3.1.1 Context – PRSPs and Capacity Building

Over the past few decades, substantial financial resources have been devoted to TA in African countries. Results in terms of capacity building in public institutions have been far below what was planned and hoped for. The absorptive capacity of the economies of African countries remains very low, and their economic growth rates are well below what is required for reducing poverty. African leaders, the IMF, and donors agree that insufficient capacity (lack of a critical mass of talented people, and more generally of national capacity) has been a key bottleneck in the implementation of economic reforms and constitutes a major constraint to poverty reduction efforts. Capacity building (Box 3.1 - Capacity Building), particularly in areas related to macroeconomic policy, is instrumental and must be the core of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) process.

The PRSP process has been a priority program for poverty-reducing reform over the past few years. One of its key objectives is to provide a means to coordinate donor assistance, including capacity-building efforts. However, no PRSP fully articulates (a) measures required to develop the necessary administrative capacity for reducing poverty, (b) prioritization of capacity- building needs, and (c) identification of potential donor assistance to address these needs.

To date, the majority of AFRITAC member countries have prepared a fully participatory PRSP, whereas others have an interim PRSP. Only two countries have a separate Capacity Building Reform Plan. Table 3.1 presents the PRSP preparation status of the countries covered by the present initiative. Since 2002, PRSP preparation has progressed, whereas only a few countries have completed a Capacity Building Reform Plan. The IMF and World Bank country missions are helping countries to prepare their PRSPs via a participatory process (involving all stakeholders in civil society) but not in the Capacity Building Reform process.

Table 3.1 -

PRSP Preparation Status

(2002 versus 2004)

Table 3.1 -

PRSP Preparation Status

(2002 versus 2004)

AFRITAC Countries	PRSP Process Stage
	2002			2004
	Full PRSP	Interim PRSP (I-PRSP)	Capacity-Building Reform Plan	Full PRSP	Interim PRSP (I-PRSP)	Capacity-Building Reform Plan
EAST				√
Eritrea					√ (draft)
Ethiopia		√		√		√
Kenya		√		√
Rwanda		√		√
Tanzania	√			√
Uganda	√			√
WEST
Benin		√		√
Burkina Faso	√			√
Côte d’Ivoire					√	√
Guinea				√
Guinea-Bissau		√			√
Mali		√		√
Mauritania				√
Niger	√			√
Senegal		√		√
Togo					√

View Table

Table 3.1 -

PRSP Preparation Status

(2002 versus 2004)

AFRITAC Countries	PRSP Process Stage
	2002			2004
	Full PRSP	Interim PRSP (I-PRSP)	Capacity-Building Reform Plan	Full PRSP	Interim PRSP (I-PRSP)	Capacity-Building Reform Plan
EAST				√
Eritrea					√ (draft)
Ethiopia		√		√		√
Kenya		√		√
Rwanda		√		√
Tanzania	√			√
Uganda	√			√
WEST
Benin		√		√
Burkina Faso	√			√
Côte d’Ivoire					√	√
Guinea				√
Guinea-Bissau		√			√
Mali		√		√
Mauritania				√
Niger	√			√
Senegal		√		√
Togo					√

3.1.2 Initial Purpose of the Project

In response to the capacity-building gap, particularly in macroeconomic policy areas, the IMF launched in May 2002 its Africa Capacity Building Initiative, stating that “Assistance in developing comprehensive capacity-building strategies within the PRSP process is, therefore, one of the main objectives of this project.”² The creation of the AFRITAC initiative stems from the initial success of similar initiatives in both the Caribbean and Pacific regions. Other reasons given for creating the AFRITACs were as follows:³

• The inability of countries to administer measures that are necessary for reducing poverty is one of the core problems in these countries.

• Building the capacity of African governments for macroeconomic management is a key component of the strategy to reduce poverty.

• The PRSP process is the principal mechanism to help develop a country-driven reform program and to coordinate donor assistance, including capacity-building efforts.

• Capacity-building efforts in the context of implementing PRSPs are hampered by the shortage of personnel in the field with expertise in specialized areas, whose responsibility is primarily to help the countries (a) identify and prioritize needs, (b) design TA projects, (c) promote coordination among TA providers, and (d) follow-up on the implementation of projects.

• Insufficient follow-up and inadequate coordination have at times limited the long-run impact of the IMF’s TA.

• The AFRITACs will help close these gaps in the provision of TA in a cost-effective manner.

