2015-2016 Consolidated Annual Progress Report 20160825 KfW … › sites › default › files ›...

1 | P a g e

Support to AUC for the Implementation of the

African Peace and Security Architecture

Consolidated Annual Report

2015 ‐ 2016

Volume 1: Main Report

Project Name Funding Window for Cross‐border Reconstruction and Development Measures; Support to APSA.

BMZ Project No. 2011 671 47

Reporting Institution Conflict Management and Post Conflict Reconstruction and Development (CMPCRD)

Peace and Security Department, African Union Commission

Reporting Period 1st July 2015 to 30th June 2016

Date August 2016

Consolidated Annual Report 2015 ‐2016

“Support to AUC for the Development of the African Peace and Security Architecture”

2

Contents

Contents 2

Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................. 4

1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 5

2 Introduction/background ................................................................................................... 6

3 Sector situation .................................................................................................................. 6

3.1 Developments regarding the target group ................................................................... 6

3.2 Development of small‐scale trade in the border regions ............................................. 8

3.3 Development of conflict & political situation ............................................................. 10

4 Project Progress ............................................................................................................... 10

4.1 Overview & analysis of major activities / outputs planned vs. actual achievements, time schedule with link to budget utilization ............................................................. 10

4.1.1 Planned vs. achieved ‐ Component 1 .............................................................. 10

4.1.2 Planned vs. achieved ‐ Component 2 .............................................................. 14

4.2 Analysis of risks, solutions and opportunities ............................................................ 15

4.3 Progress related to goals & indicators, impact, deviations from plan and conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 16

4.3.1 Progress in relation to the Programme Objective .......................................... 16

4.3.2 Progress in relation to the Project Objective 1 ............................................... 18

4.3.3 Progress in relation to the Project Objective 2 ............................................... 19

4.3.4 Progress in relation to the Outputs ................................................................ 20

4.4 Resolutions and conclusions from Oversight Committee meetings ........................... 21

5 Cooperation‐ Contacts and arrangements with other institutions ..................................... 21

6 Staffing & equipment ....................................................................................................... 23

7 Outlook ............................................................................................................................ 25

7.1 Plan for 2016 ‐ 2017 (Component 1) .......................................................................... 25

7.2 Plan for next quarter and for the year 2016 ‐ 2017 (Component 2) .......................... 26

8 Costs & Financing ............................................................................................................. 27

8.1 Actual costs as compared to plan, deviations, financing ............................................ 27

8.2 Status of project account(s) ........................................................................................ 29

Gelöscht: 6

Gelöscht: 7

Gelöscht: 7

Gelöscht: 7

Gelöscht: 9

Gelöscht: 11

Gelöscht: 11

Gelöscht: 11

Gelöscht: 11

Gelöscht: 15

Gelöscht: 16

Gelöscht: 17

Gelöscht: 17

Gelöscht: 19

Gelöscht: 20

Gelöscht: 21

Gelöscht: 22

Gelöscht: 22

Gelöscht: 24

Gelöscht: 26

Gelöscht: 26

Gelöscht: 27

Gelöscht: 28

Gelöscht: 28

Gelöscht: 30



3

8.2.1 COMESA bank accounts and liquidity (component 1) .................................... 29

8.2.2 AUC bank account and transactions (component 1) ...................................... 30

8.3 Overall Fund Balance .................................................................................................. 31

8.4 Audit for financial year 2015 ...................................................................................... 31

9 Update on security status in border regions ..................................................................... 32

9.1 Security and political situation in DRC ........................................................................ 32

9.2 Security and political situation in Burundi .................................................................. 33

9.3 Security situation at DRC/Uganda borders ................................................................. 34

9.4 DRC‐Rwanda and DRC‐Burundi borders ..................................................................... 34

10 Open/pending issues for AUC and/or KFW ....................................................................... 35

Annex 1 Results Matrix ............................................................................................................. 36

Annex 2 Project Human Resources (financed through KFW) ...................................................... 41

Annex 3 Budget Monitoring & Forecast: Component 1 COMESA as per June 30, 2016 ............... 42

Annex 4 Budget Monitoring & Forecast Component 2 AUC as per June 30, 2015 ....................... 43

Annex 5 Annual Work Plan Component 1: 2016‐2017 ................................................................ 45

Annex 6 Annual Work Plan Component 2 for 2016 ‐ 2017 .......................................................... 46

List of Tables

Table 1 Number of Persons assisted by TfP TIDs from 1st July 2015 to 30th June 2016 8

Table 2 Number of cross‐border traders (TID Mpondwe DRC‐Uganda, 2015) 9

Table 3 Value of Agricultural goods, finished products and Livestock crossing from Zambia to DRC (Kasumbalesa border) 9

Table 4 Status of prioritized infrastructure project 13

Table 5 Plan of operations for 2015‐2016 ‐ planned vs. realized comparison 14

Table 6 Fragile States Index Ranking of African states having benefitted from AU‐supported PCRD measures 18

Table 7 Budget / budget utilization for core project staff financed through KfW funds 24

Table 8 Budget for July 2015 ‐ June 2016 against actual expenditures (component 1) 28

Table 9 Budget for July 2015 ‐ June 2016 against actual expenditures (component 2) 28

Table 10 Expenditures to date vs. overall Budget 29

Table 11 Transactions of AUC special account 30

Table 12 Overall Fund Balance: disbursements – still to be disbursed 31

Gelöscht: 30

Gelöscht: 31

Gelöscht: 32

Gelöscht: 32

Gelöscht: 33

Gelöscht: 33

Gelöscht: 34

Gelöscht: 35

Gelöscht: 35

Gelöscht: 36

Gelöscht: 37

Gelöscht: 44

Gelöscht: 45

Gelöscht: 9

Gelöscht: 10

Gelöscht: 10

Gelöscht: 14

Gelöscht: 15

Gelöscht: 19

Gelöscht: 25

Gelöscht: 29

Gelöscht: 29

Gelöscht: 30

Gelöscht: 31

Gelöscht: 32



4

Abbreviations

AfDB African Development Bank

APSA African Peace and Security Architecture

AUC African Union Commission

BLS Base Line Survey

CBM Cross‐border market

CBRD Cross‐border reconstruction and development

CBTA Cross‐border Trade Associations

CMPCRD Conflict Management and Post‐conflict Reconstruction and Development De‐partment (of AUC)

COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa

DRC Democratic Republic of Congo

FA Finance Agreement

FSI Fragile States Index

FTA Free Trade Agreement

GLTFP Great Lakes Trade Facilitation Programme

HIIK Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research (Heidelberger Institut für Internationale Konfliktforschung)

ILRI International Livestock Research Institute

KFW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau

LTA Long‐term Advisor

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

OC(M) Oversight Committee (Meeting)

PCRD Post Conflict Reconstruction and Development

REC(s) Regional Economic Community(ies)

RMs Regional Mechanisms

ReSAKSS Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System

SA Separate Agreement

SCO Simplified Certificate of Origin

SPS Sanitary & Phytosanitary

STE Short‐Term Expert

STR Simplified Trade Regime

TfP Trade for Peace Project

TID Trade Information Desk

TMEA Trade Mark East Africa

USAID United States Agency for International Development



5

1 Executive Summary

At the end of June 2016, performance of project implementation in both components has been up‐graded; systems and procedures have been further improved and management at AUC and COMESA have exercised stronger supervision, control and guidance to consolidate the achieve‐ments. Achievements are still behind the ini‐tial planning, which has proven to be over‐ambitious, but implementation is now better in tune with the more realistic plans as re‐vised in the October 2015 Kigali OCM.

However, the project still has to solve the af‐tereffects of delays in previous years and is currently working out scenarios to make up for the lost time by discussing the options for cost‐neutral project (contract) extensions. It is expected that the project will not be final‐ized in 2018 as initially planned, but will go into 2019 and (with minor activities related to warranty issues and final handing over of constructed infrastructures) most probably into 2020.

The set‐back, experienced in 2015, when 3 infrastructure projects at an advanced planning level had to be abandoned due to uncoordinated interventions from other partners, has meanwhile been turned into positive results: On the one hand COMESA initiated a donor coordination platform for the Great Lakes and managed to assume a leading role in the process; on the other hand, with the recent mission to border region 3 (Bunagana/DRC – Bunagana/Uganda) and the identification of a number of additional, promising projects, the overall investment plan is taking shape. The preparation of the other 3 projects approved early 2015 (cross‐border markets in Goma, Gatumba and Kavimvira) are being executed according to plan with the feasibility studies and PCIA currently ongoing, while the tender for the final design and construction supervision is being prepared.

At AUC, major achievements – apart from securing the routine management and coordination of the Funding Window project ‐ consisted in intensifying the horizontal cooperation within AUC through the establishment and operationalization of the Interdepartmental Task Force on PCRD, as well as improved cooperation with other Departments (Political Affairs, Social Affairs, Technical Committee on Migration etc.) on cross‐cutting issue like vulnerability of women and girls in conflict and post‐conflict situations, mainstreaming disability in the work of the AUC and others.1

Other important outputs of AUC Conflict Management and Post‐Conflict Reconstruction and Devel‐opment Department (CMPCRD), is the coming on board of the new Head Dr. Alhaji Sarjoh Bah suc‐ceeding Antonia Sodonon. The Division continues to offer support to conflict and post conflict coun‐tries with the Peace Support Projects in Somalia and Liberia and to the peace process in South Sudan and Burundi with various measures.

Towards the end of the reporting period, preparations to conduct Needs Assessments (Early Recov‐ery Planning) in several states and areas recovering from conflict or disaster had started: Central Afri‐

1 More details can be found in the most recent JNR report for 2nd half of 2015

Budget ut ilizat ion until (incl.) q2 2016(Fund utilization vs. revised budget) 30/ Jun/ 161 Infrastructure 1.8%2 Capacity building 36.5%3 PCIA/Do-no-harm 0.0%4 Technical Committees 0.0%6 Management Fee 54.1%7 COMESA own contribution 61.9%8 LT consulting GOPA 47.9%

Component 1 ut ilizat ion 17.5%9 LT consulting GFA 45.0%10 Mid-term, final evaluations 0.0%11 KfW contribution to JFA 41.2%12 Audits 56.4%14 Management fees 10.7%15 AUC own contribution 41.1%

Component 2 ut ilizat ion 35.0%Programme total utilizat ion 22.3%Time used 36 / 90 months 40.0%

100%

Kommentiert [AlbJ1]: See my email attached to this report.

Kommentiert [AlbJ2]: This sounds a bit too “positive” to me. Yes, we have had to re-plan and to consolidate. But to talk about positive results while we had to abandon 3 projects and further delay is no fair view.

Kommentiert [AlbJ3]: I recall that we had to advertise the tender for the feasibility three times. “Execution according to plan” is not possible then.



6

can Republic, South Sudan, Guinea Bissau, Somalia as well as the Mano River Basin which is recover‐ing from the Ebola pandemic.

2 Introduction/background

The Programme “Support to AUC for the Development of the African Peace and Security Architec‐ture”, based on the Finance Agreement between KFW and the AUC of November 2011, started in early 2013 with some preparatory activities both at the level of AUC and COMESA. The first meeting of the Oversight Committee held on 23 April 2013 between representatives of AUC, COMESA and KFW marked the official launch of the programme.

