click to view the interview

According to Frannie Leautier from the African Capacity Building Foundation, regular monitoring of capacity change in Africa could stimulate a lively debate on aid results and capacity in the run-up to Busan and beyond.
 

As part of its 20th anniversary celebrations, The African Capacity Building Foundation (ACBF) recently launched its inaugural “Africa Capacity Indicators” Report which monitors the status of capacity development in Africa, using a range of indicators.
 

These indicators cover three core areas: individual capabilities, organisational performance and institutional change.

The monitoring exercise is carried out using a self-assessment instrument. Although this can lead to some inflated scores, it can help foster ownership of the results.

“When people assess themselves they own the results and they own the implementation,” explained Frannie Leautier, ACBF Executive Secretary.

This year’s report raised some unexpected findings. Traditionally poor development performers like Burkina Faso and Burundi – which both score among the lowest rankings in the world on the United Nation’s Human Development Index – get high marks in ACBF index. Meanwhile, sub-Saharan Africa’s oft cited top development example, South Africa, emerged with a lower capacity ranking.

As Ms. Leautier explains, factors accounting for some of these discrepancies include:

•A disconnect between having capacity and using it, which can be attributed to governance and political context/ space, and
•Uneven distribution of capacity within a country – with pockets of very high but also very low capacity, which can affect the overall ranking.
Besides monitoring the core indicators, each report, which will be published annually, focuses on a specific topic. Thus the inaugural 2011 report focuses on capacity development in fragile contexts while the 2012 report will focus on capacity for agricultural productivity and food security.

The monitoring of capacity results comes at a time when the global development community is increasingly focused on managing for results and this will no doubt be a key issue for Busan. Helping to track changes in capacity across the continent will be warmly received by those who have found capacity to be a hard-to-grasp concept.

At the same time, some concern has been raised that in the pursuit of hard measurable results and quick wins, the long and painful process of institutional development and capacity strengthening, so critical to sustainability, may be cast aside. Yet this need not be the case.

According to Ms Leautier, the important thing is to ensure that the focus on results does not lead to “short-termism”. Nor should donors seek to plan and predict intended results from the outset through over complex and detailed design.

“Some of the biggest results achieved have come about not because they were planned but because space was created for innovation and discovery,” Ms Leautier pointed out.

The implication here is that good design does not mean over-design. Strategic direction, flexibility, and space for learning and empowerment are critical elements. A key role for development partners then is to create the space for local actors to act.

This basic message is borne out by the experience of the Rapid Results initiative which believes that quick results and capacity change can be combined when space is created for local actors to take ownership and exercise leadership in tackling development challenges.

The ACBF’s annual report and their regular monitoring on capacity change in Africa is expected to stimulate a lively debate on capacity, its development and its measurement, and ensure that capacity development rightly remains on the radar for policy makers and the development community at large. 

for more visit http://capacity4dev.ec.europa.eu/article/capacity-development-and-results-where-does-africa-stand

Alleviating poverty on the continent is no small challenge, but Kerry Dimmer finds that there are those, like Frannie Léautier of the African Capacity Building Foundation, who are making huge strides.

It’s not easy for African-born women to become visible, to rise to prominence in a male-dominated world, and in Tanzania, where Dr Frannie Léautier was born into a big family, there were few women leaders whose example she could emulate.

This did not stop her, however, achieving firstly a BSc in civil engineering from the University of Dar es Salaam, followed by a MSc in transportation and a PhD in infrastructure systems, both from MIT. She is also a graduate of the Harvard University Executive Development Programme. These accomplishments drew the attention of the World Bank, whose incredible work in the development of Africa is something Léautier greatly admired.

Cumulatively, Léautier served in various capacities at the World Bank for 15 years, rising to the rank of vice-president and head of the World Bank Institute. When she left the World Bank, it was to pursue a business venture that focused on risk management and leadership development.

But the World Bank and Léautier continued to work closely and she returned as the executive secretary of the African Capacity Building Foundation (ACBF). Its work in building sustainable human and institutional capacity in Africa for poverty reduction meant Léautier could help generate great change in the life of many Africans.

The foundation’s approach is multi-dimensional: to build individuals through skills and knowledge, to strengthen the capability of an organisation to perform, and to facilitate an enabling environment for institutions to perform optimally.