The successful implementation of two pilot projects centers in Africa (East and West) that would supplement and enhance the effectiveness of IMF TA to the two sub-regions was to be a precursor to a total of five regional TA centers (TACs). Operating in close vicinity to participating countries, the centers would be a source of high-quality TA, promptly available to address emerging problems and requests for assistance and improve coordination of TA resources. The centers would give recipient governments greater input to shaping the assistance they received while increasing their accountability. “The centers will be designed to increase efficiency, foster ownership, enhance accountability, and strengthen coordination among technical assistance providers and recipients as rapidly as possible, and in concert with the implementation of PRSP.”

3.2.1 Project Objectives

The project’s strategic goal is to strengthen the capacity of the sub-Saharan countries to design and implement their poverty-reducing strategies as well as to improve the coordination of capacity-building TA in the PRSP process. This should help the African countries develop their own capacity-building programs for effective macromanagement in the context of the PRSP process.

The Board approved the project on April 24, 2002; its objectives (see Box 3.2) are to be achieved by (a) establishing regional TACs in sub-Saharan Africa and (b) the IMF’s participation in the Partnership for Capacity Building in Africa (PACT).

The IMF thought that, to complement existing capacity-building efforts and avoid duplication, the Initiative should provide for the IMF to participate in PACT and strengthen cooperation with other regional TA providers.

The IMF was to become a member of the African Capacity Building Foundation (ACBF), the implementing agency of the PACT. The plan was to use its contribution to the ACBF to finance ACBF training activities designed and implemented jointly by the ACBF and the AFRITACs. The IMF would sit on ACBF’s Board of Governors and ACBF would participate in each AFRITAC’s SC as an observer.

To the extent possible, the African Development Bank (AfDB) and AFRITAC were to work closely to enhance financial governance. Through the PRSP process and its membership in the SC, the AfDB would play an important role in developing AFRITAC’s work plans and its macroeconomic management TA.

AFRITAC was to seek closer cooperation with regional training institutions such as the Economic and Statistical Observatory for sub-Saharan Africa (AFRISTAT), the Macroeconomic and Financial Management Institute for Eastern and Southern Africa (MEFMI), the West African Institute for Financial and Economic Management (WAIFEM), and the Joint Africa Institute.

3.2.2 AFRITAC Governance and Organizational Structure

The project’s first two centers were established in Tanzania and in Mali. East AFRITAC covers six countries (Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda), and West AFRITAC includes ten countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, and Togo).

East AFRITAC opened in October 2002 and is located in a commercial building provided by the Central Bank of Tanzania located in Dar es Salaam. West AFRITAC, originally scheduled to be located in Abidjan, was temporarily moved to Bamako, Mali, for 18 months and is housed in the BCEAO building. West AFRITAC was inaugurated in May 2003, seven months after its Eastern counterpart.

The main function of the centers is to

• Help member governments design and develop a comprehensive capacity-building program within the PRSP process and provide assistance in the coordination process among national authorities and TA providers;

• Support each country’s capacity-building program in the IMF’s areas of competence (macroeconomic policy, including tax policy and revenue administration, public expenditure management, monetary policy, the exchange rate system, financial sector sustainability, and macroeconomic statistics); and

• Conduct training seminars and workshops. The centers also collaborate with, and support, training activities of other African institutions such as the ACBF. However, training is not envisaged to be the centers’ core activity.

The initial AFRITAC planning conference, held in Paris in July 2002, developed guiding principles for the governance and operation of the centers, while recognizing the need for flexibility in implementation.⁵ The IMF’s African Department and OTM have joint responsibility for supervising the project’s implementation and administration. SCs provide guidance to the AFRITACs. (See attached organizational chart.)

AFRITAC Organization Chart

Citation: Policy Papers 2005, 003; 10.5089/9781498331654.007.A001

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

View Full Size

AFRITAC Organization Chart

Citation: Policy Papers 2005, 003; 10.5089/9781498331654.007.A001

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

AFRITAC Organization Chart

Citation: Policy Papers 2005, 003; 10.5089/9781498331654.007.A001

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

3.2.3 Sterring Comittee

Each center is guided by an SC, composed on a constituency basis of representatives from the participating countries and supporting donor agencies, as well as observers from key regional institutions involved in capacity building and the Center Coordinator (CC) and IMF representatives. Other regional institutions and providers, where relevant, are invited as observers. The SC composition varies between the two centers (see Table 3.2). The East AFRITAC SC’s membership appears to be weighted toward central bank representatives.

