structures would be set up, broad participation would be affected, key institutions would be assessed and strengthened for their key roles in the processes, and there is commitment of finance ministers on the funding of the APRM.
He also thanked other partner institutions for their participation and joint support. He assured the participants of support from UNDP in the tasks they undertake, through AGF and the country programmes, supplementing national resources. Referring to the plans to hold AGF VI in Kigali in December, he noted that there is flexibility on date depending on the preparedness of countries. The situation would be reviewed by the end of September and the final decision made by NEPAD Secretariat. He ventured that the APRM was the biggest challenge in NEPAD. It will serve to persuade partners that the conditions exist in African countries to continue development efforts. This Workshop produced a clear road map for countries to take the first step in the APR process. He expressed trust the AGF VI will demonstrate that much progress was made with the APRM by the countries who committed themselves.

Closing Statement Ambassador Isaac Aluko-Olokun, Member NEPAD Steering Committee
Ambassador Aluko-Olokun associated himself with the comments of Mr. Janneh. He emphasized that NEPAD was more than the APRM, that improving governance was only one of the goals of NEPAD. But he agreed that the APRM was the acid test of NEPAD, its cutting edge, if not linchpin. He expressed surprise that there was not more mention in the Workshop of the fact that UNDP has governance programme in every African country. How will these programmes relate to APRM? He suggested that the APRM should build on these programmes.
He suggested that it must be recognized that one deliverable and outcome of the APRM is peer pressure or constructive dialogue. The issue is how the leaders as peers can bring effective pressure to bear on each other.
He noted that it became clear since the start of NEPAD that the missing link is capacity in Africa and that there was a severe lack of it. It is time to come down to concrete reality: How do we use APRM to build capacity?
He recommended that there should be more focus on MDG's that could substitute very well as a set of indicators and could serve as a basis to start. He urged the use the MDG's as indicators of progress towards the NEPAD goals and objectives as operationalised in the APRM documents.
He noted that there are various areas of good governance, political, economic and corporate and that the institutions in these areas must take primary responsibility for improving it. Thus there is a challenge to private sector to develop a culture of good corporate governance themselves – government should not need to do this. Similarly, in socio-economic governance: The leaders brought it into Declaration because they want to make governments responsible for improving socio-economic conditions of life of the people. This is an area in which civil society can help.
He noted that funding was not easy to resolve and that the budget estimate of the APRM for first year was larger than the NEPAD budget. He encouraged delegates to appeal to their governments to fund APRM fully and independently, as the African Finance Ministers decided last year in Sandton , South Africa , during their meeting under the auspices of the UNECA.

Closing Remarks Chairperson, Mr. Claver Gatete, Member of NEPAD Steering Committee
In closing, the Chairperson stated that everyone agreed that the Workshop was very productive and interesting, noting that it was one of a few cases in his experience where people attended from beginning to end. He reiterated the principles of ownership, leadership, partnership and participation that were demonstrated at the Workshop and underlie its success.
Mr. Gatete thanked the speakers for their closing statements, NEPAD and the UNDP for organising the Workshop, the participants for their active participation, the interpreters for their excellent work and the hotel staff for their hospitality and service.
He concluded that the Workshop had produced a clear roadmap to the implementation of the APRM at the country level and wished country delegates every success in their follow-up and preparations. He invited everyone to Kigali in December for the AGF VI to review the progress made and plan the way forward.

APRM High-level stakeholder workshop, President Hotel, Bantry Bay, Cape Town, South Africa, 28th– 30th July 2003

Session One - Opening & Welcome

Session Two - What is the APRM?

Session Three - Four breakout groups met to address the issues.

Session Four - Group Reports

Session Five - How will the APRM be implemented at country level?

Session Six - How will the technical assessments by designated continental institutions be conducted?

Session Seven - Breakout Session: How countries prepare?

Session Eight - How countries prepare (CONTD)?

Session Nine - Country presentations

Session Ten - Consideration of draft report and next steps

Session 11 - Closure