According to an agreement reached with KfW, this 2nd quarterly report for 2016 is prepared as an annual progress report covering the period July 2014 to June 2015. The report presents the project’s status on the level of outputs and activities and conducts, in particular, a planned versus actual com‐parison. An assessment of programme achievements at impact level can only be done partially at this time, because until today, the programme has not produced any tangible outputs at field level, which may have had an impact on our target groups. The project’s objective is as indicated below (physical and administrative dimensions):

Improved living conditions of the population in border areas of post‐conflict countries (physical dimension);

Institutional strengthening and improved cooperation within the APSA frame‐work between AUC and RECs in the area of Post Conflict Reconstruction and De‐velopment (PCRD) (administrative dimension).

(See the complete Results Matrix attached as Annex 1 on page 36.)

3 Sector situation

3.1 Developments regarding the target group

As per the Implementation Agreement signed between the African Union Commission and the Com‐mon Market for Eastern and southern Africa (COMESA) in December 2012, the direct beneficiaries of the project are primarily the small‐scale traders (whose majority is constituted by women traders) who cross regularly the borders in the region to sell and buy goods. At all selected borders traders, small scale cross‐border traders have formed associations or cooperatives to represent them and de‐fend their interests.

Gelöscht: Annex 1

Gelöscht: 26



7

The following para‐graphs present the current situation of the small scale cross‐border traders in Trading for Peace borders with a focus on borders where the project is plan‐ning to construct cross‐border infra‐structures, mainly in Goma, Rubavu, Ka‐vimvira, Gatumba and Bunagana DRC & Uganda. Small scale traders crossing the border from Rwanda to the DRC

Various studies conducted on small‐scale cross‐border trade in the Great lakes region including the recent needs and priority assessment conducted by the project2 revealed that on the average across all 3 border regions the majority of cross‐border traders are women (70‐80%) and most of them are below the age of 50. The studies reveal that small traders crossing borders were between the ages of 30 and 49 (30‐39 years old, 32.9% and 40‐49 years old, 26.9%).

A recent survey on research on “Deriving Maximum benefit from small scale cross‐border trade be‐tween DR Congo and Rwanda” indicated that Rwanda’s most traded goods to DR Congo include agri‐cultural produce whereas the most imported goods Rwanda gets from DR Congo are manufactured commodities, most especially textile goods. The report went ahead to indicate that many of the trad‐ers who sell their goods on the streets originate from Rwanda. 46% of traders coming from Rusizi, 38% from Rubavu, 35% from Bukavu and 27% from Goma. This however exposes the traders to har‐assment by police officers and street children the report added.

In order to assist small scale cross‐border traders to overcome some of the challenges they are facing when crossing the borders, COMESA under Trading for Peace installed Trade Information Desks (TIDs) at some selected borders.

During the reporting period, TIDs under Trading for Peace have received queries on many of these issues as well as complaints and have worked closely with border officials and CBTAs to try finding solutions to some of the reported issues.

From the provided data and previous data, the information does suggest that many are still depend‐ent on small scale cross border trade for their livelihoods and that these traders still face a number of difficulties in conducting their activities in particular women cross border traders.

The support rendered by TIDs during the reporting period in cross border facilitation is shown in the table below.

2 “Dr Nene Morisho Mwanabiningo, Deriving Maximum benefit from small scale cross‐border trade between

DR Congo and Rwanda October 2015, Page7”



8

Table 1 Number of Persons assisted by TfP TIDs from 1st July 2015 to 30th June 2016

Description Female Male TotalNumber of queries (TID visitors seeking information)

5,826 3,292 9,118

Complaints received and resolved

470 262 732

Sensitizations (reached out) 6,536 4,233 10,769

Number of queries (TID visitors seeking information)

4,153 2,141 6,294


1,107 416 1,523



310 183 493


108 71 179

Sensitizations (reached out) 723 292 1,015


10,289 5,616 15,905


1,685 749 2,434


Region 1

(Gatum

ba BUR/

Kavimvira DRC)

Region 2

(Gom

a DRC/

Rubavu RWA)

Region 3

(Bunagana DRC/

Bunagana UGA

)

Totals

In Kavimvira, in order to encourage more people to join the CBTA and make use of the TID, the TID manager and the CBTA have been conducting sensitizations through the local media as well as mov‐ing around trading places by using megaphones. This has been successful and led to an increase in the number of people visiting the TID.

3.2 Development of small‐scale trade in the border regions

During the reporting period, the following developments were noticed:

• Facilitation done by COMESA TfP programme of four bilateral meetings between DRC and its neighbouring countries to discuss and agree on common lists of products eligible under the COMESA Simplified Trade Regime (STR) which is a tool meant to facilitate small scale cross‐border trader;

• Efforts made by different partners including COMESA, WB, TMEA, to improve cross‐border in‐frastructure aimed at trade facilitation across the borders. Installation of special corridors for small scale cross‐border traders at Kasumbalesa DRC and Zambia in order to ease the move‐ment of small scale traders when crossing the border as well as reducing harassment account‐ed by traders. This initiative of special corridor is likely to be replicated at other borders with the support of some partners.

During the reporting period, cross‐border trade continued in the project selected borders. Below is a table showing the number of cross border traders and the trend for the year 2015 at Mpondwe bor‐der (DRC‐Uganda). It shows that small scale cross border trade is undertaken by a large number of

Kommentiert [AlbJ4]: Is the success rate of the “resolved complaints” 100%? It would be good to add a column “total complaints received” and then to indicate “total complaints re-solved” in order to show the spread.

Kommentiert [AlbJ5]: We need a better trend analysis. The current presentation of figures doesn’t reflect any varia-tion/development over recent years. How can we judge if the TIDs do a good job when we can’t compare “resolved com-plaints” over the years? Kindly revise this chapter and start to introduce a trend analysis.

Kommentiert [AlbJ6]: To what extent did the TfP play a vital role? Who financed these activities?

Kommentiert [AlbJ7]: Is this relevant for the project? Do we have data/information for our relevant border points?



9

people, the majority being women (approximately 55% to 45% for both categories, with and without goods). The development shown here may be a sample representing the situation in the region.

Table 2 Number of cross‐border traders (TID Mpondwe DRC‐Uganda, 2015)

Female Male Total Female Male TotalJanuary 3,541 2,644 6,185 4,753 3,774 8,527 February 6,421 6,337 12,758 1,013 1,655 2,668 March 12,677 9,456 22,133 12,885 11,496 24,381 April 11,944 9,979 21,923 12,657 10,486 23,143 May 17,766 14,696 32,462 15,944 13,082 29,026 June 15,839 13,658 29,497 15,472 12,987 28,459 July 13,187 10,331 23,518 13,785 12,190 25,975 August 15,517 12,965 28,482 15,409 13,756 29,165 September 6,601 5,417 12,018 5,483 4,936 10,419 October 8,185 6,486 14,671 8,231 7,100 15,331 November 4,974 3,856 8,830 4,895 3,921 8,816 December 6,530 6,430 12,960 6,651 6,384 13,035 Total 123,182 102,255 225,437 117,178 101,767 218,945

With goods Without goods

The main goods traded at the borders of interest are agricultural commodities. The planting season is generally from January and harvest 3 to 4 months later depending on weather conditions. In 2015, good weather conditions led to an early harvest as compared to 2014 so business peaked up a bit earlier as indicated by the number of people crossing. Compared to the data collected by the same TID in 2014, the number of traders crossing the border with goods has doubled passing from 110,227 in 2014 to 225,437 (increase of 104.4%) while the number of traders crossing the border without goods increased from 147,007 to 218,945 (48.93%).

Table 3 Value of Agricultural goods, finished products and Livestock crossing from Zambia to DRC (Kasumbalesa border)

3rd & 4th quarter 2015 Value (USD)July 36,354,324August 34,697,117September 261,184October 9,186,539November 55,595,361December 172,524,70

Sub‐total 136,094,5251st & 2nd quart 2016 Value (USD)

January 155,069,167February 36,293,186March 156,069,169April 66,176,125May 44,652,082June 32,698,189

Grand total 490,957,917 Data collectors at work

Kommentiert [AlbJ8]: Nothing specific from our border are-as?

Kommentiert [AlbJ9]: What about DRC/UGA/RWA/BUR



10

The border of Kasumbalesa is becoming more and more active in terms of trade activities with trad‐ers coming from almost all the provinces of Zambia, others from Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Bot‐swana, Somalia and DRC which is providing the biggest market for finished products. Through capaci‐ty building initiatives supported by COMESA and other stakeholders such as the government, the CBTA in Kasumbalesa has made considerable strides in supporting efforts to facilitate small scale cross border trade. The association has so far created employment for 28 youths who are supporting the TID on data collection and sensitizations. From the table above, values are higher from January‐March 2016 as well as October – December 2015, This is as a result of the Government’s efforts to curb smuggling of goods through porous border by boosting patrols. This was mainly done to control the illegal trading of mealie‐meal (flour) as Zambia was experiencing a shortage.

3.3 Development of conflict & political situation

During the reporting period, the political crisis in Burundi that started in April 2015 has not yet been completely resolved and remains a concern by the international community. On the other hand the political situation in the DRC is increasingly marked by the electoral process and political tensions are running high ahead of the 2016 presidential and legislative polls. This section will be elaborated un‐der the section on “Update on security status in border region” (see page 32 below).

4 Project Progress

4.1 Overview & analysis of major activities / outputs planned vs. actual achievements, time schedule with link to budget utilization

4.1.1 Planned vs. achieved ‐ Component 1

The project did not achieve all goals as planned for 2015‐16, however, the project made good further progress in the preparation of infrastructure projects. After a months‐long delay in the tendering of the feasibility study, this obstacle has been overcome and the feasibility study (FS) is now in progress. The final results are expected in Q3 2016.

The selection of pre‐qualified companies to carry out the design and supervision for the CBM’s in Goma, Gatumba and Kavimvira is finalised, and the tender documents are prepared waiting for the completion of the FS for final inputs.

In addition, the project is preparing a database for all future tenders, for studies, design and supervision, and for work contracts, which will help to reduce upcoming procurement pro‐cesses.

Moreover, the project identified 4 additional projects in the border region 3, which are a CBM in Bunagana (DRC), a CBM in Bunagana (Uganda), a Peace/Conference Hall in Bunagana (DRC) and an access road between Maziba and Gatwe in the Kisoro District (Uganda). The project dossiers are prepared and ready for approval through the OSC.

The plan to construct two border offices in Goma (DRC) and Gatumba (Burundi) was can‐celled as per decision of the 6th OSC meeting in Kigali in October 2015.

The participation in the construction of the CBM Rubavu has been cancelled and it was dis‐cussed with the Government of Rwanda to implement a CBM in Nkora, Rutsiro district (Rwanda) instead. The 7th OSC meeting in Addis Ababa in April 2016 approved the proposal to further develop this project idea.

During the reporting period the project focused on the development and preparation of tender doc‐uments for the Feasibility Study, preparation of the Expression of Interest (E.o.I) for Design and Su‐pervision of the Cross‐Border markets, preparation of Request for Proposal for Design & Supervision,

Kommentiert [AlbJ10]: Relevant?

Gelöscht: 25

Kommentiert [AlbJ11]: OCM?