Table 3.2 -

Steering Committee Composition

(2002 versus 2004)

Table 3.2 -

Steering Committee Composition

(2002 versus 2004)

East AFRITAC	West AFRITAC
Chairperson – Economic Advisor to the Government of Eritrea, Ministry of National Development (formerly Governor of the Bank of Tanzania)	Chairperson - Minister of Finance of Mali
6 participating countries	10 participating countries
3 donor representatives (Canada, Italy, and Sweden—representing a dozen donor agencies on a constituency basis)	3 donor reps (Canada, France, and Germany—representing a dozen donor agencies on a constituency basis)
African Development Bank (AfDB)	African Development Bank (AfDB)
IMF	IMF
	BCEAO
Observer status: - ACBF	Observer status: - ACBF - West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) - Economic and Statistical Observatory for sub-Saharan Africa (AFRISTAT)

View Table

Table 3.2 -

Steering Committee Composition

(2002 versus 2004)

East AFRITAC	West AFRITAC
Chairperson – Economic Advisor to the Government of Eritrea, Ministry of National Development (formerly Governor of the Bank of Tanzania)	Chairperson - Minister of Finance of Mali
6 participating countries	10 participating countries
3 donor representatives (Canada, Italy, and Sweden—representing a dozen donor agencies on a constituency basis)	3 donor reps (Canada, France, and Germany—representing a dozen donor agencies on a constituency basis)
African Development Bank (AfDB)	African Development Bank (AfDB)
IMF	IMF
	BCEAO
Observer status: - ACBF	Observer status: - ACBF - West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) - Economic and Statistical Observatory for sub-Saharan Africa (AFRISTAT)

According to the project document, “each Steering Committee will assess achievements in every participating country against benchmarks that will be agreed in the annual work plans. The benchmarks will be used to specify which measures the recipient countries will have to take within the context of the technical assistance to be provided, and which will be the basis on which to review what the countries have actually achieved; whether steps have been taken to implement the recommendations of the TA; or whether the assistance provided has resulted in reform.”⁶

The SCs normally meet twice a year to provide guidance for the centers’ strategy and priorities, approve their work programs, and monitor implementation (Box 3.3). Each SC is chaired by a representative from a participating African Government.

The SC governance structure is destined to promote African ownership, accountability through peer review, and systematic evaluation of the centers (Table 3.2).

3.2.4 AFRITAC Staffing

The AFRITAC centers are staffed by a CC, long-term resident advisors, an administrative assistant, an office manager, and support staff. East AFRITAC’s team of resident advisors numbers five and West AFRITAC’s, six. The number and area of specialization of the resident advisors vary according to the number of countries covered by the centers and local demand. Appendix IX presents both the East and West AFRITAC Staffing.

3.2.5 Center Coordinator

The day-to-day management, administration, and operations of the AFRITACs are delegated to the CCs, with close supervision by the relevant departments at IMF Headquarters. This is in line with the project document whereby “the leadership and management of each center’s activities and staff will be the responsibility of the Center Coordinator.” The coordinators are senior staff members who report to the IMF’s African Department and OTM. The CCs are responsible for maintaining close relationships with the client countries, acting as a liaison with the relevant IMF departments, the bilateral donors, the AfDB, the ACBF, the World Bank, and other TA providers in the region. Finally, the CCs also serve as secretaries to their respective SCs (Box 3.4).

The CC answers to the IMF African Department and OTM and has a counterpart, currently an advisor, who acts as a link within the organization.

The CC supervises the AFRITAC support staff and, jointly with the relevant IMF technical department, the resident advisors. The technical department controls TA quality and the CC manages day-to-day operations.

3.2.6 Resident Advisors

Resident advisors are long-term advisors, most of whom have previously worked in the region with the IMF. Selected by the IMF, the resident advisors are specialists in the IMF’s core areas of expertise. Whenever possible, the centers recruit qualified staff from Africa. Starting in 2005, three of the eleven advisors in the two centers will be citizens of member countries. Day to day the resident advisors work under the guidance of their CC, especially in their consultation and coordination roles—including contacts with officials of finance ministries, central banks, and donor agencies. Each resident advisor confers with his or her HQ backstopper, who ensures that the technical quality of the advisor’s work meets international standards and best practices. Resident advisors submit a monthly activity report to IMF HQ and the CC and prepare quarterly reports for the SCs.

A brief review of resident advisors’ Terms of Reference (TOR) reflects a diverging view of their and AFRITAC’s roles on the part of the technical departments (Box 3.5). In some TORs, the resident advisor’s role is depicted as largely managerial, whereas other TORs outline a more technical role. The resident advisor can be (and has in some cases been) called upon to serve on technical department missions. The accountability of the resident advisor to two authorities makes for ambiguity in a number of TORs.