Over the past 15 months, under Léautier’s leadership, disbursements to programmes are higher than at any point in ACBF’s history and the share of the ACBF portfolio that is rated ‘highly satisfactory’, has tripled.

‘The quality, too, of our controls in terms of effectiveness and the transparency in which our funds are used, has increased so much,’ explains Léautier, ‘that the ACBF has been labelled the safest place to put investment money in Africa. I am very proud of that distinction.

‘Wherever I go – whether it’s to visit member states and projects we support or even in conversations with stakeholders like the World Bank or the African Development Bank and its bilateral agencies – the resounding message is the importance of the ACBF in the transformation of Africa.’

It is also the potential that the ACBF holds for the future, based on its own development over the past 20 years, that will scale up the organisation’s activities. There are four key focus points Léautier is driving.

Firstly is the advancement of policy unit centres in Africa. ‘In the early 1990s there wasn’t a single think tank in Africa. It’s through ACBF’s financing that we now have 27 such institutes in 22 African states. The results from policy reform generated through these think tanks’ efforts into designing and researching ideas for policy transformation, have been numerous.’

Such reforms have motivated meaningful and constructive change in a diverse number of areas such as financial supervision in the banking sector, economic policy for poverty reduction, macroeconomic stability, and fiscal policy, to name a few.

Going beyond the successful creation of more think tanks, the ACBF is now driven to network them and have them integrated into the flow of their host governments.

‘I am very proud that the ACBF has been labelled the safest place to put investment money in Africa’

Léautier points out that there are two clear emerging challenges on Africa’s horizon that need serious attention – energy and water. She says the second focus point is the building of capacity that will produce solutions that will be able to handle crisis issues, environmental pressures and the viability of sustainability. Included in this is the process of transforming cultures, such as agriculture.

‘To this day, many Africans depend on agriculture for their livelihood, so trans-forming this whole supply chain is key,’ explains Léautier. ‘In this area the ACBF supports programmes that develop people academically to master’s level and provide agricultural policy education so that this knowledge can be shared.

It is in the third key area that Léautier believes the ACBF will make the biggest impact – helping to build regional capacity. She believes that countries alone cannot achieve success without support from regional contributors that provide the potential to grow markets and improve the strength of the private sector.

No organisation of this nature can ignore the struggles of many African countries to find peace and stability and so it is that the ACBF, in its fourth key focus, will be working with fragile states to help them transition from conflict to stability, creating an enabling environment for people to benefit from development.

Foundations are generally funded by goodwill and are driven by the belief in an objective. Without results, however, such foundations flounder. The ACBF is not one of those, its proven value as a catalyst for change in Africa has brought about support from 34 member states, the World Bank, the African Development Bank, bilateral donors, the IMF and other smaller entities.

Léautier symbolises the potential of the human spirit to create prosperity and in so doing demonstrates how commitment and tenacity work hand in hand to realise a vision

More recently, the ACBF has received interest and some funding from the private sector, which is an area that the organisation is very keen to work more closely with in terms of aiding policy change for private sector development. 2011 is the 20th anniversary of the ACBF and will also see the launch of its flagship publication, African Capacity Indicators, which will play a critical role in bringing the capacity development agenda in sub-Saharan Africa to the fore.

This publication will look at the key issues and challenges facing in-country and cross-border developments, and the ongoing efforts to support regional co-operation. The foundation believes that it will be a definitive knowledge product.

It is poverty that is ultimately the main driver of the ACBF and poverty alleviation and eradication that lies at the root of Léautier’s unwavering devotion to the cause to conquer and heal the ails of the continent. Her hardest personal challenge is patience, she says. ‘Africa is living on borrowed time, and with all the challenges I see and the pace at which change takes place, I feel that time is not on our side.’

As a result, she is careful to temper her optimism and her drive for results to avoid becoming what she believes would be an ‘overbearing and pushy leader’. Instead, she wants to be seen as someone who motivates and stimulates innovation, creativity and meaningful results.

‘The business of capacity-building is a long-term and rather complex arena for change, requiring enormous flexibility to adapt to emerging issues and, again, this requires immense patience. While I have learnt to celebrate even the smallest of results, I have also learnt to bite my lip in anticipation of the really big ones.’