Kommentiert [AlbJ12]: OCM?



11

identification of projects in border region 3, coordination of projects in relation with other donors, and field missions to follow up on the project progress and legal issues.

Other major outputs during the reporting period were the following:

Project selection workshops and establishment of project committees in border region 3

Two selection workshops, combined with needs assessment, were organised with the beneficiaries in Border region 3 in Bunagana (DRC) and Bunagana (Uganda) between the 16th and 30th March 2016. As the result four projects were identified, which included two CBM’s, one Peace / Conference hall and an access road between the farming area in Gatwe and the market in Kisoro town. For every pri‐ority project, the committee members were selected in a democratic, transparent and participatory manner.

After the validation workshops, the TfP team developed project dossiers for the prioritized projects, using standard formats agreed in February 2015 in Lusaka and approved by the 5th OSC meeting. All four project dossiers for the border region 3 were finalised and submitted to AUC for consideration.

In addition, the timelines for the project implementation were revised; an updated work plan is com‐pleted, prepared with the required Gantt Project software as per the recommendation of the 7th OSC meeting.

Securing land for selected infrastructure projects

The legal process to provide the land required is in process; the situation at the end of the reporting period is as follow:

Goma Cross‐Border Market (Documents are issued) Gatumba Cross‐Border Market (Documents are issued) Kavimvira Cross‐Border Market (Documents are issued) Bunagana (DRC) Cross‐Border Market (in progress) Bunagana‐Uganda Cross‐Border Market (in progress) Bunagana‐DRC Peace/Conference Hall (in progress) Bunagana‐Uganda, Maziba – Gatwe road (in progress)

To align project activities, especially to avoid that other stakeholders are targeting the same pro‐jects, as happened e.g. for the Goma border office, the TfP team, under the lead of COMESA, initiat‐ed so far two coordination meetings with key partners involved in cross border infrastructure. The meetings were convened in Lusaka, Zambia respectively on 18th November 2015 and 17th ‐18th May 2016 (see below chapter 5, Cooperation‐ Contacts and arrangements with other institutions, page 21).

Workshop results:

• Development of a Road Map for Infrastructure projects within the GLR across all involved stakeholders

• Confirmation of KfW co‐financed projects by the member states • Promise by the participants to share information and to increase transparency • To hold coordination meetings on a regular basis

Kommentiert [AlbJ13]: Expected when?

Kommentiert [AlbJ14]: Different sub-title?

Gelöscht: 20

Kommentiert [AlbJ15]: Any reason to call it “co-financed”?



12

Studies and consultancies

The Baseline Study (BLS) was conducted by a regional short‐term consultant (STE), financed through the project’s STE Disposition Fund administrated by GFA. However, the BLS is still not completed as information from Burundi and Kivu‐South, DRC are still missing as the consultants were unable travel due to security concerns. It is foreseen to undertake the BLS for the missed out areas in border re‐gion 1 and 2 parallel with those for border region 3.

The tender process for the Feasibility Study to evaluate the proposed Cross‐Border Markets (CBM’s) in regions 1 & 2, is completed. The contract was signed on 03.03.2016 and implementation started end of June 2016. The prequalification for the Design and Supervision contract for the three (3) CBM’s in Goma (DRC), Gatumba (Burundi) and Kavimvira (DRC) was completed and No‐Objection was granted by KFW on the 28th June 2016. The Request for Proposal (RfP) was prepared and the draft submitted to KFW for consideration.

Field missions to border regions

To follow up and to accelerate the implementation process, the project carried out several Field Mis‐sions. The project members met with officials within the government and with representatives of the local administration

1. 04.08. – 08.08.2015 to Burundi and DRC 2. 21.09. – 25.09.2015 to Burundi and DRC 3. 15.10. – 18.10.2015 to Burundi 4. 24.01. – 27.01.2016 to Rwanda and DRC 5. 07.02. – 12.02.2016 to Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi and DRC 6. 14.03. – 31.03.2016 to Rwanda, Uganda and DRC 7. 26.06. – 30.06.2016 to Burundi, DRC and Rwanda

The main outcome of the above mentioned field missions are:

• Issues related to land in Gatumba and Kavimvira were resolved in collaboration with Burundi and DRC Governments at both central and local levels

• Facilitation of the consultants working on the Feasibility study in Gatumba, Goma and Kavimvira • Preparation of the project identification/selection in Bunagana border region.

During the reporting period, three cross‐border infrastructure projects (construction of markets in Gatumba, Kavimvira and Goma) have been approved by the oversight committee meeting and five 5 new projects have been identified in a participative manner in Bunagana (DRC‐UGA, border region 3) and Nkora (RWA‐DRC, border region 2) with a planned total investment amounting to 4.9 Million Eu‐ros as detailed in the table below:

Kommentiert [AlbJ16]: Not sure if there will another BLS in the future. We should rather try to involve the TIDs more ac-tively for M&E purposes.



13

Table 4 Status of prioritized infrastructure project

Name of the project Border CountryProject Dossier approved

Feasibility study

Design & construct. Supervision

Estimated costs in €

Cross‐border market Goma DRC ongoing 720,000Cross‐border market Gatumba Burundi ongoing 700,000Cross‐border market Kavimvira DRC ongoing 700,000Cross‐border market Bunagana DRC pending 750,000Cross‐border market Bunagana Uganda pending 780,000Cross‐border market Nkora Rwanda pending 700,000Peace & conference Hall Bunagana DRC pending 200,000Maziba‐Gatwe access road Bunagana Uganda pending 350,000

4,900,000Total for works

If these 8 projects would be implemented at the projected costs, the budget provided through KfW for investments in infrastructure would be fully used. According to current planning, construction will start in April 2017 and will last until mid‐2018 (see schedule below).

Figure 1 Planned implementation schedule for prioritized infrastructure projects



14

4.1.2 Planned vs. achieved ‐ Component 2

In spite of the progress that could be observed in component 1 with the preparation of infrastructure projects in border regions 1 and 2, and a first project identification mission in region 3, the fund flow to COMESA is still very slow. The project year 2015‐2016, therefore, was another year in which the project management at AUC had to coordinate the project with only minimal budget support from the KfW‐provided funds, as the management fee is disbursed as a percentage of the disbursements channelled through AUC to COMESA. For the same reason, PCRD was not in a position to undertake any monitoring mission to the border regions during the reporting period, and also missed out on some of the meetings in Lusaka.

The table below shows the planned activities for the project year 2015 – 2016 including a planned vs. achieved comparison (we are using here the format in which the plan was approved, although we meanwhile are using the more sophisticated planning software GanttProject).

Table 5 Plan of operations for 2015‐2016 ‐ planned vs. realized comparison

7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6'9 Consulting Services X X X X X X X X X a A A

9.1 Long-term intermittent consulting services X X X A X X X X as planned9.2 Disposition fund for short-term experts X X A X X a X 2 p/m used10.1 Mid-term evaluation A A A postponed to Q3‐201611 Contribution to JFA X X X X X X X X X X X X as planned12 Audits X X X as planned14 Management Fee A X A only 1 disbursement15 General implementation costs A A A A A A A A A A A A15.1 Planning a a a a

15.1.2 Develop Annual Work Plans & coordinate with COMESA X A done during OCM 515.1.3 Organize annual planning workshop with KfW & COMESA X A done during OCM 515.1.4 Arrange for submission & approval of AUC & COMESA AWP X A done during OCM 5

15.2 Monitoring project implementation

15.2.2 Plan & implement field monitoring missions a a a a no funds, not done15.2.3 Organize mission of M&E short-term expert X X X late still ongoing15.2.4 Participate in PCIA zones 1,2&3 A no funds, not done15.2.5 Participate in base line studies A A no funds, not done15.2.6 Monitoring visit Goma/Rubavu A A no funds, not done15.2.7 Monitoring visit Gatumba/Kavimvira A A no funds, not done

15.3 Oversight Committee meetings X X as planned15.4 Financial Management a a a a a a

15.3.1 Monitor utilzation of Funds by COMESA & AUC X X X X X X as planned15.3.2 Update data on overall disbursements X X X X X X as planned15.3.3 Regularly update Budget Monitoring & Forecast X X X X as planned15.3.4 Prepare annual budget on the basis of work plans X X A X as planned15.3.5 Update cost & financing plan & submit to KfW A as planned

15.5 Reporting a a a a15.5.1 Prepare consolidated Quarterly Progress Reports X X X X15.5.2 Prepare consolidated Annual Progress Reports X X

15.6 Networking & Cooperation a a a a a a15.6.1 identify relevant cooperation partners & define roles X X X X X X as planned15.6.2 Establish & maintain contacts X X X X X X yes with GIZ, EU, IPSS15.6.3 Agree on coordination/cooperation mechanisms a a a a no formal agreements15.6.4 Keep cooperating partners informed on APSA project X X X X X X as planned

15.7 Conceptual groundwork for Funding Window a a a a A a postponed15.8 Support to opening of the funding window a postponed15.9 Operationalization of PCRD and DDR policies a a a a a a

15.9.1Discuss with AUC experts status of policy papers, operational guides a a

postponed15.9.2 Develop list with tasks for policy development incl. priorities a a postponed15.9.3 Organize mission of DDR short-term expert a a a postponed15.9.4 Organize mission of STE on Early Recovery a a a postponed

15.10 Promote funding window with REC and development partners a a X a X X website in preparation

Remarks

2016Activity

Q1 Q22015

Q3 Q4Ref. No.



15

The diagram above shows, that many of the planned activities have been implemented as planned, although some with delay (like the implementation of the STE on Monitoring & Evaluation). Others have been cancelled due to lack of funds (e.g. site visits), and some have been postponed by mutual agreement with the partners, like the Mid‐term Review (postponed to second half of 2016) and stud‐ies to prepare the conceptual framework for an expansion of the funding window, as well as for the operationalization of PCRD and DDR policies. The latter tasks will appear again prominently on the agenda in the plan for 2016‐2017.

4.2 Analysis of risks, solutions and opportunities

# Identified Risks or opportunities Possible Solutions / Follow‐Up

1

The most serious risk lies in the insufficient number of human resources within COMESA’s procurement department, which has already resulted in significant delays of procurement processes. Understaffing in combination with demanding procedures, can lead to more delays; if the Trade for Peace Project (TfP) starts implementing infrastructure projects and the bottleneck is not resolved.

• Procurement Expert recruited and employed since 01.01.2016 by COMESA as a replacement of the project advisor

• GOPA has mobilized external expert • World Bank has promised financing an additional

procurement officer who will assist all COMESA Programmes including TfP. The recruitment is ongoing

• In June 2015, AUC has also offered to second procurement officer for a couple of months until solution is sought. AUC and COMESA to agree on the modalities

2

Quite recently, it became apparent that the increasing involvement of the World Bank and other donors in the border regions where KfW‐financed projects are being prepared may result in double work or may even turn KfW projects redundant.

• To hold coordination meetings on a regular basis o Two coordination meetings convened in Lusaka,

Zambia respectively in November 2015 and May 2016 with the participation of key partners as well as participating member states.

o Development of Road Map for Infrastructure pro‐jects within the GLR

o Promise by the participants to share information and to harmonize their approaches

3

In all projects there may be a risk of people being resettled due to the construction works or because their land is needed for a certain infrastructure

• All project must be screened carefully for potential need to resettle people. In case it is unavoidable, temporarily or permanent, the project must ensure that the respective guidelines of KfW are adhered to.