The centers also provide short-term experts, supervised by the resident advisors, to assist the recipient governments in implementing the capacity-building projects included in each center’s work plan. As shown in Table 3.3 and Chart 3.1, derived from timesheets furnished by the two centers, recruitment and supervision of short-term experts (termed “indirect TA” by the centers) represented 21% of East AFRITAC resident advisors’ time during the 22 months through October 2004. The corresponding figure for West AFRITAC (February–October 2004) was only 10% (Table 3.3).

Table 3.3 -

Time Allocation of AFRITAC Resident Advisors

Table 3.3 -

Time Allocation of AFRITAC Resident Advisors

	East	West
Direct TA	41%	66%
Indirect TA	21%	10%
Management / meetings	25%	9%
Workshops	13%	14%
TOTAL	100%	100%

View Table

Table 3.3 -

Time Allocation of AFRITAC Resident Advisors

	East	West
Direct TA	41%	66%
Indirect TA	21%	10%
Management / meetings	25%	9%
Workshops	13%	14%
TOTAL	100%	100%

Distribution of Time by AFRITAC Resident Advisors

Citation: Policy Papers 2005, 003; 10.5089/9781498331654.007.A001

(Source: AFRITAC Timesheets)

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

View Full Size

Distribution of Time by AFRITAC Resident Advisors

Citation: Policy Papers 2005, 003; 10.5089/9781498331654.007.A001

(Source: AFRITAC Timesheets)

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

Distribution of Time by AFRITAC Resident Advisors

Citation: Policy Papers 2005, 003; 10.5089/9781498331654.007.A001

(Source: AFRITAC Timesheets)

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

Conversely, West AFRITAC advisors devoted two-thirds of their time to direct TA, compared with 41% in the East. East AFRITAC advisors spent over twice as much of their time (25%) on management and meetings as did their counterparts in the West (9%). This reflects that West AFRITAC advisors supervised fewer short-term experts than did the East AFRITAC advisors. In both centers, advisors spent 13–14% of their time preparing for or conducting regional workshops (Chart 3.1).

Several issues could explain differences in time allocation between various categories (direct TA, indirect TA, Workshops, Management) and between East and West AFRITAC. These include the differences in TA needs between the two regions; the volume of donor activity in the regions; the different budget allocation to activities; the SC decisions on country priorities; the management versus TA delivery priority in the resident advisors’ job descriptions; and the CC’s management style.

3.2.7 Support Staff

Both centers are supported by an administrative assistant, an office manager, and a staff assistant. East AFRITAC is supported by two staff members on loan from the Bank of Tanzania. All other employees are hired directly by the CC. In the West, the Malian Government has provided a lump sum payment for hiring the center’s support staff. Job descriptions for these positions may be found in Appendix X.

3.2.8 AFRITAC Activities

The work plans prepared by the AFRITACs summarize delivery of TA and training activities. They present planned TA as well as progress to date. It should be noted that the work plans include no other management information that might help SC members guide or follow AFRITAC’s progress. This will be further discussed in Section 4.2.5. The CCs present other information in an ad hoc manner. The following paragraphs describe AFRITAC’s service delivery: work plans and TA and training activity (Box 3.6).

Work Plan

Design: The initial project design required a capacity-building needs assessment for each country. At regional conferences held in Nairobi and Dakar in June and July 2002, respectively, the IMF, representatives of AFRITAC member countries, and donors agreed on an initial assessment of TA needs presented by country representatives to be addressed by the two centers. This assessment was reinforced and supplemented at a unified preparatory conference in Paris in July 2002. Following its inauguration in October 2002, the East AFRITAC team (excluding one resident advisor not yet in post) visited all six member macromanagement countries (Dec 2002) to make initial contact with the authorities and deepen the discussion of TA needs. As a result of the need to relocate its headquarters from Abidjan to Bamako, the West AFRITAC team’s initial tour took place only from June to August 2003. On the basis of those tours and the earlier discussions, the teams drafted 2003 work plans (for West AFRITAC it was an interim work plan for September 2003–January 2004) providing for activities by each advisor in most or all of the countries.

In principle, the work plans are approved by the respective SCs. The second meeting of East AFRITAC’s SC in January 2003 approved its work plan “in principle,” with the proviso that a revised version reflecting comments of SC members be circulated as early as possible. This was done shortly after the meeting.

The meeting also discussed a draft procedure for approval of urgent member country requests for assistance outside the approved work plan, and a document reflecting SC comments was likewise circulated shortly afterward. The document stipulated conditions under which such requests should be considered, along with procedures for rapid SC approval.

