Evaluation of PACE Staff Competencies, the Management Structure, Management Systems and the Working Relations.

(i) Through the Organization of African Unity, now the African Union Inter-African Bureaufor Animal Resources (AU/IBAR) the European Union has funded a five year Euro 72million programme to support the livestock sector in 30 Sub Saharan countries fromMauritania in the west to the Horn of Africa in the east. Targeted is the control ofEpizootics coupled to animal productivity. At the end of the project in October 2004 dueto administrative and procedural delays few countries had completed their work planswith a corresponding amount of funds unspent. Thus an extension of the programmewas granted up until February 2007 although the work programme had to be completedby October 2006. An additional Euro 5 million was included in the package primarily tofund the Project Coordinating Unit (PCU) whose role has been to coordinate and supportthe programme in the 30 participating countries.(ii) Rider No. 1 to the original financing agreement No. 6125/REG in granting theextension included several pre conditions one of which was to carry out an independentevaluation of the contribution of PACE to IBAR capacity building, including anassessment of staff performance by December 31st2004. Due to events on the groundwhich delayed the in approval of PACE PCU work programmes this study has beendelayed and has now been carried out by an international and a local consultantbetween the 6-20thMay 2005.(iii) Already the project is moving towards an exit strategy which influenced theconsultants thinking and deliberations. Serious staff changes if required at this stagecould perhaps only cause upheaval, destroy the corporate memory and result in moreproblems than they were intended to resolve. In any event the already ambitious globalstrategy till completion of PACE warrants the retention till at least mid 2006 of theexisting cadre with a phased lay off to follow. Retiring work plans and cost estimates andclosing the programme across 30 countries will require a major effort particularly fromthe finance staff and we were able to quickly agree that additional qualified staff wereurgently needed. To help prepare AU/IBAR absorb the lessons and the knowledge ofPACE and in particular transmit to the participating countries the need for continuedvigilance and follow up after the conclusion of the PACE programme warrants in theconsultants opinion an additional staff member attached to the proposed Information andCommunications Unit.(iv) Whilst much of the benefits of PACE are identified at country level the PCU had acrucial role to play in the coordination of the programme and the technical support tonational coordinators to follow the purpose and designated activities of the programme.Relationships could not be described as amicable between the professional staff duringthe early years of the PCU. Neither was the relationship between the donor, the EC andthe RAO and PACE management. We hastily wish to add that most of these problemsappear now to have been resolved and there is now a platform for mutual respect inplace. It is opportune to note at this point that a second obligation of the rider, that ofAU/IBAR absorbing two professional PACE staff members onto its permanentestablishment, is now underway with the question of accompanying operational costsunder discussion. The contribution that PACE has made to IBAR understanding of theneeds and aspirations of the 30 countries is immense. The absorption of these twoprofessional will strengthen the cord through which further technical information will flowto AU/IBAR before the conclusion of PACE. (v) To ensure the project fulfils its potential and achieves its targets over the coming 18months will require an acceleration of effort. Programme implementation has not and willnot continue to be easy. The complexity of dealing with 30 countries, many with differentagendas has been difficult. For the EC lead delegation in Nairobi they also had to copewith the burden of a major commission reorganisation programme alongside changingprocedures. They are to be complimented for sticking to the task. In the AU/IBAR PACEstructure there has been a dichotomy of management which hopefully is now over.(vi) The majority of existing local staff have been at PACE PCU since inception. Perhapsthis has introduced a level of complacency and we have stressed the need for strongcentralised management and the need for the staff to rise to the challenge ahead asthere is already severe time slippage in the extension phase. Technically we areconvinced that the present staff are well capable of meeting this challenge but there is aneed to reorganise and strengthen the finance and administration units. The recentlyappointed Financial Controller (we prefer Manager) has the situation well in hand butspeedy management decisions are required to reorganise the administrative functionsand role of the staff involved.(vii) Examples of past unsystematic management are slow decision making, absence ofupdated job descriptions and a manual of procedures left updated since the year 2000.There is also a need to prioritise tasks. After a work shop to discuss action plansurgently required for the balance of the extension phase on the 10 -11 May seniortechnical staff en masse left for a weeks international conferencing on the 19-20 Maywith the action plans still outstanding. There has to be a process of sharedrepresentation at these gatherings or we would understand and agree with the donor ifthey declined to meet the total costs.(viii) Our examination of the PACE staff conditions of service produced some disturbingresults. Local staff are paid at rates and conditions of service set by AU in Addis Ababa.These rates are hugely disproportionate to local salary levels including those of otherinternational agencies who divulged figures to us. It is not in our brief to comment on thesalary scales applied to local Kenyan staff by AU/IBAR but the consultants feel justifiedin stating that there is a level up to which you can ask a donor to pay. In this instance wesuggest that the RAO and PACE coordinator enter into discussions with EC officials onthis issue before the next work plan can be agreed.(xi) We suggest that there is a need to reorganize the delivery structure and havepresented an alternative organigramme. This is based on the premise that whilst thetransfer of knowledge and skills to IBAR is a priority the success or failure of theprogramme will be judged at national level.(xii) Technical assistance has played a major role in the development of this project notalways positive it has to be agreed. They present cadre are well experienced and theirskills should be used to the full. We have made recommendations on maximising theirinputs. The need for a proper exit strategy is clear and it must include a phasedhandover to IBAR where there has we understand been recent additions to the staffestablishment. Close working relationships between the project and the IBAR staff areessential in the months ahead. Eighteen months is not a long time to go.