4

Since the overall delay in project implementation has led to a situation, where presumably funds for salaries and fees of core staff, including the long term advisors, will be depleted before finalisation of infrastructure projects, the programme must think about re‐scheduling of personal inputs.

• To cover the extended project implementation period, a new Implementation schedule of core staff has to be developed. o Revised staff plan has been provided by GOPA o Proposal of staff deployment for both field and

core staff has been drafted by COMESA and shared with AUC and KFW

Kommentiert [AlbJ17]: What has been done?

Kommentiert [AlbJ18]: I don’t believe that this is neces-sary/possible anymore, correct?

Kommentiert [AlbJ19]: “Quite recently” is not correct. The activities were planned for long time and even consultations with COMESA took place. The activities were simply ignored

Kommentiert [AlbJ20]: See email attached



16

# Identified Risks or opportunities Possible Solutions / Follow‐Up

5 Risk of disappointment and loss of trust by the beneficiaries and member states in case that the beneficiaries in case that programme implementation does not speed up and lead to tangible results for the beneficiaries in the very near future.

• Field staff and core project staff from Lusaka need to keep in contact and regularly inform MS and established project committees on the progress.

6 Quite recently it appeared that the support of the Member States at central and local levels for the implementation of the planned infrastructure projects cannot be taken for granted: the team carrying out the Baseline Study were in some laces hindered to take up their work, and it was reported that Member States triggered discussions on the locations‐of projects and implementation arrangements

• COMESA and representatives of participating MS signed a commitment document for the selected KfW co‐financed projects during the coordination meeting held in Lusaka on the 18th May 2016

• COMESA will sign MoUs with MS central/local

authorities to clarify roles and responsibilities of all partners concerned. Template for standard MoU is in preparation.

In terms of unintended outcomes the project team did not observe any significant developments during the reporting period. However, in order to gain more insight in this and related topics, the COMESA‐TfP will arrange for the implementation of Post‐Conflict Impact Assessment studies in 2016 (delayed due to unsuccessful tendering; a suitable expert has now been identified, and direct con‐tracting is being applied).

4.3 Progress related to goals & indicators, impact, deviations from plan and conclusions

4.3.1 Progress in relation to the Programme Objective

At the level of the Programme Objective: “Conflicts within or between AU member states are mitigat‐ed successfully by employing mechanisms for crisis prevention of AU/RECs. Violent intra‐state and cross border conflicts are stopped and peace agreements are reached. Peace consolidation processes are initiated and accompanied inclusively and successfully” GIZ, which is operating under the same Results Matrix and contributing to the same Programme Objective, is responsible for the monitoring of three success indicators, namely:

i1 At least half of the conflicts (intensity level 3‐5 of the Heidelberg Institute for International Con‐flict Research (HIIK)) within AU member states or cross border conflicts, in which conflict pre‐ventive measures of the AU together with RECs and international partners are employed, are successfully mitigated in 2015.

i2 Measures of conflict transformation of the AU or the RECs/RMs in violent intrastate or cross border conflicts (intensity level 3‐5 HIIK) improve the security situation of the local population.

i3 The vertical cooperation between AUC and RECs as well as the horizontal cooperation between different units within the AUC are improved and contribute to an effective implementation in the field of conflict prevention, conflict transformation and PCRD and to an improved visibility and reputation of the AU.

Formatiert: Einzug: Links: 0,06 cm, Keine Aufzählungenoder Nummerierungen



17

GIZ is reporting separately on these indicators; AUC has not yet been provided with results of the GIZ M&E system, which may shed a light on the above indicators.

As regards the fourth indicator:

I4 The PCRD measures of AUC (and RECs) have improved the perception of living conditions of the population in African countries emerging from conflict.

Although it is understood that indicators at such an aggregate level are not supposed to provide evi‐dence for an impact directly induced by the project, it is suggested to consider a modification of this indicator to make it more operational and the results of respective analysis more meaningful to the stakeholders. AUC cannot think of a feasible way of verifying the indicator as it is, since an analysis of the perception of living conditions would require comprehensive socio‐economic surveys in many Af‐rican countries. Based on the recommendations of the Monitoring & Evaluation consultant, the pro‐ject proposes to

• Limiting the range of states to be considered to those which are benefitting from PCRD measures supported through AUC and/or RECs; and

• Attempting to verify the indicator by way of a desktop study, based on the analysis of publicly available data, most importantly using the Fragile States Index (FSI)3 and analysis like the APSA Impact Assessment, evaluation reports of relevant projects, and other reports by AUC and RECs.

The FSI is established through mostly automated analysis by scanning and filtering relevant interna‐tional databases, studies and analysis found at UN, WHO, World Fact book, Transparency Interna‐tional, World Bank and Freedom House. The ranking of the index is based on 12 indicators: 4 social, 2 economic and 6 political, which in combination allow assessing the states’ vulnerability to collapse or fall (relapse) into conflict. As such, the indicator seems very relevant in the context of the APSA Sup‐port Programme’s target system.

If one looks at the overall situation of African countries as reflected in the FSI, not only at those which have benefitted from PCRD activi‐ties, the immensity of the challenge for the African Un‐ion and its members in the area of conflict management and peace building becomes obvious: the FSI 2016 lists 38 countries world‐wide in the category “alert” (countries with an index of above 90); 27 of them are African. (Map courtesy of FundForPeace)

As a baseline it is proposed to use the FSI score resp. the ranking for the year 2014 for each of the PCRD intervention countries, and as an average for the group of states with PCRD interventions. The

3 The Fragile States Index is published yearly by the US‐based Fund for Peace think tank https://fsi.fundforpeace.org . www.foreignpolicy.com is also publishing the FSI, but not the full list of states monitored.



18

index and the trend over time for the individual states and the group of states will be analysed and interpreted in the light of qualitative studies and assessments.

The scores of the 15 African countries having benefitted from AU/RECs‐backed PCRD measures on the FSI (see the table below) offers quite a grim view both in terms of the current status and the trend over the last years: 13 out of 15 fall in the FSI category “alert”; only the 2 least vulnerable among the 15 still, Madagascar and Comoros, are categorized as “warning” for countries with scores of 60 to 89.9. What is even more disturbing is the trend over the last years: for 10 out of the 15 states, the situation as reflected in the FSI has gone from bad to worse; for 6 of them (CAR, Burundi, Uganda, Libya, Mali, Madagascar) 2016 showed an increase of the index (= worsening vulnerability) for the 4th consecutive year.

Table 6 Fragile States Index Ranking of African states having benefitted from AU‐supported PCRD measures

Rank of 178

Country 2016 score

Change from 2015[6]

Change from 2014[7]

Change from 2013[8]

Change from 2012[9]

178 Somalia

114.0 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.9

177 South Sudan 113.8 0.7 0.9 3.2 5.4

176 Central African Republic

112.1 0.2 1.5 6.8 8.3

175 Sudan 111.5 0.7 1.4 0.5 2.1

171 Democratic Rep of Congo

110.0 0.3 0.2 1.9 1.2

164 Burundi 100.7 2.6 3.6 3.1 3.2

162 Guinea Bissau 99.8 0.1 0.8 1.3 0.6

158 Ivory Coast 97.9 2.1 3.8 5.6 5.7

156 Uganda

97.7 0.7 1.7 1.1 1.2

154 Libya 96.4 1.1 8.6 11.9 11.5

152 Liberia 95.5 1.8 1.2 0.4 2.2

150 Mali 95.2 2.1 5.4 5.9 17.3

141 Egypt

90.2 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.2

123 Madagascar

84.2 0.6 1.1 1.5 1.7

122 Comoros 83.8 0.5 1.3 0.2 0.8

(Alert: 90‐120 warning: 60.0–89.9 stable: 30.0–59.9 sustainable: 0.0–29.9)

This rough overview clearly points to the need to significantly step up conflict management and peace‐building measures and in particular to intensify the implementation of post‐conflict recon‐struction and development in order to avoid the relapse into conflict.

4.3.2 Progress in relation to the Project Objective 1

Progress towards the defined first Project Objective for the AUC/COMESA project: “Improved living conditions of the population in border areas of post‐conflict countries” (physical dimension) is meas‐ured against two indicators:

Indicator Comment on achievement

Kommentiert [AlbJ21]: The revision of the indicator has been proposed by KfW to the BMZ. Discussion/approval is pending.



19

i5 75% of the con‐structed infrastruc‐ture is used and maintained ac‐cording to design at final appraisal.

Since no infrastructures have been established yet, the indicator cannot be verified at this point. However, COMESA‐TfP has prepared “operation & maintenance” plans for each infrastructure project. Furthermore, capacity building measures for user groups which will also include critical O&M is‐sues, are planned and will be implemented after handing over.

Proposed revision: In respect to the “utilisation aspect” the indicator should measure in how far the intended target group really benefits: 75% of the constructed infrastructure is used by the intended target group and maintained according to design at final appraisal.

i6 The individual per‐ception of living conditions espe‐cially of small scale traders in border areas of post con‐flict countries has improved.

Baseline data are available for some of the intervention areas. However, it is still too early to expect a measurable impact since until now, nothing concrete in terms of infrastructures construction has happened, except the selection and validation of infrastructure projects and the establish‐ment of project committees. Updates on the BLS are not yet available, but traders the project team has interacted with during project validation have high hopes of improving their living conditions. So far, the services of TIDs who provide accurate information about trading and procedures at the border, helped the farm‐ers know what to do when and where. This, and the introduction of STR has increased their sales and incomes, thus leading to improved standards of living.

4.3.3 Progress in relation to the Project Objective 2

The second Project Objective “Institutional strengthening and improved cooperation within the APSA framework between AUC and RECs in the area of PCRD” (administrative dimension) is measured against the following two indicators:

Indicator Comment on achievement

I7 AUC and RECs ap‐ply the jointly de‐veloped rules and procedures accord‐ing to APSA objec‐tives (rejected re‐ports of RECs by AUC < 10%, per‐centage of pay‐ments transferred in due time (within 10 working days after receipt of payment) > 90%)

• Although the project has introduced a formal acceptance procedure for both progress and financial reports, consistent data on acceptance are not available, because the procedure is not systematically applied. Ac‐ceptance of reports is arranged in a more interactive process, which tries to avoid formal rejections. In general one can say that reports have improved, but do not yet match set quality criteria (timeliness, completeness, reliability, depth of analysis, formal appearance)

• Speed of onward transfers: No of days used on average:

no days: req re‐ceived ‐ fwd to

KfW

no days: req sent to KfW ‐ funds received

AUC

no days funds re‐ceived AUC ‐ re‐ceived COMESA

no days for the whole process (Req. to Receipt)

10.5 15.5 43.5 67.5

None of the disbursement processes executed so far have been fast enough to match the target. The number of working days it took from


Kommentiert [AlbJ23]: I believe it would be good to step away from the idea of BLS but to involve the TIDs more active-ly in a continuous monitoring process with questionnaires etc.



20

receiving funds from KfW until it was received by COMESA in its ac‐counts ranged between 16 and 80 days with an average of 43.5.

