Context
The recasting of the former Organization of African Unity (OAU) as the African Union (AU) posed enormous challenges for the African community of states, and particularly its secretariat, the African Union Commission (AUC). The OAU saw itself primarily as a lobbying organisation operating within Africa’s decolonisation movement. The AU, on the other hand, seeks to press ahead with the political and economic integration of Africa, and to gradually become the continent’s leading supra-national organisation.
The AUC therefore also had to become a functioning organisation in terms of administration and management. Programme and financial planning, accountability and human resource management are just some of the areas that needed to be restructured and realigned.
How must a streamlined, effective and lean organisation look if it is to successfully drive the process of African integration and live up to its promises and statutory commitments? Country quotas and political motives often had a major influence on job placements in the OAU, with criteria such as the efficiency and qualifications of staff often not the primary consideration.
Changes in international development cooperation have also meant new tasks for the AUC. Today, donors and AU member states are more concerned about what their support is actually achieving and calling for more transparency, accountability and results monitoring.
Objective
The African Union Commission is a modern and effective administrative body that successfully drives integration in Africa.
Approach
The programme is working closely with the Bureau of the Deputy Chairperson (BDCP), which is responsible for institution and capacity building. The BDCP plays a central role in the AUC. Not only is it responsible for coordinating internal strategy and management processes and ensuring accountability to the AU member states, but is also in charge of human resource management throughout the AU system.
Since 2004, GIZ has been supporting the strategic plan for the institutional transformation of the AU, partly in cooperation with the KfW Development Bank. The AUC has been trained in areas such as medium-term financial and expenditure planning as well as accountability, and has been advised on how to improve HR policies, particularly for female managers.
A monitoring and evaluation system to assess performance combined with the development of a set of different indicators and the compilation of statistical data will make the AUC more accountable and transparent vis-à-vis the AU Assembly.
In 2013, a GIZ-funded consortium studied the capacity of all AU directorates and their departments to execute their mandates and duties. The report on this ambitious programme will further drive the process of aligning the organisational structure with its tasks in 2014.
Results
The programme has been successful in considerably improving the planning and management systems, both in the AUC and in the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD).
A new project and budgeting system was developed to reduce transaction costs. The Commission is now in a better position to process donor financing agreements. Middle managers have been given extra-occupational training in organisational development and stakeholder management, which in turn enables them to become change agents. They are expected to ensure that the planned change processes are strategically and sustainably implemented, and to mainstream the principles of institutional effectiveness and efficiency in the organisation.
A seconded Ghanaian advisor, who had already played a role in restructuring Ghana’s budget, was able to take the planning and policy development processes forward. This resulted in the first programme budget in 2011. While this first effort left much room for improvement, a significantly optimised budget was subsequently produced by the 2013 financial year.
The AUC’s capacity to implement basket funding arrangements, i.e. pooling the funds of several donors, has been considerably enhanced. The organisation now already meets four of the five EU criteria for fund management in institutions. In comparison, only a single criterion was met as recently as 2010.