There is, albeit slow, a growing recognition of the decision-making role women play in effecting change for Africa’s economic, cultural and social upliftment.

People like Léautier symbolise the potential of the human spirit to create prosperity, and in so doing demonstrate how commitment and tenacity work hand in hand to realise a vision.

The Future of Capacity Building in Africa: A Conversation with Frannie Léautier

First published by Devex. Re-published with permission. Read the original article.

Africa is at an institutional crossroads. With state building largely done, ACBF's Dr Frannie Leautier says it’s time for African states “to deliver.”

In wide-ranging, exclusive interview, held on the sidelines of ACBF’s 19th board of governors meeting in Paris in late 2010, Dr Leautier discussed the current state of African development and the wider challenges of capacity building. Read Lawrence Speer's interview in full:

World leaders met in New York in late September for the Millennium Development Goals. From where you sit, in Africa, was this just another big U.N. meeting, or did something important actually happen?

Having 180 nations sit down together, around a common objective, is a really good idea. Putting the MDG objectives on a loftier plane than the normal effort to make day-to-day progress has helped countries get energized. These are difficult discussions, though, because most of the objectives go beyond the technical and are actually issues of culture.

Take the education of girls. Fixing that means changing ideas that families have about the role of a girl child, having schools in place in villages and rural areas, having the teaching force in place, having the financing for food, having secondary schools that can take students when they are out of the primary level. When you look at what you need to do just to achieve that one objective, the chain of change is very complex.

That’s why I say today that the glass is half full. There have been excellent achievements, but there are still challenges ahead. Often, we see that failures occurred because capacity was lacking – whether it is the skills to know how to intervene in these very difficult environments, whether it’s the capability to monitor, track and evaluate, and make changes along the way, whether it’s capacity to integrate questions of the MDGs within the broader strategy and planning of governments. Capacity bottlenecks are apparent across the chain.

This might sound naive, but what do you really mean when you use the word “capacity”?

When we bring up the issue of capacity, there’s usually three reactions. First we hear: “What is capacity?” So, we have to break it down and try to explain … with the … specific areas we work on. The second reaction is often: “Why haven’t we been doing this?” There’s very little knowledge of the history, what has been done, the successes and the mistakes. But the third reaction, and the one we have been building on most now is: “How can I help?”

I have a great example from financial management. When you analyze why financial management is so weak in many countries, which we did, the lack of proper accounting software rises up as an important issue. There’s also a lack of training for people who come into financial management jobs, not having the right terms of reference for hiring an external auditor, or not being able to follow through on audit recommendations because there’s no tool for actually tracking where they were and how they are implementing. These are all systemic problems with readily available solutions. What I find amazing about capacity building is that when you unbundle it to its core, it’s not rocket science.

What are the new capacity-building challenges facing ACBF and its member countries?
First is the challenge posed by climate change and its implications on severe drought or food riots. There will be fights for water between urban and rural areas, huge impacts on political and social stability in cities, but also in the border regions between countries. Capacity is needed to manage diverse migrant communities that may be attributed to climate change.

The second big issue will be food security. Many countries have pockets of surplus – and gaps – in their own domestic food markets. Part of it is logistical: weak infrastructure, no roads, no mechanisms to transport food from one place to another. But there is also no regional market for food. So, if there is a crisis, it is very difficult to procure food regionally. It’s much easier to import food from China or the U.S. than to move food from Zambia to Malawi. Some of these intercountry or regional constraints are very present and visible.

The third big gap is linked to African energy use. What form of energy makes sense for Africa? We don’t necessarily want to follow the rest of the world, including India and China, in terms of using traditional fuels on the path to development. At the same time this reflection is taking place, more countries are discovering oil. Being able to responsibly extract the the fuels while developing a new approach to energy is a huge capacity challenge.

And what about governance? Has enough been done to improve public administration?
At the national level, there’s been a lot of focus on governance. But there are two levels of governance that are going to be particularly striking in the future. One is subnational governance: how cities are managed and how communities are managed. And the second is governance at the regional level. There are other governance issues as well. We need better governance for increased trade flows, for creating regional capital markets. And, of course, there’s corruption, cross-border crime, cross-border security risks. The continent has to put in place capacities to deal with a range of governance issues that will become more problematic as migrant flows increase. That is going to be a real challenge.