Proposed revision: Experiences so far show that the timing can be improved, but that the target of 10 days is unrealistic in light of the prevailing procedures of AUC. We suggest 15 working days as new target (16 was achieved once, and that process was flawless.

I8 AUC and RECs are active players in the area of cross‐border PCRD activ‐ities (increase of PCRD activities that go beyond the German contribu‐tion)

The following events exemplify AUC’s commitment to operationalizing PCRD and to support initiatives in this area: • In December 2015 AUC published the APSA Roadmap 2016‐2020, in which PCRD features prominently as Strategic Priority Area 3. Currently, AUC is working on setting‐up a respective M&E system.

• On 30 July 2015 and again on 27 April 2016 AUC hold an Open Session of the Peace & Security Commission on PCRD, discussing a report of the chairperson on the status of implementing the PCRD policy.

• Quick Impact Projects (QIPs) and Peace Strengthening Projects (PSPs) were implemented in AU Peace Support Operations (PSOs) and the AU‐LOs

Proposed revision: In order to operationalize the indicator it is proposed to use as a measurement the budget volume allocated / executed for PCRD measures.

4.3.4 Progress in relation to the Outputs

The project is supposed to achieve the following two Outputs:

Outputs Fields of activities Achievements

Output 1: AUC Capacity in the field of infrastructure in post‐conflict situations is strengthened.

• Establishment of funding win‐

dow for cross‐border activities of RECs in the area of infra‐structure in post‐conflict situa‐tions at AUC.

• Contribution to JFA Salaries (PCRD and DDR)

• Elaboration of technical stud‐ies in the field of PCRD and DDR

• The funding window has been

established and procedures fine‐tuned. They have proven to function under the current set‐ting.

• Has been provided for the first year and will continue as soon as the contract of the PCRD officer is extended.

• First formal trainings of in‐house staff in project management conducted; training programme planned.

• PCRD/DDR studies not yet car‐ried out





21

Outputs Fields of activities Achievements

Output 2: REC(s) implement cross‐border infrastructure measures in the area of PCRD effectively.

• Construction of economic in‐frastructure

• Construction of administrative infrastructure

• Capacity Building to sustain investments

• Sensitization of target groups and related stakeholders on cross‐cutting issues (HIV/AIDS, Gender, Conflict Mediation

• Preparation of 3 cross‐border markets at feasibility study stage; 5 more identified and pro‐ject dossiers prepared.

• Capacity building of user groups has been postponed until con‐struction is complete

• Sensitization on cross‐cutting is‐sues not yet done.

Proposed revision for the outputs: 1) The numbering of the outputs is confusing, since output 1 is related to component 2, and

output 2 is related to component 1. 2) We would rather prefer to understand and accordingly name the 2 2 outputs as “intermedi‐

ate objectives”, while the fields of activities in the results matrix actually are more like out‐puts (“economic infrastructure”, capacity building”)

4.4 Resolutions and conclusions from Oversight Committee meetings

During the reporting period, the OC met on 21st October 2015 in Kigali, Rwanda and on 27th April 2016 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The main resolutions of the two meetings include the following:

• Adoption of the progress report and an overall strategy proposed by COMESA on how to deal with challenges & opportunities arising from the plans of the WB‐financed “Great Lakes Trade Facilitation Programme” as well as Trade Mark East Africa projects

• Approval of AUC‐COMESA 2016 annual work plans extended to cover activities in border re‐gion3 (Bunagana).

• Approval of AUC‐COMESA updated 2013‐2020 Budget Monitoring and Forecasting

• Approval of budget for both COMESA and AUC components for the financial year 2016

• Decision to leave out the idea of co‐financing with TMEA for the construction of Rubavu mar‐ket and to look for another border with DRC where there is no overlap with other partners, preferably where preliminary studies have already been conducted

• COMESA to quick start on implementation of the approved 3 market projects as soon as fea‐sibility is confirmed

• Decision for COMESA to use “direct shopping” instead of tendering in cases of contracts be‐low 25,000 USD, as this is compatible with COMESA procurement rules.

• Decision to abandon the border office projects initially approved for Gatumba and Goma and to concentrate on the market projects

The next meeting is scheduled to take place in October/November 2016 in Lusaka, Zambia.

5 Cooperation‐ Contacts and arrangements with other institutions

During the reporting period, COMESA through Trading for Peace was able to implement the following activities which will have a positive impact on the project in selected border regions:

Kommentiert [AlbJ26]: Please prepare a proposal during the next OCM.



22

Facilitated three bilateral meetings between DRC and Rwanda, DRC and Uganda, and DRC and Burundi held respectively on 22‐24th July in Kigali, 29‐31st July 2015 in Kasese (Uganda) and 9‐12th February, 2016 on the COMESA Simplified Trade Regime. The implementation of the STR will help the small scale cross‐border traders to benefit from their business in all DRC borders with neighbouring countries. Under this component which is financed by AfDB, COMESA TfP was able to have regular contacts with the participating member states. All COMESA neighbouring countries (Zambia, Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda) have now agreed on bilateral basis on com‐mon lists of products eligible under COMESA Simplified Trade Regime (STR). COMESA Trading for Peace will continue supporting this component towards the launch and implementation of STR.

Facilitated the preparation and the organization of the second AUBP‐RECs coordination meeting in the area of border management which was held on 24‐25th November, 2015. This meeting was hosted by COMESA Secretariat and Trading for Peace played a vital role in its preparation and organization.

Convened two coordination meetings with key partners implementing or involved in the imple‐mentation of cross‐border infrastructure projects. The two meetings took place in Lusaka, Zam‐bia, respectively on 18th November 2015 and 18‐19th May, 2016. While the first meeting saw the participation of only donors (KFW, Trade Mark East Africa, World) , the second one was attend‐ed by some participating member states (Burundi, DRC, Zambia and Rwanda), AUC, TMEA, USAID EA, IOM, EU, CEPGL and COMESA. As outcomes of these meetings, a mapping of interven‐tions in the area of cross‐border infrastructure projects was done and participants agreed to harmonize their approaches and to meet on a regular basis in order to avoid duplication. Partici‐pants to the meeting gave COMESA a go ahead to proceed with projects already planned for Ga‐tumba, Kavimvira, Goma, Nkora and Bunagana borders.

Under AfDB funding, Trading for peace produced a documentary on the role and importance of TIDs and CBTAs for small scale cross‐border traders. The collection of information and filming was done in December 2015 at Kasumbalesa border post

Contacts were also made with World Bank for future collaboration through its Great Lakes Re‐gion Trade Facilitation Project (GLTFP). Through its GLTFP the World Bank committed through a grant agreement to collaborate with COMESA. As the GLTFP will be implemented at almost the same borders where Trading for Peace is operating, WB project will build on existing COMESA Trading for Peace initiatives mainly at Goma, Bunagana, Rubavu, Kasindi and Mpondwe borders and will help COMESA implement regulations and procedures for the treatment of small scale cross‐border traders including a toll‐free complaint hotline, simplified immigration, duty free en‐try for goods eligible under the Simplified Trade Regime (STR). During its first phase (4 years), the WB GLTF project will also assist participating member states namely DRC, Uganda and Rwanda through loans to modernize infrastructure at selected border posts (Mahagi, Kasindi, Bunagana, Goma Petite Barriere and RusiziI for DRC; Goli, Mpondwe and Bunagana in Uganda; Rubavu and RisiziI in Rwanda) with grants and credits totaling USD 79 million. Cross‐border in‐frastructures to be developed under this project include amongst others One Stop Border Posts and markets. During its second phase, the WB GLTF project will support the same types of activi‐ties at selected DRC borders with Burundi, Zambia and Tanzania for grants and credits totalling USD 61 million. The collaboration with WB GLTF project will be mainly in the areas of strength‐ening of existing and new TIDS (Kasindi, Mpondwe, Bunagana, Goma and Rubavu) and this will improve the quality of data to be collected and the assistance to be rendered to cross‐border traders. The same WB GLTF project has agreed with the Government of DRC on the construction of a One Stop Border Post office at Goma (petite barrière). For this project, the government of DRC received a loan and plans to use USD 5 million to construct a One Stop Border Post at the petite barrière of Goma border. Since this will would have rendered the planned border office



23

project of KfW obsolete the project Oversight Committee decided to withdraw th approval for the border office projects planned for Goma. The same applied for the Gatumba border office, where TMEA plans made plans of our project redundant.

At the level of AU, PCRD continued to maintain close contacts with GIZ‐AU. Within AU, close coopera‐tion and frequent interaction is practiced with the AU Border Programme, the Gender Peace Security programme, The Peace Support Operations Division, the Department of Social Affairs, the Pro‐gramme Management Team (PMT) as well as the AUC Liaison offices over Peace Strengthening Pro‐jects (PSPs). With potential collaborators outside AU, such as the EU Delegation to the AU, bilateral donors, IPSS and ISS, initial contacts have been established and are being followed up by the PCRD Hd, the PCRD officer and the LTA. Time constraints, both on the side of the potential partners and on the side of AUC, have prevented more intense or regular communication.

In an attempt to both, improving internal and external communication and visibility, the project has started a process to set‐up a website, which is supposed to present the project to the wider public and to provide an internal, secured online work space to share documents and other resources, cal‐endars, contacts, links etc. among team members.

Difficulties & challenges in institutional & collaboration issues:

The following challenges have been identified:

• The communication between the project management and border authorities through the Cen‐tral Government has not been optimal, especially regarding the land issue for the Kavimvira market, where letters were sent to the provincial government through the national government, without receiving any official feedback. This problem was however reduced by the presence of the TID Managers and the Regional Advisors and by the field missions conducted by the LTA in Border regions.

• Participating member states delay in providing the required documentation on the availability of land spaces for infrastructure projects was identified as one of the big challenges that can affect the project implementation. However, the project management used the COMESA country of‐ficers, who have a wider connection to the central government, to improve the situation. Where needed (case of Kavimvira), the project arranged a joint field visit with senior officials from the central government

• During the reporting period, COMESA experienced the problem of overlap with other partners who are involved or who are planning to implement similar activities at the same selected bor‐ders and was obliged to cancel two projects in Gatumba and Goma (border office projects). If uncoordinated all these efforts by different partners can lead to duplication and wastage of re‐sources. In this regard, COMESA initiated coordination meetings different stakeholders involved in the Great Lakes region as mentioned under the paragraphs above.

6 Staffing & equipment

During the reporting period, the Staffing has changed on two positions with the recruitment of a pro‐ject procurement officer effective from January 2016 and the new TID Manager at Bunagana (Ugan‐da) border post effective June 2016. The project Coordinator and the project assistant were deployed to the project for the whole reporting period while the former project Advisor and the new project Advisor/Procurement officer were deployed respectively up to October 2015 and from January 206. The project staff worked also on other Trading for Peace components.

