120 likes | 255 Vues
COUNTRY LED GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENTS: THE APRM PROGRAM GEOFFREY OMEDO NEPAD Kenya Secretariat Nov 2009. PRESENTATION OUTLINE. Background APRM in Kenya APRM’s Contributions in Kenya 2 nd APRM Review Process Challenges. BACKGROUND.
E N D
COUNTRY LED GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENTS:THE APRM PROGRAMGEOFFREY OMEDONEPAD Kenya SecretariatNov 2009
PRESENTATION OUTLINE • Background • APRM in Kenya • APRM’s Contributions in Kenya • 2nd APRM Review Process • Challenges
BACKGROUND • Introduction: The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) is a mutually agreed instrument voluntarily acceded to by the member states of the African Union (AU) as a self-monitoring mechanism. • The four thematic pillars of the APRM are: Political Governance, Economic Management, Corporate Governance and Socio-economic Development • Key value of APRM continentally is clear in a number of countries including Kenya, South Africa, Nigeria, Uganda, Ghana, among others. • It depends on what country decides!!!!
M O N I T O R I N G & R E V I E W 1. Assessment Preparatory Processes 8. Implementation of the National Programme of Action 2. Country Support Mission 6. Submission of Report to APR Panel for transmission to APR Forum 3. Technical Assessment and development of NPA 5. Country Review Visit 4. Validation of Technical Assessment by key actors PROCESS OUTLINE
BACKGROUND • Kenya voluntarily acceded to the APRM in March 2003 in Abuja, Nigeria; • The Ministry then established the institutional and structural frameworks for the implementation of the APRM; • Kenya conducted a self-assessment exercise after which an 18-member Country Review Team (CRT) visited Kenya and developed the Country Review Report; • The Kenya Country Review Report was tabled in Banjul, the Gambia by H.E Hon. Mwai Kibaki on the 30 June 2006; • Kenya continues to prepare and submit APRM Progress Reports at successive APRM Heads of State Summits
NATIONAL GOVERNING COUNCIL APRM-Kenya SECRETARIAT LEAD TECHNICAL AGENCIES Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis (KIPPRA) Economic Governance and Management Institute for Development Studies (IDS) Socio-Economic Development Center for Corporate Governance (CCG) Corporate Governance African Center for Economic Growth (ACEG) Democracy & Good Political Governance Thematic Groups/Convenors KENYAN STRUCTURE Ministry of Planning & National Development
PROGRESS REPORTS Three APRM Progress reports: • Kenya has submitted a six months Progress Report (June 2006 - January 2007) • Tabled the Annual Progress Report covering June 2006 - June 2007 at the 6th APR Heads of State Forum in Accra, Ghana in July 2007. • Kenya’s progress report covering the period June 2006 – June 2008 was discussed during the 10th Committee of participating Heads of State and Government of the African Peer Review Forum held in January 2009 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
UPCOMING ACTIVITIES On going Activities for 2009 • The 2nd Review of the APRM Process in Kenya (16th – 30th Nov. 2009); Focus on Democracy and Political Governance, entrench the on going reform processes firmly into the APRM, review the APRM National program of Action. • Mid-term evaluation of the impact of the APRM in Kenya- (Analysis of APRM NPOA, Review); • Implementation of a comprehensive Information, Education, Communication and Advocacy strategy • Engage with Government Focal Points to provide feedback and enhance linkages with current Government programmes
VALUE OF APRM • Vision 2030 building on APRM pillars; • Presidential directive to have 30% women recruited into public positions; • Establishment of the Ministry for Development of Northern Kenya and other Arid Lands, Ministry of Youth, Public Service Transformation units; • Formulation of a National Land Policy process • Reform agenda driven by findings of APRM Country review report 2006 (Kriegler and Waki Reports) • Country Review Report widely used by stakeholders and CSOs as valid reference document
CHALLENGES • Weak buy-in at political level • Misconception of APRM still exist • Bureaucratic bottlenecks in NPOA implementation • Unpredictable political environment • Insufficient and unpredictable funding from partners • Fixed funding by Government since 2003