| Back to Record List |
Generate report in PDF |
| Record Identifier:
|
ECA/APRM/2005/04
|
| Start Date of Mission:
|
Apr/18/2005
|
| End Date of Mission:
|
Apr/30/2005
|
| Country Visited:
|
Rwanda
|
| Category of APRM Mission
|
Review Mission |
| Objective of the Mission: |
| The objectives of the review visit were a) to discuss extensively the self-assessment (CSAR) and to validate/confirm the information presented by the country in the CSAR through interaction with key stakeholders and institutions/agencies shaping the four thematic and cross-cutting areas; b) to help develop and improve Rwanda’s APR Action Plan by identifying and suggesting approaches to address weaknesses and shortcomings; and c) to ascertain whether Rwanda’s National Assessment Process was technically competent, credible and free of political manipulation. |
| Other Participants at the Mission: |
| ADB
UNDP |
| Key Activities undertaken: |
| After initial preparatory work on 18th April 2005, the National Commission and the Speaker of the National Assembly welcomed the team officially on 19th April. The review team had several interactions with the various stakeholders at the capital, Kigali, during the first week. It commenced its work with interrogations with key stakeholders - Ministers, Parliamentarians, Auditor General, Para-statals, NBR (Central Bank), Judiciary, Rwanda Revenue Authority, Civil Society, Businessmen, etc. Some of the interactions were conducted in plenary sessions, while others were conducted in separate breakout sessions focusing on groups relating to the four thematic areas. The team also interacted with various government ministries and agencies in their own offices.
Received by Provincial Governors or high Provincial officials, the teams visited and held consultations with stakeholders at Kibuye, Byumba, Butare, Cyangugu, Gitarama, Gikongoro, Kigali Ngali, Kibungo, Umutata, Kigali City, Gisenyi, and Ruhengeri. This was a useful addition to the review mission partly because it allowed the opportunity to compare findings from the capital with those of the rural areas.
As a gesture of respect to the genocide victims and to get a better perspective of Rwanda’s recent history, the CRT also visited the Rwanda Genocide Monument. Finally, the team exchanged views with H.E. Paul Kagame, President of the Republic of Rwanda. In a final wrap-up session held with all stakeholders, and chaired by the National Commission, the CRT revisited all issues on Rwanda with the aim of giving stakeholders an opportunity to give final responses. |
| |
| ECA Contribution to the Mission: |
| a) The political section of the Rwanda report was drafted largely by ECA’s contribution. Similarly, comments were provided on the political governance section of the Ghana report
b) The APR Secretariat has very well meaning and committed staff that actually worked very hard in getting the reports completed. However, the level of analytical rigor and sophistication required to do justice to the substance of the report were lacking across the board. In this regard, it was the inputs by ECA and ADB experts that made the finalization of the reports possible. The Secretariat would be the first to admit to these critical inputs
c) ECA presented the findings from Rwanda to the panel and fielded questions of clarification from panel members. The panel’s deliberations were very informative and interactive and suggested several ideas for presenting the findings of the missions
d) The ECA representative led the revision of the Rwanda report and also designed the new outline of table of contents based on panel recommendations. This outline will be standardized for all future APR reports
e) The ECA representative single-handedly drafted the overarching issues(issues that demanded the immediate attention of the country in terms of policy actions) for Rwanda under all thematic areas. It is worth noting that during the APR Heads of State Forum in Abuja, the Chairperson, President Obasanjo, referred to this section as most useful and requested that the Presidents of Ghana and Rwanda in their remarks should respond directly to the “overarching issues” of the report. |
| Recommended followup actions for ECA: |
| Following the Country Review Mission, the APR Panel invited the strategic partners to come to South Africa for a working session to review the draft reports prior to their finalization. Because the review mission reports for both countries were not satisfactory, the drafts were not ready for presentation to the panel. ECA, ADfB and UNDP participated in finalizing the reports. Indeed, the reports drafted by some consultants who participated in the review missions were not fully developed to meet the full requirements of the APR questionnaire. Many did not address the issues raised in either the background paper or the self-assessment. There was a need for integrating and synthesizing the information to fit them under each APR objective by responding to the specific indicators. |
| Lessons learnt from the mission: |
| Once on the ground, the CRM consultation process was unduly delayed essentially because most of the consultants were unfamiliar with the methodology and modalities for executing the country review visit and drafting of the country review reports. This problem stems from two main sources: first, the APRM Secretariat came unprepared to provide orientation of the specific modalities for the exercise. Second, most of the consultants hired by the APR Secretariat did not read up sufficiently about the methodology involved in the APR review visit. This problem should be addressed immediately to avoid future reoccurrence. The APRM is unique in its methodology and it is fruitless to bring in consultants who are not familiar with the approach to be utilized. The Rwandan President criticized this element of the review mission in his comments on the APR report. The credibility of the APR hinges on this point and efforts should be made to immediately address this issue.
It is recommended that clear guidelines in the form of a module or training manual on the methodology for executing the country review mission and writing of the report is urgently needed to provide the necessary orientation for the experts who are participating in the APR for the first time. It should be remembered that the whole exercise of the APR is more about methodology than about the situation analysis. The methodology comprises of comparing 1) the background paper; and 2) draft issues paper with 3) the country self-assessment and coming up with a synthesis report of findings. This is not well understood by many of the experts who participated in the Rwanda review visit. The Ghana team also noted this problem. This is a major area whereby the APR Secretariat would need technical assistance to systematically plan, organize and deploy the CRM so that the time spent in the county is efficiently utilized. |