During the reporting period, the following staff has been working for the Implementation of COMESA component:



24

1. Mr. Adrien Ndayisaba, Project Coordinator 2. Dr. Ngoza Siwale Lwao, Project Advisor up to October 2015 (Dr Ngoza left COMESA) 3. Ms Mai ElGhareeb, Project Advisor/Procurement Officer from January, 2016 4. Mr. Colin Chifwambwa, Project Assistant 5. Mrs. Sharon Sikwela Kapesha, Project Accountant (She is no longer on the project payroll and

is also working on other projects) 6. Mr. Roland Ziegler, LTA (He joined the project after the resignation of Mr Graziano) 7. Mr. Jean‐Baptist Kirigenda (replaced Bosco Mandari, LT Regional Advisor for border regions 1

& 4 and joined the project in September 2015) 8. Mr Roger Paluku Mahamba, LT Regional Advisor for border regions 2 &3 9. Mr. DJamba Michel Longomo, TID Manager, Goma/DRC 10. Mrs Alphonsine Uwamahoro, TID Manager, Rubavu/Rwanda 11. Mr. Protais Nizigiyimana, TID Manager, Gatumba/Burundi 12. Mr. Bulangalire Bitakwira Blanco, TID Manager, /Kavimvira/DRC 13. Mr. Richard Ngamu Kasereka, TID Manager, Kasindi/DRC 14. Ms Moreen Basemera, TID Manager, Mpondwe/Uganda 15. Mr. Faustin Zigama, TID Manager, Bunagana/DRC 16. Mr Emmanuel Mbonye (he joined the project after the resignation of Mrs. Faridha Uwama‐

horo in December 2015), TID Manager, Bunagana/Uganda 17. Mr. Louis Nyembo, TID manager, Kasumbalesa, DRC 18. Ms Prudence Kalyalya and Mr Harry Bwalya, TID Manager & TID Assistant, Kasum‐

balesa/Zambia

As regards component 2, the only change has been experienced with the succession of the Ag. Hd. PCRD, Mrs. Antonia Sodonon, by Dr. Alhaji Sarjoh Bah. In line with the recently adopted new struc‐ture of PSD, his position is now called Head Conflict Management and Post‐Conflict Reconstruction and Development (CMPCRD).

Table 7 Budget / budget utilization for core project staff financed through KfW funds

6.1 Project Manager/ PCRD Expert (50%) 215,585 € 110,959 € 33 104,626 € 6.2 Project Advisor (58%) 157,470 € 87,566 € 32 69,904 € 6.3 Project Assistant (81%) 86,945 € 47,072 € 33 39,873 € 6.4 Project Accountant (100%) 140,000 € 69,175 € 27 70,825 €

600,000 € 314,772 € 125 285,228 €

1. PCRD Officer through JFA 375,000 € 153,526 € 23 221,474 €

utilized untilJune 2016

usedp/mth

remainingEUR

Costing totalinitial contract

utilized untilJune 2016

usedp/mth

remainingEUR

Total

Component 2Salaries for core project staff

(KfW-financed)

Component 1Salaries for core project staff

(KfW-financed)

Costing totalinitial contract

In component 2, the PCRD officer financed by project funds through the JFA has been on position for the full period of 12 months, while the intermittent LTA used 5.71 p/m of his total time budget, bringing the total utilization between January 2014 and June 2016 to 15 out of 25 p/m.

Formatiert: Hervorheben


Kommentiert [AlbJ27]: I’ve marked the four TIDs who are not really relevant for our project regions. As discussed with COMESA, I would consider it as appropriate to phase out their support and to transfer them to other donor programs (e.g. World Bank). We should focus on TIDs in our target area and ensure their financing throughout the end of the project as they will play an important role for M&E. Any progress from COMESA in this regard?


Kommentiert [AlbJ28]: The remaining budget for the project accountant is rather 0 EUR as she won’t be financed by KfW funds anymore.



25

If financing of project staff continues at present level, it is estimated that the respective budget lines will be depleted towards end of 2018/early 2019, depending on the EUR‐USD exchange rate4. For de‐tails on staff deployment, see the overview attached as Annex 2 below (page 41).

7 Outlook

7.1 Plan for 2016 ‐ 2017 (Component 1)

For the next quarter July to September 2016, the following activities are proposed:

Nr Activities Reference to the WP

1 Preparation and submitting of the quarterly progress report April‐June, 2016 15th

2 Preparation and submitting of the quarterly financial report April‐June, 2016 15th

3 Implement audit report recommendation 3rd

4 Arrange for approval through OCM of new project dossiers 1.1.4.2

5 Development of ToR for tenders Region 3 1.3.5.1

6 Expression of interest for feasibility study Region 3 1.3.5.2

7 Evaluation of offers‐shortlist 1.3.5.3

8 No‐Objection 1.35.4

9 Development of ToR for design & supervision Bunagana/RDC 1.3.6.1

10 Expression of interest for design & supervision Bunagana/RDC 1.3.6.2

11 Shortlisting of companies 1.3.6.3

12 Request for No‐Objection 1.3.6.4

13 Expression of interest for construction CBM Goma/RDC 1.4.3.1

14 Shortlisting of companies 1.4.3.2


16 Expression of interest for construction CBM Gatumba 1.4.4.1

17 Shortlisting of companies for construction CBM Gatumba 1.4.4.2


19 Expression of interest for construction companies CBM Kavimvira 1.4.5.1

20 Shortlisting of companies for construction CBM Kavimvira 1.4.5.2


22 Identification and contracting of relevant Service Provider for training of project committee 2.2.2

23 Conducting PCIA Do no harm study in Gatumba/Kavimvira, Goma, Nkora,and Bunagana/Bunagana border regions 3.7

An updated and detailed Work Plan July 2016‐June 2017 for component1 is attached as Annex 5 (be‐low, page 46)

4 Earlier estimations have projected an earlier depletion of staff‐related budgets due to a less favorable ex‐change rate and because the accountant was still on the pay roll.

Formatiert: Englisch (Vereinigte Staaten), Nicht Erweitertdurch / Verdichtet durch

Formatiert: Englisch (Vereinigte Staaten)

Gelöscht: Annex 2

Gelöscht: 34

Gelöscht: 36



26

7.2 Plan for next quarter and for the year 2016 ‐ 2017 (Component 2)

In component 2, the priorities for the next quarter (3rd quarter 2016) concentrates on the following activities:

• Supervision of the finalization of the Monitoring & Evaluation short‐term expert assignment including quality control of consultancy reports;

• Finalization of contracting a web designer to develop the project website; provision of guid‐ance to the web designer and follow‐up contract implementation

• Developing contents for the future project’s web presentation; • Prepare project documentation for Mid‐term Review; coordinate timing and resource mobi‐

lization with KfW and COMESA; • Follow‐up on implementation of OCM 7 resolutions, preparation of OCM 8; • Preparation to support planned AUC Needs Assessment missions to post‐conflict countries

with experts financed through the STE disposition fund. • Continue in‐house training in project management (project planning, financial monitoring)



27

In terms of planning for the next project year July 2016 to June 2017, the table in Annex 6 (below page 46), shows the activities planned, as prepared and approved during the OC meeting in April 2016.

Apart from routine tasks related to coordination and management (see activities under 11, 12, 14, parts of 15 below), and the priority actions highlighted above for the next quarter, it will be im‐portant to start working on the development of mechanisms for the opening of the funding window (starts in early 2017). AUC is aware of the growing interest of a number of RECs to join, like ECOWAS, ECCAS, IGAD and others. It is therefore extremely important, to closely accompany the infrastructure projects, which soon will be entering construction phase, in order to assess experiences made so far and refine the mechanism for a) project selection, b) fund allocation; c) coordination & management, and d) impact assessment. A short‐term expert will assist the project to revise the implementation and operational manuals in the light of lessons learnt during the fourth quarter of 2015.

Furthermore, AUC has expressed a strong interest, that the project through its STE disposition fund supports the series of needs assessments, which AUC‐PSD is about to carry out in CAR, Guinea Bissau, South Sudan and Somalia. Supporting these missions with experts mobilized through the project will not boost the cooperation within the department, it will also further develop approaches and meth‐odologies in early recovery planning, and finally be an entry point for a possible inclusion of those post‐conflict areas, reaching out to ECCAS and/or IGAD in a future project implementation phase.

8 Costs & Financing

8.1 Actual costs as compared to plan, deviations, financing

During the project year 2015/2016, expenditures in component 1 with a total of 441,331 EUR (incl. own contribution and the services of the long‐term consultancy) stayed behind the plan. The devia‐tion from the plan was due to significant under‐utilization of the planned budget for Infrastructures. In this category only 26% of the approved budget was utilized, mostly because of the delays experi‐enced in the tendering of consulting services (feasibility study, design & construction supervision).

Also for capacity building the COMESA TfP team spent less than planned: what was fully used was the budget for the fees of the TID managers, while otherwise planned trainings were not implemented. As a result, only 67% of the capacity building budget was used. Due to an unsuccessful attempt to tender for a PCIA study, also the PCIA study was delayed and did not materialize during the project year. Accordingly, the planned budget for this activity in the amount of 37,500 EUR was not spent.

While management fees (salaries for core project staff) and own contribution were both in line with the plan, expenditures for the LTA were lower as expected, because 2 of the quarterly payments (which are paid upon acceptance of the progress reports) were delayed.

In total, component 1 used 57.4% of the approved budget.

In general one can say that expenditures in component 1 consisted largely of payments for salaries (including the fees for TID managers) and travel costs. The only activity undertaken for which extra costs occurred, was the project identification mission to border region 3 in March 2016.

Gelöscht: 36



28

Table 8 Budget for July 2015 ‐ June 2016 against actual expenditures (component 1)

Total Total 7/15-6/16Budget Expenses Expenses

7/15-6/16 7/15-6/17 % of planned

EUR EUR %1 Infrastructure (including sensitization, studies, launch ev 200,477 51,411 25.6%2 Capacity Building 79,279 53,220 67.1%3 PCIA/ Do-no-harm 37,500 0 0.0%4 Technical Committees 0 0 0.0%5 Contingency 0 0 0.0%6 Management Fee 113,511 113,947 100.4%7 General Implementation Costs (own contribution COMES 113,083 109,931 97.2%8 Long-term Consulting Services 225,646 112,823 50.0%

769,496 441,331 57.4%

Component I: Funding Window for RECs

Approved budget vs. actual expenditures

Subtotal Component I

Budget utilization for component 2 in the year July 2015 – June 2016 looks somehow better with an overall utilization of 70% of the budget. Except from the budget for the mid‐term review, which was postponed in agreement with KfW and COMESA to the next project year, and the consulting services, which were also paid late for the same reason as for component 1, the other budget lines were more or less used as planned.

Table 9 Budget for July 2015 ‐ June 2016 against actual expenditures (component 2)

Total Total 7/15-6/16Budget Expenses Expenses

7/15-6/16EUR

7/15-6/17EUR

% of planned

9 Consulting Services 164,316 77,158 47.0%10. Mid Term and Final Evaluation 50,000 0 0.0%11. KfW Contribution to JFA Salaries for PCRD 80,784 84,296 104.3%12. Audits 17,274 24,124 139.7%13. Contingencies 0 0 0.0%14. Management Fee for Administration of Funding Window 11,233 9,755 86.8%15. General Implementation Costs (own contribution AUC) 188,671 201,705 106.9%

562,277 397,037 70.6%

1,331,773 838,368 63.0%Grand Total

Component II: Institutional Strengthening of AUC

Approved budget vs. actual expenditures

Subtotal Component II

It should be noted that AUC’s availability of funds for coordination, supervision and management of the project directly depends on COMESA’s implementation speed. With the current level of fund uti‐lization by COMESA, AUC has to find other funds to finance its core tasks in the project. In 2015‐16 AUC received only 9,755 Euros as management fees; even less than the budgeted 11,233 Euros. One result of the extremely low level of available funds for coordination and management was that in the course of the project year no field visits of AUC staff (the PCRD officer was supposed to accompany the baseline survey, the PCIA and the M&E consultant’s field trips) could take place.