The West AFRITAC work plan was submitted to its second SC meeting in September 2003, where members expressed satisfaction subject to a few observations. No formal approval action was taken, and no formal procedures for rapid approval of requests were discussed.

The assessment of needs evolved continually in the interaction between the resident advisors, the IMF’s technical departments and occasional missions from Washington, and member country counterparts. Most of these contacts led to concrete TA and training activities and repeated country visits by East AFRITAC resident advisors during the center’s first year.

The schedule for TA and training activity in the approved work plan was not always strictly observed because of contingencies such as competing commitments of participating agencies and security alerts that delayed travel by resident advisors. In exceptional cases, country agencies did not respond to detailed resident advisors’ proposals for follow-up TA or indicated disagreement with the proposals, and a small number of elements of the original work plan were not consummated.

Taking into account execution of the 2003 work plan and consultations with country authorities held during the year, the AFRITAC teams drafted work plans for 2004. These plans were again submitted to the respective SCs.

The East AFRITAC Work Plan was approved in January 2004. As in 2003, modifications occurred in the course of execution and consultations between East AFRITAC staff and agency counterparts.

West AFRITAC submitted a work plan at its February 2004 SC meeting. Again the SC discussed and commented on it in favorable terms without giving formal approval. As in 2003, the plan evolved in the course of execution and consultations between West AFRITAC resident advisors and agency discussion partners. The July 2004 SC meeting (No. 4) considered a revised version of the 2004 plan, extended to April 2005 to bring both AFRITACs’ work plans in line with the IMF’s (May–April) fiscal year (as of July 2004). Once more the SC discussed and commented on it favorably without giving formal approval.

Implementation and monitoring: Once the work plan and activities are agreed upon, the resident advisors prepare an action plan and budget for discussion with the CC. Once the action plan and budget are approved, an account is opened by the financial assistant and a file is opened by the administrative assistant. The process usually follows this pattern:

1. Preliminary discussion with the beneficiary country agency to refine the needs and map out the general parameters of the project;

2. A written request for assistance by a senior official of the participating country, usually through an SC member;

3. Opening of a project file;

4. Preparation of a work plan and budget; and

5. Opening of a financial account and budget. Following execution, an end-of-project report is placed in the files.

The center’s contracts for short-term experts not on the IMF panel usually consist of a one-page contract letter and TOR, whereas international and paneled regional experts are hired and administered by the IMF technical departments via a more elaborate contracting process.

The resident advisors manage the technical aspects of the training workshops, implemented by the AFRITACs and administered by office staff. Technical aspects include the selection and supervision of trainers, preparation of training materials, and compilation of participants’ evaluations. The Back to Office Report, prepared by the trainer, records the rationale for the workshop, its curriculum, the trainer’s evaluation of its effectiveness, and the trainer’s summary of participants’ evaluations.

Resident advisor missions to a country are followed by a standard “Back to Office Report” which summarizes principal findings and conclusions and the next steps for follow-up work. All expenses associated with the activity are recorded by the office manager. Management and administrative procedures are clear and are correctly implemented. Prior to every SC meeting, progress reports that update the work plan are prepared. These are circulated to members at least two weeks prior to the meeting.

The resident advisors stressed to the Evaluation Team the large number of reports that need to be produced for both the technical departments (monthly) and the CC (activity status reports [ASRs], Back-to-Office reports, requests for travel, quarterly reports, annual reports, etc.). They recommended either a reduction in number of reports or a harmonization to avoid writing the same information in different formats. The reports submitted to the SC will be discussed in Section 4.2.4.

TA Delivery

Table 3.4, based on work plans approved by the respective SCs, summarizes the projected delivery of person-weeks of AFRITAC TA by member country and portfolio (subject area) during calendar years 2003 and 2004. The data include activity by AFRITAC resident advisors as well as short-term experts recruited and managed by them. Appendix XI provides a further breakdown into programmed TA delivery by portfolio for each country. Section 4.2.3 breaks down the activity by category of expert.

Table 3.4 -

AFRITAC Work Programs, Sum of Calendar Years 2003 & 2004¹

Person-weeks of staff time, resident advisors, & short-term consultants managed by AFRITAC

¹Data according to ex ante work programs, with one exception: 2003 data for West AFRITAC are actual.

