MCA Monitor Blog

Reflections on the June 11 Meeting of MCA Eligible Countries in Africa
In Accra on June 11-12, 2007
By Sarah Cannon

By observing various African leaders interact with MCC representatives at this meeting, it became clear that the MCC is a different approach to development assistance than the programs to which these leaders have become accustomed. As a Fulbright Researcher in Ghana for the past eight months, I have been following the beginning stages of implementation of the MCA-Ghana Compact, particularly its emphasis on country ownership, the use of selection criteria and its commitment to serious evaluation. The presentations by MCC representatives at this meeting made it clear that the MCC is very serious about setting rigorous criteria, performance evaluation and inspiring competition between recipient countries for more funds. The recipient countries supported the principles set forth but expressed dissatisfaction with the addition of new indicators and frustration with the laborious procedures and the control exerted by the MCC during the implementation process. In their final recommendations at the end of the conference, the eligible countries asked that the MCC support real and effective ownership which they felt had been lacking thus far. I heard the following concerns raised by African representatives:

• Maintaining Eligibility

Over the course of the meeting, MCC representatives made it clear that if countries regress on a specific number of criteria and their overall rating falls below a certain level their funding can be reduced or revoked entirely. Many aid agencies claim to penalize countries and never follow through, but as one Ghanaian representative mentioned, the MCC has already demonstrated that suspension is a real threat (e.g. the cases of Yemen and the Gambia). Recipient country representatives accepted and yielded these warnings, but expressed concerns about when and how their continued eligibility would be assessed.
All recipient countries in attendance recognized the value of the performance indicators but commented on the difficulty involved in trying to influence policy within their countries (to maintain positive performance on all the indicators) while trying to implement their compacts in a limited timeframe. MCC reps responded by saying that the in country implementing agency should have a separate ‘locus’ or staff person dedicated to monitoring domestic policy and pushing for a policy agenda in line with the expectations outlined by the MCC. I wonder if this suggestion is realistic: How can the MCC serve as an incentive structure with concrete demands from recipient countries while also being realistic about the demands of project implementation?
In addition, countries are concerned about the impact of adding the two new indicators, one on natural resource management and the other on access to land (presumably in the FY2008 selection round). Many current compact countries will see a decrease in their overall scores as a result of the addition of these criteria. Recipient countries were anxious to know how the MCC defines access to land and whether the MCC would be sensitive to the different countries’ historical problems with land distribution. Will there be a limit to the number of new criteria added? What happens to those countries that are eligible and, upon the addition of criteria, do not pass the indicators test?

• Burdensome Procedural Constraints

The main legal advisor from the Ghana team opened his speech on legal challenges by stating that the process is taking too long and extensive legal requirements are a significant source of delay. Many recipient country representatives agreed and articulated how laborious and time consuming, if not impossible, it is to change domestic laws, especially in time for the compact to move forward at a reasonable pace. The recipient countries requested that compact formulation procedures be standardized and streamlined and that the MCC establish clear arrangements and priorities for the period between compact signing and entry into force which has caused both confusion and serious delay.
As Dr. Chambas, the President of the ECOWAS Council commented, “There is talk that the MCA has been slow off the blocks, even after signing let us move faster and let the people truly benefit.” In Ghana’s case, the compact was signed in August 2006 but projects have yet to make any substantial progress on the ground despite their implementing agency’s efforts to ‘fast track’ some of their community services projects in the targeted regions. It’s looking like projects in Ghana will not truly begin until 2008. Extensive requirements and monitoring are central to the MCC’s way of doing business, however; results and efficiency are desired outcomes from their ‘improved’ model for development assistance. What is the most desirable trade off between being thorough and seeing results?

• Donor control through Conditions Precedent rather than Compact design?

In their final recommendations, the participating countries said that the country ownership character of the MCA should go beyond project development to project implementation. When I asked a recipient country representative if the MCC was different from other aid projects in terms of country ownership, she claimed that the MCC is using the conditions precedent to control the projects targeted rather than through the project design process which other aid programs control more overtly.
Another potential constraint to genuine country ownership was raised by MCC representatives themselves who cautioned recipient countries that the changing nature of domestic politics in the US may lead to a shift in the focus of compacts. Future compacts may include more funds allocated specifically for social services which will probably mean less funding for other project objectives like private sector growth. This gets back to a central question; does the MCC truly represent a different model of development assistance? Is it free from the political constraints and contingencies that have prevented other aid projects from being country owned? What is the appropriate balance between country ownership and efforts towards objectivity and rigorous evaluation by the MCC such as the application of indicators and monitoring?