In some ways, it sounds like you are saying that years ago, you were working on issues of state building, and, now, it is a question of helping the public authorities that have been created to better respond to the modern challenges facing everyone.

The challenges of creating a state are largely done. First, you created an elite. The elite created policies and the environment to develop countries into nation states. But now, those states have to deliver. And to deliver services, you have to come down to the level where things really happen, where you’re actually delivering water or good governance or representation to a group of people at the regional level.

To shift gears a bit, donor countries are obviously talking a lot these days about aid effectiveness. How is ACBF working with its grant recipients as well as with donors on this issue?

We are very involved with preparations for the High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, coming up in Korea in 2011, and we are working with the [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s] Development Assistance Committee on the issue. But beyond that, we are actually putting a lot of effort into getting results. A few months ago, we brought 77 project directors to Nairobi to discuss results measurement frameworks. We used the meeting to help them develop good results-based approaches. They went back to their home organizations, and they developed a baseline so going forward we can track progress for these 77 projects. This is a major contribution to the Accra Agenda because we’ve put the focus on results as well as ownership of those results and the design. They actually designed it themselves. Someone didn’t come in and impose it from the outside. And third, and perhaps the most important element, is the reliance on their own country systems. Because to deliver their objectives, they had to determine their capacity for financial management, for audits, and keeping track of where they were going.

If we continue to do this, within five years we will have very strong capacity at the country level for this type of thinking and this type of work. It will support the instruments that the donor community is putting in place. If you have strong country systems, then budget support works. If you have strong ownership, than supporting multiscale ideas work. If you have strong implementation capabilities, then you can make movement in specific areas of reform. We see this as an intellectual contribution to the aid effectiveness review but also a very concrete example of what ownership means.

That’s how you’re responding to what donors want from you. So, what is ACBF looking for from donors?

I think donors have put a lot of money into capacity development, and, unfortunately, the results are not as important as the amount of investment that has been made. That is why there is so much discussion today on the actual results that have been delivered. That said, I think donors need to think of African countries as partners, rather than recipients of grants. Donors need to see their aid as investments, because if you’re working with a partner, you’re working for a common objective. I would also say they need to be more humble in terms of listening to the ideas that are coming from the continent.

What can Africa learn from other developing countries?

There’s a lot that Africa can learn from the BRICS. Brazil has transformed its agriculture sector while balancing rural and urban development and trying to manage its natural resource wealth. From China we can learn about implementation because the Chinese have been very capable of creating these multiyear strategic plans and sticking to them over long periods of time. China was also very smart in the way it embraced open markets. From India, Africa can learn a lot about innovation, how a country can invest in science and technology and fostered innovation. From Russia, I think the question is, how do we use heavy extractive industry revenue bases to build capabilities in other areas? Africa is very rich in natural resource and extractive industries, but the investments have not gone into diversification, or growing other sectors of the economy, particularly agriculture.
 

African countries probably need to talk to each other more, too?

We can definitely learn by looking at what is happening within Africa. Take South Africa and how it is managing supply chains. That can certainly be applied in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which needs serious help in that area. Or you can look at Rwanda, in terms of how a country can go from conflict to post-conflict to reforming its economy and becoming home to one of Africa’s best business environments. That could certainly be a lesson for other countries. Or take Ghana’s example, on democratic transition and securing peace and security as you open the economy.

Even more importantly, people are asking for it. Even when you go to the smallest village and you ask young people about leadership, they can actually point to leaders in other countries, and they can say that they want to see these characteristics from other countries in their leadership. The information age is helping propagate ideas of good leadership and stoking the excitement and desire of young people to take on responsibility. This hunger about the future is reminiscent of where Africa was in the 1960s, just after independence. At the foundation, we are working hard to see that countries are prepared so that this excitement really leads to massive change and not disappointment.

The first was a $1.8 million four-year grant to help the East African Business Council to deliver its ambitious work program as well as another three-year deal worth $500 000 to help the Tanzania Global Development Learning Centre (TGDLC) to implement Tanzania's Country Level Knowledge Network (TZ CLK-NET) project. BusinessWeek reporter Samuel Kamndaya, spoke with ACBF's manager for Eastern and Southern Africa, Dr Dieynaba Tandian on the foundation's activities.