Table 3.4 -

AFRITAC Work Programs, Sum of Calendar Years 2003 & 2004¹

Person-weeks of staff time, resident advisors, & short-term consultants managed by AFRITAC

By country												By portfolio						Work-shops	Total weeks
East FRITAC	Eritrea	Ethiopia	Kenya	Rwanda	Tanzania	Uganda					Monetary operations	Banking supervision	Public expenditure management	Revenue administration	Statistics	Financial programing
	90	107	105	106	100	48					124	141	157	118	138	16		138	694
West FRITAC	Benin	Burkina Faso	Cote d’Ivoire	Guinea	Guinea-Bissau	Mali	Mauri-tania	Niger	Senegal	Togo	Customs	Microfinance supervision	Public expenditure management	Revenue administration	Statistics	Public debt
	35	49	25	43	68	37	34	39	32	37	79	71	100	79	88	72		91	488

¹Data according to ex ante work programs, with one exception: 2003 data for West AFRITAC are actual.

View Table

Table 3.4 -

AFRITAC Work Programs, Sum of Calendar Years 2003 & 2004¹

Person-weeks of staff time, resident advisors, & short-term consultants managed by AFRITAC

By country												By portfolio						Work-shops	Total weeks
East FRITAC	Eritrea	Ethiopia	Kenya	Rwanda	Tanzania	Uganda					Monetary operations	Banking supervision	Public expenditure management	Revenue administration	Statistics	Financial programing
	90	107	105	106	100	48					124	141	157	118	138	16		138	694
West FRITAC	Benin	Burkina Faso	Cote d’Ivoire	Guinea	Guinea-Bissau	Mali	Mauri-tania	Niger	Senegal	Togo	Customs	Microfinance supervision	Public expenditure management	Revenue administration	Statistics	Public debt
	35	49	25	43	68	37	34	39	32	37	79	71	100	79	88	72		91	488

¹Data according to ex ante work programs, with one exception: 2003 data for West AFRITAC are actual.

As expected, actual delivery has diverged from the work plans, but data on 2003 actual for East AFRITAC was not available to the ET in this format.

Table 3.4 shows most member countries diverging only modestly from the respective averages of person-weeks of programmed AFRITAC TA, with four exceptions:

• In East AFRITAC, Uganda is allocated only about half the average volume of TA, because it is already receiving more TA in IMF-core areas from other sources compared with any other member country.

• In West AFRITAC, Guinea-Bissau receives roughly twice as much as most of the other member countries because of loss of institutional capacity in civil conflict.

• Its current security situation causes Côte d’Ivoire to fall well below the average.

• Burkina Faso’s relatively high quota was ascribed by several of the ET’s discussion partners to exceptional efficiency on the part of its external aid managers. It should be noted that in 2002 Burkina Faso had already adopted a Programme de Réforme de la Gestion Budgétaire, which contained specific capacity-building plans for customs, taxation, and treasury agencies.

• Table 3.5 lists the multitude of subject areas covered by AFRITAC TA missions under the portfolios of each center’s 2004 work plan. The topics are also labeled “Capacity Building Objectives” in the respective plans.

Table 3.5 -

Subject Areas Covered by AFRITAC TA Missions

^*Workshop(s)

