| Over the past 15 years, regional, multi-country
programmes have emerged as a potentially vital instrument to tackle
development problems and opportunities that countries cannot handle
efficiently on their own.
Regionally coordinated investments in roads and rail, for example,
are helping many of the world's 31 landlocked countries, of which
14 are in sub-Saharan Africa, to connect to wider markets. Regional
programs are integrating the supply and distribution of electricity
so that small countries can get access to reliable, lower cost energy.
Co-operation across borders is also helping control the spread of
communicable diseases like malaria and HIV/AIDS, and managing 60
percent of the world's freshwater that derives from shared river
systems. The opportunities for collaboration on issues of environmental
protection are enormous. Yet, regional programmes account today
for only 3 percent of total international aid.
The World Bank Independent
Evaluation Group (IEG) report, 'The
Development Potential of Regional Programs' is the most comprehensive
assessment of the effectiveness of regional programmes ever conducted.
The findings are based on evaluations of 19 World Bank-supported
regional programmes and a review of the Bank's total portfolio of
some 100 regional operations.
The report explores conditions under which regional programmes
offer potential for delivering strong development results. It discusses
how individual regional programmes need to be designed and implemented
to ensure country ownership which is critical to achieving sustainability.
Drawing on recent programme experience, it also discusses how countries
and the World Bank, together with other donors, could strengthen
support for regional programmes.
At this ODI and World Bank IEG event, Dr Vinod Thomas,
Director-General of the World Bank Independent Evaluation Group,
together with the lead author of the report, Catherine Gwin,
presented the findings of the report and responded to questions
and comments from the audience.
For more information about the report, please visit the World Bank
IEG website: http://www.worldbank.org/ieg/regionalprograms/
Meeting Report
1. Simon Maxwell, in the chair, opened the meeting
by introducing Dr Vinod Thomas, Director-General of the World Bank
Independent Evaluation Group; Catherine Gwin, lead author of the
Evaluation on Regional Programmes; and the discussant, Enrique Mendizabal,
Research Officer in the RAPID programme at ODI. Simon Maxwell said
that there has recently been a shift from national to regional programming
and this was driving change in many other areas. With the global
issue of climate change also putting pressure on many governments,
this shift is likely to continue.
Dr Vinod Thomas
2. Dr Thomas began by outlining why regional programmes have increased
in importance in recent times. Not only do they present an opportunity
to benefit from trade – he suggested the EU as an example
of this – but they also assist in identifying and implementing
regional solutions to regional problems. Regional partnerships are
difficult to establish because there are often conflicts of interest,
and it can be difficult to balance costs and benefits for each member.
However, regional programmes so far seem to have done ‘reasonably
well’ in his opinion. Thomas cited examples of a regional
trade and transport programme in south-east Europe and an HIV/Aids
programme in West Africa. He claimed that many regional issues could
be addressed by working across borders, though the level of funding
for such programmes is currently too low. Simply scaling up this
funding is not the only solution, however. Due to the inherently
complex nature of regional programmes, there are also some issues
of efficiency which need to be addressed.
Catherine Gwin
3. Catherine Gwin echoed Dr Thomas’ belief in the significant
potential of regional programmes to solve regional problems and
address regional issues. She split her subsequent analysis of regional
programmes into four areas (details follow below):
(i). What they are good for;
(ii). Areas of weaknesses;
(iii). Key components for success;
(iv). Recommendations.
4. Gwin stated that regional programmes are particularly good for
creating new structures. They have effectively established new services,
new physical assets and new knowledge-sharing capabilities. Examples
of this include the aforementioned HIV/Aids programme; using ICT
to streamline customs procedures; and new transport links by sea.
5. Regional programmes are particularly weak at the national level.
There are often difficulties when trying to establish national policy
frameworks to complement and sustain regional development. Gwin
reiterated the equity challenges faced when attempting to create
regional programmes amongst individual national governments. Furthermore,
even when co-ordination between national governments has been established,
the subsequent co-ordination between regional and national levels
is often weak. Gwin emphasized the need for increased ‘peripheral
vision’, i.e. to identify when it makes sense to use a regional
rather than a national approach. She cited the Lake Victoria environmental
management programme and a regional power network around DR Congo
as two examples of programmes which need to effectively translate
regional information into national action.