What is ACBF?

Based in Harare, Zimbabwe, ACBF is an independent capacity-building institution established in 1991 to address Africa's critical capacity needs. It is aimed at addressing both institutional and human capacity needs. Such capacity is aimed at ensuring that there is a participatory approach in designing, making and implementing development policies.

What are ACBF's objectives?

By building capacity for every stakeholder to actively participate in designing, making and implementing development policies, we mean that our mandate is to make sure that policy formulation takes the views of the government, the private sector, research groups and civil society organizations (CSOs). ACBF is guided by the pursuit of excellence, placing emphasis on quality rather than quantity. Our work plans recognise that capacity building is a long-term process and is only worthwhile if development efforts become self-sustaining.

Who finances the foundation's activities?

The funding is provided by three multilateral institutions namely the African Development Bank, the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), as well as African governments and bilateral donors. Currently, it carries out its activities in 43 Sub-Saharan African countries that include Tanzania.

How much has the foundation received from its financiers since its inception almost two decades ago?

Although we have received a considerable amount of funds from our financiers over the years, I cannot remember the exact amount at the moment. In our current Strategic Plan that runs from 2007 to 2012 we envisage a mobilization of $250 million. We're believe that we may have collected not less than $200 million so far but we are still working to get the remaining amount.

How many programmes has the foundation supported in Tanzania?

Tanzania, being a member of the Foundation, has benefited immensely. We have been supporting the Economic and Social Research Foundation (ESRF) since 1992. In 2006, the ACBF executive board approved a $1.2 million grant to support a statistical system project in Zanzibar known as the Zanzibar Statistical System Project (ZANSTAT). The project aims at transforming the National Statistics System in Zanzibar to enable it provide quality and timely data for development planning and management. In the same vein, ACBF has provided what is termed as safewind grants in support of African non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and agricultural and livestock development associations. At the regional level, Tanzania benefits through the support given to regional bodies, including a $1.5 million grant given to the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA). The support to EALA is meant to help the regional body in effectively and efficiently discharging its lawmaking functions as it oversees all matters related to the implementation of the East African Community (EAC) treaty and promoting effective constituent relations. We have signed grant agreements with the EA Business Council (EABC) and the TGDLC.

Do you think it has lived up to the reasons of its establishment?

Absolutely. Since each of the 43 countries where ACBF operates is a major stakeholder, it decides individually where support is needed. Each country is part and parcel of the decision-making process. It should be noted that ACBF is an African organization, based in Africa and run by African experts. The foundation is therefore better-placed to understand Africa's development needs. The scope and operations of the foundation are in such a way that they complement efforts of bilateral and multilateral organisations. Reports indicate that there have been significant achievements in building capacity in the core public sectors and among non-state actors. This has led to improved policy-making processes, strengthening voices and promoting a culture of transparency and accountability. The support given to regional institutions and regional economic groupings should also be viewed as the foundation's contribution to strengthening the process of African integration.

Pour lui, Dr Frannie Léautier  Secrétaire Exécutif de l’ACBF a les qualités intellectuelles et les expériences requises pour faire sortir la Fondation de la zone de turbulence dans laquelle, elle semblait s’enliser.

L’ORAGE : Vous êtes à Bamako pour participer à la 14eme Session Ordinaire de la Conférence des Chefs d’Etat et de Gouvernement de l’UEMOA. Est-ce le seul objet de votre visite à Bamako ?

Docteur COFFI NOUMON :

Merci M. le Journaliste. L’objectif premier de ma visite à Bamako est la participation, comme vous l’avez dit, à la Conférence des Chefs d’Etat de l’UEMOA. Toutefois, j’ai profité de l’occasion pour porter au Ministre de l’Economie et des Finances du Mali le message de Dr Frannie Léautier, Secrétaire Exécutif de l’ACBF, exprimant le souhait de l’ACBF de voir le Mali représenté à un haut niveau au Conseil  Extraordinaire des Gouverneur de l’ACBF devant se tenir à Tunis du 24 au 26 mars 2010. J’ai aussi échangé avec les autorités du Ministère de l’Economie et des Finances, les partenaires au développement, tels que le PNUD, la BAD et la Banque mondiale, des interventions de l’ACBF, de l’ACBF au Mali, des possibilités de collaboration  et des perspectives d’avenir. J’ai enfin, rencontré les responsables des divers projets appuyés par l’ACBF pour discuter des dispositions à prendre pour la continuité des activités et pour améliorer la gestion des projets et mieux servir le pays.