Table 3.5 -

Subject Areas Covered by AFRITAC TA Missions

Subject Areas in AFRITAC 2004 Work Plans
	East AFRITAC
Monetary operations	Banking supervision	Public expenditure management
Foreign Exchange Operations*	Problem assets*	Fiscal decentralization*
Monetary Operations*	Resolution and Liquidation*	Budget Reforms*
Payment System Reform	Nonbank Financial Institutions*	PEM Training*
Financial Market Development	BASEL II Accords*	Economic classifications
Foreign Reserves Management	On-/Off-Site Supervision	Commitment control
Central Bank Accounting	Risk-based Supervision	PEM strategy
Monetary Operations	On-site inspections	Treasury reforms
	Nonbank depository institutions	Public accounting
	Bank supervision procedures	Aid management
		Institutional reorganization
		Budget & accounting classifications
Revenue administration	Statistics	Financial programming*
Revenue mobilization*	Development Price Indices*	2 workshops
Revenue Management Capacity*	Producer Price Index
Modernize revenue administration	National Accounts
Modernization of Customs	Implementation of the 1993 SNAout1
Tax Policy	Government Finance Statistics
	Data dissemination
	Regional Accounts
	Consumer Price Index
	Business Register
	National Statistical System
	West AFRITAC
Customs administration	Tax administration	Public expenditure management
Applic. of Customs software pkgs.*	Tax fraud, expansion of tax base*	Integrated computer systems for PEM*
Combating Customs fraud*	Upgrade tax agency, monitor ref.*	Program budgeting, MTE Framework*
Improve selectivity of controls	Impl. of FAD miss. recommends.	Management of local gov't finances*
Introduce suspension regime	Modernization of tax legislation	Strengthen Treasury management
Assessment & application of WTO	Large, med., & small taxpayer units	Processing of acct'ing data for TOFE
Organize ex-post control	Improve tax dep't. performance	Strengthen budget management
Determine areas of coop. w. CIDA	Computerization	Integrated Expenditure Circuit (IEC)
Transit & control of air passengers	Anal. status of reforms, TA needs	Integrate foreign aid drawdown into IEC
Assess import duty base	Expand tax base	Accounting reform
Modernization of Customs	Monitor implement. of reforms	Improve budget classifications
Implement FAD mission	Prepare for introduction of VAT	Adapt budget info. system to new class.
	Updating of action plan	Processing of receipts data
	Prerequisites for tax policy reform	Strengthen Treas. & Acc'ts Dept.
		Monitoring antipoverty expenditure
		Monitoring investment budget exec.
		Domestic nonbank financing in TOFE
		Computerization at regional level
		Strengthen ministry contribs. to budget
		Computerization of accounts
Debt & financial markets	Statistics	Microfinance supervision
Issue of securities & debt mgt.*	National accounts, 1993 System*	Sect. policy & micro-fin. supervision*
Debt viability, med.-term strategy*	Gov't Fin. Statistics manual 2001*	Governance of savings & credit soc.*
Forecasting & mgt. of gov't needs	Strengthen Nat. Stat agency	Develop supervision strategy
Diagnose debt data base	Modernize national accounts	Assess training needs & facilities
Public debt management	GDDS	Regulatory legislation
Institutionalize debt management	Public finance statistics	Identify needs, coord. with BCEAO
Reduction of domestic arrears	Mining statistics	Strengthen Min of Finance capacity
Diagnose information system	Strengthen Budget Dept. capacity	Coordinate donor aid
Institutional & accounting reforms	Preparation of TOFE
Proceds. for issue of gov't securs.

^*Workshop(s)

View Table

Table 3.5 -

Subject Areas Covered by AFRITAC TA Missions

Subject Areas in AFRITAC 2004 Work Plans
	East AFRITAC
Monetary operations	Banking supervision	Public expenditure management
Foreign Exchange Operations*	Problem assets*	Fiscal decentralization*
Monetary Operations*	Resolution and Liquidation*	Budget Reforms*
Payment System Reform	Nonbank Financial Institutions*	PEM Training*
Financial Market Development	BASEL II Accords*	Economic classifications
Foreign Reserves Management	On-/Off-Site Supervision	Commitment control
Central Bank Accounting	Risk-based Supervision	PEM strategy
Monetary Operations	On-site inspections	Treasury reforms
	Nonbank depository institutions	Public accounting
	Bank supervision procedures	Aid management
		Institutional reorganization
		Budget & accounting classifications
Revenue administration	Statistics	Financial programming*
Revenue mobilization*	Development Price Indices*	2 workshops
Revenue Management Capacity*	Producer Price Index
Modernize revenue administration	National Accounts
Modernization of Customs	Implementation of the 1993 SNAout1
Tax Policy	Government Finance Statistics
	Data dissemination
	Regional Accounts
	Consumer Price Index
	Business Register
	National Statistical System
	West AFRITAC
Customs administration	Tax administration	Public expenditure management
Applic. of Customs software pkgs.*	Tax fraud, expansion of tax base*	Integrated computer systems for PEM*
Combating Customs fraud*	Upgrade tax agency, monitor ref.*	Program budgeting, MTE Framework*
Improve selectivity of controls	Impl. of FAD miss. recommends.	Management of local gov't finances*
Introduce suspension regime	Modernization of tax legislation	Strengthen Treasury management
Assessment & application of WTO	Large, med., & small taxpayer units	Processing of acct'ing data for TOFE
Organize ex-post control	Improve tax dep't. performance	Strengthen budget management
Determine areas of coop. w. CIDA	Computerization	Integrated Expenditure Circuit (IEC)
Transit & control of air passengers	Anal. status of reforms, TA needs	Integrate foreign aid drawdown into IEC
Assess import duty base	Expand tax base	Accounting reform
Modernization of Customs	Monitor implement. of reforms	Improve budget classifications
Implement FAD mission	Prepare for introduction of VAT	Adapt budget info. system to new class.
	Updating of action plan	Processing of receipts data
	Prerequisites for tax policy reform	Strengthen Treas. & Acc'ts Dept.
		Monitoring antipoverty expenditure
		Monitoring investment budget exec.
		Domestic nonbank financing in TOFE
		Computerization at regional level
		Strengthen ministry contribs. to budget
		Computerization of accounts
Debt & financial markets	Statistics	Microfinance supervision
Issue of securities & debt mgt.*	National accounts, 1993 System*	Sect. policy & micro-fin. supervision*
Debt viability, med.-term strategy*	Gov't Fin. Statistics manual 2001*	Governance of savings & credit soc.*
Forecasting & mgt. of gov't needs	Strengthen Nat. Stat agency	Develop supervision strategy
Diagnose debt data base	Modernize national accounts	Assess training needs & facilities
Public debt management	GDDS	Regulatory legislation
Institutionalize debt management	Public finance statistics	Identify needs, coord. with BCEAO
Reduction of domestic arrears	Mining statistics	Strengthen Min of Finance capacity
Diagnose information system	Strengthen Budget Dept. capacity	Coordinate donor aid
Institutional & accounting reforms	Preparation of TOFE
Proceds. for issue of gov't securs.