29

Until mid‐2016, after 3 years of project implementation, the accumulated expenditures of the pro‐gramme have reached approximately 2.5 million Euro, which is around 22.1 % of the overall project budget of 11.6 million. However, according to current planning, with the start of the construction phase early 2017 expenditures for infrastructure should rapidly increase, with planned expenditures of 4.7 million Euro in 2017 and 2018 alone.

Table 10 Expenditures to date vs. overall Budget

Budget ut ilization until (incl.) q2 2016(Fund utilization vs. revised budget) 30. Jun. 161 Infrastructure 2.1% 117,484 € 2 Capacity building 35.2% 181,594 € 3 PCIA/Do-no-harm 0.0% - € 4 Technical Committees 0.0% - € 6 Management Fee 54.1% 318,468 € 7 COMESA own contribution 61.9% 502,324 € 8 LT consulting GOPA 47.9% 574,692 €

Component 1 utilizat ion 17.5% 1,694,562 € 9 LT consulting GFA 45.0% 347,211 € 10 Mid-term, final evaluations 0.0% - € 11 KfW contribution to JFA 41.2% 153,526 € 12 Audits 45.6% 45,169 € 14 Management fees 10.6% 22,619 € 15 AUC own contribution 39.2% 379,389 €

Component 2 utilizat ion 34.2% 876,334 € Programme total ut ilizat ion 22.1% 2,570,896 €

8.2 Status of project account(s)

8.2.1 COMESA bank accounts and liquidity (component 1)

COMESA is using three bank accounts, one for Zambian Kwacha and 2 hard currency (EUR, USD) ac‐counts to receiving funds and making payments for project expenditures. Liquidity management of COMESA is still a topic: during the reporting period COMESA experienced 2 lengthy periods during which the liquidity was down which apparently contributed to a slow implementation speed. The first “no liquidity” period was from July to October 2015, and was caused by a delayed disbursement from AUC. The second, from March to May 2016 was, however, caused by a late disbursement request from COMESA. In both cases COMESA managed to maintain to stay operational to some extent by borrowing funds from the Secretariat or other sources.

With the receipt of EUR 218,375.50 credited to COMESA’s account on 6 June 2016, the liquidity was re‐established at least for the next few months. However, still in the same month, COMESA paid back borrowed funds in the amount of EUR 93,490.42, leaving COMESA at the end of June 2016 with a to‐tal balance in Euro of EUR 132,279.05.

Given the activities which are on the way or upcoming soon (PCIA study, feasibility study, design and construction supervision contract) COMESA should make sure that the next withdrawal application is submitted as early as possible. The development of COMESA’s liquidity during the last project years is shown in the diagramme below.



30

Figure 2 Liquidity of COMESA January 2014 to June 2016

8.2.2 AUC bank account and transactions (component 1)

Component 2 operates a bank account with ING in Brussels for receiving funds from KfW and trans‐ferring funds to COMESA. During the reporting period there were only a few transactions: 2 dis‐bursements in favour of the funding window for onward transfer to COMESA (together EUR 355,125.05); 2 disbursements of management fees related to the disbursements to COMESA (EUR 9,754.65) and bank charges in the amount EUR 23.66. The account shows a balance at the end of June 2016 of EUR 12,105.60.

Table 11 Transactions of AUC special account

AUC reports, that out of this balance an amount of EURO 5,121.60 is actually still available to be spent for AUC’s management activities, while the rest is already used but not yet paid.



31

8.3 Overall Fund Balance

Until end of June 2016, a total of 2,037,829 million Euros have been disbursed by KFW, which is ap‐proximately 20% of the committed amount and thus significantly below the planned fund utilization. Accordingly, the amount still to be disbursed is 7,962,170 €.

Table 12 Overall Fund Balance: disbursements – still to be disbursed

Disbursement COMESA 753,951.93 €Disbursement AUC MgmtFee 22,618.56 €Disbursement JFA -direct 160,617.34 €Disbursement Audit -direct 45,168.69 €Disbursement GOPA -direct 631,103.99 €Disbursement GFA -direct 424,369.00 €

total disbursed 2,037,829.51 €

Due to the much longer than expected preparation period for the infrastructure projects, resulting in delays to start construction of infrastructures, the larger part of the funds (52%) until now was used for the consultants. AUC channelled the second largest share with 37% through to COMESA for the preparation of the cross‐border reconstruction & development measures. The remaining approxi‐mately 11% went into the JFA arrangement for the PCRD officer, for auditing and was disbursed to AUC as management fee.

8.4 Audit for financial year 2015

The audit for the financial year = calendar year 2015 was done well in time. Unfortunately, since the process to get the final audit reports signed took a long time, the report was handed in to KfW with a delay of a few weeks.

The auditor confirmed that for both components, AUC and COMESA, all financial statements and re‐ports are properly reflecting the transactions made and that all stipulations of the governing con‐

Funding window; 37%

AUC Mgmt Fee; 01%

JFA/PCRD salary; 08%

Auditing; 02%

Consulting GOPA; 31%

Consulting GFA; 21%



32

tracts and agreements have been complied with. The only critical remark the auditors raised was the apparently slow implementation speed.

9 Update on security status in border regions

9.1 Security and political situation in DRC

During the reporting period, the security and humanitarian situation in the eastern Democratic Re‐public of Congo (DRC) continued to be a cause for concern for both the DRC and other neighbouring countries mainly as a result of attacks from various negative forces present in the country that in‐cluded the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), the National Army for the Liberation of Uganda (NALU), and Mai Mai militia and the National Liberation Front ( FNL )

According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the number of in‐ternally displaced people in DRC stood at 1.6 million as of September 2015, with North Kivu province having the biggest share at 604,000. Concern was also raised over the closure of IDP camps in eastern DRC that risked leaving several thousand people homeless. In addition, since 27th March 2016, five IDP camps were deserted following clashes between the army and rebels forcing about 35,000 IDPs to take refuge in surrounding villages in Mpati area, south‐west of Goma. The UN also reported that decades of successive crises in DRC have left 7.5 million people ‐ nine percent of the population in need of humanitarian aid, including food.

In February 2016 the UN reported an increase of ethnic attacks in eastern DRC targeted at the Hutu community carried out by the Nande and Nyanga ethnic groups. In the attacks, at least 21 people were killed, about 40 others wounded and dozens of houses burnt. The U.N. Force Intervention Bri‐gade troops intervened to prevent further atrocities.

In June 2016, at a camp in Kamina, at least 9 people were killed during clashes when government forces prevented ex‐M23 fighters from leaving their camp. Talks between the DRC Government and ex‐M23 rebels continued leading to the ex‐M23 combatants agreeing to form a political party.

As regards the scheduled Presidential and Legislative elections to be held later in 2016, little progress was reported. The National Independent Electoral Commission (CENI) of DRC originally scheduled lo‐cal, provincial and national elections beginning in October 2015 and culminating in presidential and legislative elections on 27th November 2016. The Commission commenced the registration process of candidates for the provincial elections in April 2015. However, elections for local councillors and provincial deputies did not take place in October 2015 after the constitutional court ruled that budg‐etary and logistical constraints had made the current calendar untenable. In related developments, the CENI suffered a drawback by the resignations of both its president and vice president in succes‐sive months of October and November 2015. To replace the two, President Joseph Kabila swore in Corneille Nangaa and Norbert Basengezi as president and vice‐president of the CENI in November 2015, respectively.

In the reporting period, protests by the opposition and civil society groups (who accused the gov‐ernment of delaying elections to enable President Kabila to continue in office after the expiry of his term at the end of 2016) continued and worsened the already tense political atmosphere.

The UN further noted growing restrictions on DR Congo’s democratic space and warned that a fur‐ther delay in holding elections might fuel electoral violence in the whole country. Several warnings and security concerns by the UN followed in 2016, including a joint press statement by the African Union (AU), the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU) and the International Organization of



33

Francophone (IOF) issued on 16 February 2016 that underscored the necessity of an inclusive political dialogue in the DRC and their commitment to support the DRC actors towards the consolidation of democracy and peace in the country.

9.2 Security and political situation in Burundi

During the reporting period, the overall security and stability situation in Burundi continued to raise concern. Sporadic violence manifested through attacks and killings of political figures, military/police personnel, civil society activists and civilians were reported

The insecurity being experienced in Burundi is associated with the controversies surrounding the presidential elections held on 21st July 2015 and the failed coup to overthrow President Nkurunziza on 13th May 2015 whereby 4 generals and 21 army officers were convicted by a court of law for in‐volvement in the attempted coup. The upswing in insecurity was also blamed on the existence of armed militia groups and the proliferation of illegal arms after the failed coup of 13th May 2015. The African Commission on Human and People’s Rights through its fact‐finding mission that was conduct‐ed from 7th – 13th December 2015 documented ongoing human rights violations and other abuses including arbitrary killings and targeted assassinations, arrests, detentions, torture, and the suspen‐sion and closure of some civil society organizations.

As direct consequence of the security situation, the humanitarian situation deteriorated in the re‐porting period. Fear forced many Burundians to flee to neighbouring countries despite the govern‐ment’s continued assurance of security. According to UNHCR, approximately 127,000 Burundians had registered as refugees in DR Congo, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia as of 26th June 2015. The challenge of fleeing refugees brought about complications related to congested camps, poor living conditions, overstretched services and other facilities leading to outbreak of communicable diseases particularly cholera in some camps with women and children being the most affected. The upsurge on the number of refugees has had regional ramifications. To address the growing refugee problem, the UNHCR and 17 other partners launched the Regional Refugee Response Plan for USD 2017 million to protect and assist up to hundreds thousands of Burundian refugees spread out in neighbouring countries.

Another big consequence of the current crisis is the human rights abuses which abuses attracted the attention of the International Criminal Court (ICC). In April 2016, ICC launched a preliminary investi‐gation into the situation in Burundi aimed at determining whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant full investigation by the International Court and prefer charges.

The media freedom remained restricted in the reporting period. Following the failed coup of 13th May 2015, most private media houses were burnt down. The affected media houses remained closed and while addressing the UN assembly on 1st October 2015, the vice‐president Joseph Butore noted that 20 private media houses were facing investigation in connection to the failed coup. He further noted that other media houses were freely operating in Burundi

On a positive note, the regional and international community remained seized of the situation in Bu‐rundi and various initiatives aiming at resolving the current crisis mainly efforts to convince the gov‐ernment and opposition for an inclusive dialogue.

In its 3rd emergency summit at the level of Heads of State that was held on 6th July 2015 in Dar Es Salaam, President Yoweri Museveni was appointed to facilitate dialogue among the parties in Burun‐di with a view to finding solutions to the contentious issues. President Museveni facilitated several meetings with the parties concerned. In addition, during the 17th Ordinary Summit of the EAC that was held on 2nd March 2016, former Tanzanian President Benjamin Mkapa was appointed as a facili‐



34

tator to support the Burundi peace talks and he organized a political dialogue on the 21st – 24th of May in 2016 in Arusha, Tanzania. The dialogue forum brought together key stakeholders including: the Government of Burundi, former presidents of Burundi, political parties, civil society organizations and religious groups. The facilitator also held consultative sessions in Brussels with Burundians living in the diaspora from 9th to 11th June, 2016.