L’ORAGE : Il parait qu’il y a eu des changements profonds au sein de l’ACBF. Pouvez-vous nous indiquer quelques éléments importants de ces changements ?

Docteur COFFI NOUMON :

La fondation a vraiment traversé une période de crise. Le Premier changement est le recrutement par le Conseil d’Administration de l’ACBF de Dr Frannie Léautier, précédemment, Vice Présidente de la Banque mondiale en charge de l’Institut de la Banque mondiale,  comme nouveau Secrétaire Exécutif  et qui a pris service le 6 juillet 2009. Dès sa prise de service, Mme Léautier a fait approuver par les organes de Gouvernance de l’ACBF un plan d’action (je dirai un plan de sortie de crise) et une stratégie pour remettre la Fondation sur les rails. Un élément important de ce plan est la restructuration organisationnelle de la Fondation ; ainsi, les 4 anciens départements opérationnels, et le département de la Formation ont été fusionnés en 2 départements, à savoir, le Département des Programmes de l’Afrique de l’Ouest et de l’Afrique Centrale, et le Département des Programmes de l’Afrique de l’Est et de l’Afrique Australe. Un autre élément important, est la mise en place des structures de contrôle afin d’assurer une gestion saine des fonds de la Fondation, et le respect des procédures.       

L’ORAGE : Vous êtes le Directeur de Programmes en charge de la Région Afrique de l’Afrique de l’Ouest et de l’Afrique Centrale. Pouvez-vous nous dire comment cela est arrivé ?

Docteur COFFI NOUMON :

Outre la restructuration organisationnelle, Madame Léautier avait décidé, de mettre en compétition tous les postes, depuis les managers jusqu’aux secrétaires et plantons. La compétition était ouverte aux candidats internes et externes, et suivie par des compagnies externes de gestions de ressources humaines. Je dois vous avouer que cela a été une épreuve très dure pour tout le personnel de l’ACBF. C’est aux termes de ce processus que j’ai eu ce poste.

L’ORAGE : En tant que Patron de la Région zone Afrique de l’Ouest et du Centre, quelles innovations pensez-vous apporter, et comment rassurer les projets et les pays ? car comme vous le savez, la période de crise a eu des effets négatifs sur les projets.

Docteur COFFI NOUMON :

C’est vrai, les quelques contacts que je viens d’avoir avec les projets au Burkina et au Mali, me démontrent que les projets, ainsi que le personnel des projets ont été aussi affectés que nous qui sommes au Secrétariat de la Fondation. En matière d’innovations, la première des choses serait d’inscrire nos interventions dans le plan d’action et la stratégie  qui sont proposés par la nouvelle patronne et adoptés par les organes de gouvernance ; il s’agira aussi de rationaliser nos interventions pour mieux servir les pays, avoir une approche holistique de développement des capacités, et penser plus approche programme que projet ;  mettre en place au niveau des projets (comme cela est le cas au niveau du Secrétariat), des systèmes de suivi et de contrôle afin d’éviter toute dérive ; instauration de meilleures méthodes de collaboration avec les pays, et les missions de supervisions qui vont démarrer en mars dès que nous aurons finalisé, le processus de recrutement pourrait aider  à rassurer les projets de la disponibilité de la Fondation à être à leur coté pour le développement de capacités.

L’ORAGE : Que pensez-vous de la nouvelle patronne  de l’ACBF?

Docteur COFFI NOUMON :

Là une question difficile !!!!! Nous venons de passer quelques mois ensemble, mais je peux vous dire sans complaisance que Madame Léautier croit en la Fondation , et a une vision pour elle. Elle a les qualités intellectuelles et les expériences requises pour faire sortir l’ACBF de la zone de turbulence dans laquelle, elle semblait s’enliser. Elle aura toutefois besoin de l’appui de l’équipe de gestion qu’elle vient de mettre en place ; du soutien des Gouvernements africains et des bailleurs de fonds pour réussir sa mission.