6. Gwin identified five key components for successful regional
programmes:
a. Strong ownership by all participating countries. An example of
where this was absent is the Aral Sea environmental project in Central
Asia, where there was a lack of commitment from governments.
b . Objectives must be matched to national and regional capacities.
It is important to take account of differences in capabilities between
countries, and adapt the implementation of regional programmes,
and associated support offered to governments accordingly.
c . Clear roles for national and regional institutions are required.
The most effective division of roles is for national institutions
to assume the largest portion of responsibility, and regional institutions
to assume a modest support role.
d . Accountable governance arrangements. Gwin warned that although
time-consuming to achieve, programmes where each participating government
has a voice and is not dominated by donors tended to be more successful.
e . Sufficient planning to make program outcomes sustainable. Well-planned
programmes can become self-funding. An example of this is a telecommunication
project in the Eastern Caribbean, where licensing fees are now covering
the costs of a new regional regulatory authority.
7. Gwin stated that the recommendations made in the evaluation
report are threefold:
(i). Initially, donor countries should be more pro-active in identifying
promising opportunities for regional development programmes.
(ii). Donors should then co-operate to mobilise special financing
packages required by regional programmes.
(iii). Lastly, donors should learn from previous examples of successful
regional programmes, and help to strengthen capacity at both national,
regional and international levels to support such programmes.
Enrique Mendizabal
8. Enrique Mendizabal outlined some additional benefits of regional
programmes:
(i). It becomes easier to share knowledge and expertise across borders.
(ii). It encourages greater cooperation – and interdependence
– between the countries concerned, and between individual
countries and donor countries.
9. Mendizabal also offered a few reasons to help explain the complexity
of building regional programmes:
(i). There is no clear link between inputs and outputs, making it
difficult to measure effectiveness.
(ii). Developing regional programmes is not just about changing
and developing things (i.e. roads and vaccines) but changing people
(i.e. attitudes, behaviours, etc) – a process that takes far
longer.
(iii). There are often far too many actors and interests involved.
10. Finally, he posed a few questions, including how regional networks
are conceived. Whilst geographical groupings initially seem most
appropriate, it may prove more productive to group countries that
are, for instance, at similar stages in their economic development.
Discussion
11. Points and questions raised in the discussion included:
• The distinction between regional programmes and countries
merely communicating about a problem or issue. It is important that
the benefits of regional programmes are properly realised and that
regions do not just exist on paper.
• Reports on how developed countries have fared with regional
programmes are lacking from the report. It would be useful to learn
from these, as some have been in existence for many decades. Similarly,
non-World Bank programmes would have provided a useful comparison.
• The most successful regional programmes are those which
develop concrete benefits, especially infrastructure, e.g. roads,
energy, water, etc. These are benefits which some countries cannot
realise themselves, and tend to be stronger than knowledge-based
programmes.
• Whether regional programmes can be either a zero-sum game
or a positive-sum game. An example of the former is in the Nile
basin, where either Ethiopia or Sudan can be irrigated, but not
both. It was argued however that it could be possible for both countries
to share the benefits.
• The long gestation period for regional programmes can be
attributed to the differences between countries, as outlined in
the presentations, but also to the building of trust, and this must
be factored into planning.
• A comparison was made with trade programmes. These are more
likely to be successful when the countries are roughly equal in
size, rather than when there is one large, dominant country. Also,
when there is an underlying political agenda, such as averting conflict.
Catherine Gwin agreed that regional programmes were also more likely
to be successful when these factors were present.
• Regional programmes will become increasingly important in
efforts to safeguard the supply of fresh water to many countries,
as 60 percent of the world’s fresh water is shared across
borders.
• Bird flu represents a counter-example to regional programmes.
Those countries concerned have acted in their own national interests,
yet the benefits for all of cross-border cooperation outweigh those
for individual countries.
Back
|