As of June 30th 2016, the newly appointed Facilitator in the Burundi dialogue was planning to con‐vene a second round of discussions in July, 2016 in Arusha Tanzania. It is hoped that the current situ‐ation in Burundi be resolved in a peaceful way..

9.3 Security situation at DRC/Uganda borders

During the reporting period, the following isolated incidents were reported:

• From Mpondwe TID violence was reported on voting day for the general elections, 18th Feb‐ruary 2016. One person was shot dead in Kasese, and four others were injured.

• In May 2016, a report from Mpondwe stated that 4 Ugandan police officers were killed by DRC soldiers along Lake Albert in Bundibugyo/Ntoroko. The bodies were taken to DRC; the Ugandan government demanded that DRC repatriates the bodies and compensates the fami‐lies

• From Mpondwe, it was also reported that on December 2015 some cases of kidnapping on the DRC side were carried out by unknown individuals. It was reported that people were tak‐en into the forest and released after paying a ransom

• During the reporting period a number of kidnappings have also occurred on the Bunagana‐Goma road with people having to pay amounts ranging from 500‐1000 dollars for their re‐lease. A soldier was even killed in September 2015 along the same road when the vehicle he was escorting was ambushed.

• During the reporting period, sporadic fightings have also been reported from an area 80 kms from Kasindi. Kidnappings are also said to be a regular recurrence

• ADF‐NALU remained a security threat to both DRC and Uganda, especially at the areas bor‐dering DRC including Kasindi/Mpondwe borders in Kasese District (Uganda) and Beni Territo‐ry (DRC)

• However, these incidents did not affect the trading in Bunagana border which has been se‐lected for the implementation of infrastructure projects under the AUC funding window.

9.4 DRC‐Rwanda and DRC‐Burundi borders

Recently, it has been reported that rebel groups from Burundi including the FNL (Front de Liberation National) are operating along the border between DRC and Burundi.

In September 2015 the militias ambushed a bank convoy from Bank Tembe that was carrying salaries for government employees; 11 soldiers and 3 civilians were killed in the incident.

In February 2016, fighting broke out between the Gumnino and Mai‐mai militias in the upper valley (haut‐plateau) and in the territory of Uvira in the Bijombo area. This resulted in a shortage of com‐modities in the main markets (Hwehwe, Bijombo, Ndayoberwa ) as goods mainly come from Bukavu and Uvira.

Though the FDLR remains to be a security threat to both DRC and Rwanda, there were no major inci‐dents in the DRC / Rwanda border area. However, according to a statement issued by the Rwanda army deputy spokesman, suspected FDLR elements infiltrated the country from the Democratic Re‐



35

public of Congo and attacked a Rwanda National Police Station in Rubavu District, Bugeshi Sector, during the night of 15‐16 April 2016.

10 Open/pending issues for AUC and/or KFW

There are no pending issues needing the intervention of KfW at the moment.

Consolidated Annual Report 2014 ‐ 2015


36

Annex 1 Results Matrix

Summary Success indicators Verification sources Assumptions / Risks

Programme objective The German Development Coop‐eration Programme contributes to the following objective: Con‐flicts within or between AU member states are mitigated suc‐cessfully by employing mecha‐nisms for crisis prevention of AU/RECs. Violent intra‐state and cross border conflicts are stopped and peace agreements are reached. Peace consolidation processes are initiated and ac‐companied inclusively and suc‐cessfully.

Indicator Name / Description: I1 At least half of the conflicts (intensity level 3‐5 of the Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Re‐search (HIIK)) within AU member states or cross border conflicts, in which conflict preventive measures of the AU together with RECs and international partners are employed, are successfully mitigated in 2015 (nur für TZ)

Sources: Reports of AUC, RECs/RMs, UN, Heidelberg Conflict Ba‐rometer, scientific analyses).

Risks: - lack of political will and lead‐ership within AU/MS for the peace and security agenda

- important countries choose to disengage from the coopera‐tion with AU or RECs

- partner support to the opera‐tionalisation of the APSA is discontinued

I2 Measures of conflict transformation of the AU or the RECs/RMs in violent intrastate or cross border conflicts (intensity level 3‐5 HIIK) improve the security situation of the local population

Reports of AUC, RECs/RMs, UN, Heidelberg Conflict Ba‐rometer, scientific analyses (measured by GIZ)

I3 The vertical cooperation between AUC and RECs as well as the horizontal cooperation between dif‐ferent units within the AUC are improved and contrib‐ute to an effective implementation in the field of con‐flict prevention, conflict transformation and PCRD and to an improved visibility and reputation of the AU

(above indicators measured by GIZ)

Reports by AUC and RECs based on baseline studies and evaluations, UN reports, sci‐entific analyses. (measured by GIZ)

Kommentiert [AlbJ29]: As soon as we receive the approval by the German ministry, we should revise and report along the new matrix. FOR THE FUTURE: Kindly fill the complete matrix includ-ing the indicators next time. A blanc matrix is not use-full!!!!



37


I4 The PCRD measures of AUC (and RECs) have improved the perception of living conditions of the population in African countries emerging from conflict. Baseline value: To be established during a baseline study at the begin‐ning of the project (2014?) Target values: At least half of the respondents indicate an improve‐ment in living conditions in terms of income, health, education etc. in comparison to their situation during the baseline study. Actual Value 2015 Actual Value 2016 Actual Value 2017

APSA Assessment Reports, evaluation reports of joint projects, increase of joint pro‐jects and missions, reports by AUC and RECs.

Project Objective: Improved living conditions of the population in border areas of post‐conflict countries (physical dimension)

Indicator Name / Description: I5 75% of the constructed infrastructure is used and maintained according to design at final appraisal Baseline value (2014): 0% Target values: 75% used and maintained according to design.

Actual Value 2015 Actual Value 2016 Actual Value 2017

Sources: baseline studies, mid‐term and final evaluations of COMESA in the different pro‐ject regions

Risks: - Relapse into conflict and inse‐curity in post‐conflict areas

- Capacity constraints within AUC - High dependency on donor funding for PCRD

- Cooperation between AUC and COMESA depends on involved individuals



38


I6 The individual perception of living conditions especially of small‐scale traders in border areas of post conflict countries has improved Baseline value: To be established during a baseline study at the beginning of the project (2014) Target values: Share of respondents saying their living conditions have improved, has increased at least by 50% since project start.


baseline studies, mid‐term and final evaluations of COMESA in the different pro‐ject regions

- Limited experiences in the im‐plementation of small‐scale cross border infrastructure at COMESA level

- Low participation and owner‐ship of population and local au‐thorities in the project areas

Institutional strengthening and improved cooperation within the APSA framework between AUC and RECs in the area of PCRD (administrative dimension)

I7 AUC and RECs apply the jointly developed rules and procedures according to APSA objectives (rejected reports of RECs by AUC < 10%, percentage of payments transferred in due time (within 10 working days after receipt of payment) > 90%) (To be established at the beginning of the project (2014) Baseline value: rejected reports ‐ Transferred in time

Actual Value 2014 50% Target values: rejected reports ‐ Transferred in time

<10% >90% Actual Value 2015 Actual Value 2016 Actual Value 2017

Minutes of Oversight Commit‐tee, mid‐term and final evalu‐ation



39


I8 AUC and RECs are active players in the area of cross‐border PCRD activities (increase of PCRD activities that go beyond the German contribution) Baseline value: To be established during a baseline study at the beginning of the project (2014) Target values: Increase of PCRD activities that go be‐yond the German contribution (to be determined)


Minutes of Oversight Commit‐tee, mid‐term and final evalu‐ation

Output 1: AUC Capacity in the field of infra‐structure in post‐conflict situa‐tions is strengthened.

Activities: - Establishment of funding window for cross‐border activities of RECs in the area of infrastructure in post‐conflict situations at AUC.

- Contribution to JFA Salaries (PCRD and DDR) - Elaboration of technical studies in the field of PCRD and DDR

Risks: - Delays in disbursements due to coordination challenges

- Delays in implementation - Political priorities differ from programme objective

- Procedural delays (late signing of contracts, MoUs etc.) Output 2:

REC(s) implement cross‐border infrastructure measures in the area of PCRD effectively.

Activities: - Construction of economic infrastructure (Pilot pro‐ject: roads, markets, storage facilities)

- Construction of administrative infrastructure (Pilot project: Trade Information Desks and Border Offices)

- Capacity Building to sustain investments (user groups trainings)

- Pilot project: Sensitization of target groups and relat‐ed stakeholders on cross‐cutting issues (HIV/AIDS, Gender, Conflict Mediation)

- Management of the Programme at the AU and REC level, Audits, Mid‐Term Review



40



41

Annex 2 Project Human Resources (financed through KFW)

secured used remain JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN

Component 1 ‐ Positions budget budget budgetProject Coordinator 60 33 27 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Project advisor/Procurement Officer 60 32 28 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Project assistant 60 33 27 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Project Accountant 56 27 29 1 1 1 1 1 1

LT Advisor 47.5 25.1 22.4 0.5 0.5 0.2 1.1 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 1 1

LT Reg. Advisor border regions 1 & 4 37 23.5 13.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 1.1 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 1 1

LT Reg. Advisor border regions 2 & 3 13.3 13.3 0

Reg./local expert pool 8.9 4.4 4.5 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 1 1

Goma/DRC TID Manager 47 36.0 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Rubavu/Rwanda TID Manager 47 36.0 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 130Gatumba/Burundi TID Manager 47 36.0 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 133Kavimvira/DRC TID Manager 47 36.0 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 130Kasindi/DRC TID Manager 47 36.0 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 133Mpondwe/Uganda TID Manager 47 36.0 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 133Bunagana/DRC TID Manager 47 36.0 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 130Bunagana/Uganda TID Manager 47 36.0 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 130Kasumbalesa/DRC TID Manager 42 36.0 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Kasumbalesa/Zambia TID Managers(2 25 18.0 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Component 2

PCRD Officer 60 21.7 38.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 x

LTA advisor (intermittent) 25 15.0 10.05 0.8 0.1 0.4 1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 0 0.5 0.5 1

Short‐term experts

Moderator, BLS, M&E, 8.3 2.3 6.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4

person/months 2016

Q3‐2015

2015

Q4‐2015 Q1‐2016 Q2‐2016



42

Annex 3 Budget Monitoring & Forecast: Component 1 COMESA as per June 30, 2016



43

Annex 4 Budget Monitoring & Forecast Component 2 AUC as per June 30, 2015



44



45

Annex 5 Annual Work Plan Component 1: 2016‐2017



46

Annex 6 Annual Work Plan Component 2 for 2016 ‐ 2017



47

Component 2 Annual Work Plan July 2016 – June 2017 (page 2)



48

Component 2 Annual Work Plan July 2016 – June 2017 (page 3)



49 | P a g e

2015-2016 Consolidated Annual Progress Report 20160825 KfW … › sites › default › files ›...

Documents

Transcript of 2015-2016 Consolidated Annual Progress Report 20160825 KfW … › sites › default › files ›...