^*Workshop(s)

Table 3.6 -

AFRITACS’ Budget and Funding

(millions of US$ equivalents)

Table 3.6 -

AFRITACS’ Budget and Funding

(millions of US$ equivalents)

Three-year budget			$30.4	%
Commitments:
	Host countries (Mali & Tanzania)		$ 2.8	9.2%
	IMF		$ 7.5	24.7%
	Donor pledges, of which:		$18.3	60.2%
		paid in by 12/09/04			$ 14.7
		remaining to be paid as of 12/09/04			$ 3.6
	Total commitments		$28.6	94.1%
Funding gap			$ 1.8	5.9%

View Table

Table 3.6 -

AFRITACS’ Budget and Funding

(millions of US$ equivalents)

Three-year budget			$30.4	%
Commitments:
	Host countries (Mali & Tanzania)		$ 2.8	9.2%
	IMF		$ 7.5	24.7%
	Donor pledges, of which:		$18.3	60.2%
		paid in by 12/09/04			$ 14.7
		remaining to be paid as of 12/09/04			$ 3.6
	Total commitments		$28.6	94.1%
Funding gap			$ 1.8	5.9%

Training

Training seminars and workshops form part of AFRITAC’s contribution to capacity building in the two regions. A number of these activities have been conducted jointly with the ACBF. In addition, the centers plan to collaborate with other African training institutions. However, AFRITAC’s design does not call for training courses to be its core activity.

East AFRITAC’s calendar 2003 work plan initially foresaw 103 staff-weeks of seminars and regional workshops. This program was subsequently revised and prioritized. As of end- November 2004, East AFRITAC had conducted 13 workshops attended by 358 participants. In terms of resources, approximately 50 person-weeks of staff time were utilized. Of the thirteen workshops, five covered topics in the monetary and banking sector, two in financial programming, and six in fiscal themes. All 13 were held at the Kenya School for Monetary Studies in Nairobi.

West AFRITAC’s initial work plan for calendar years 2003–2004 contemplated 110 staff-weeks for regional seminars and workshops. During the interim period, October 2003–January 2004, two workshops were conducted. The work plan for February 2004–December 2004 programmed 72 staff-weeks for seminars and workshops. As of end-November 2004, West AFRITAC had conducted eight seminars and workshops attended by close to 200 participants. Four related to fiscal areas, one to money laundering, two to monetary policy, and one to microfinance. The courses were held in five different locations within the region. In both East and West, four of the workshops were organized jointly with ACBF.

Common features of regional seminars and workshops conducted by both centers are as follows:

• The work programs are rolling one-year plans, and their evolving nature makes it difficult to compare planned work programs and outcomes.

• All workshops feature country presentations by participants.

• Topics are generally chosen to ensure linkage to ongoing reforms in the region and TA delivered by the AFRITACs.

• Resident advisors take responsibility for the workshops, assisted by the administrative staff, with the CC overseeing the whole process.

• Mode of selection: the coordinator sends out letters of invitation to country authorities describing the content of a course and the qualifications for participants, who are selected by the authorities.

• A number of training activities are jointly organized by the centers and ACBF. These activities, which are integrated within an annual program, are elaborated in accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding.

4.1.1 Effectiveness in Enhancing TA Quality

As part of AFRITACs’ value added, the team looked at “the effectiveness of the centers in enhancing the quality of TA delivered to AFRITAC member countries” by exploring the degree to which the centers have helped countries better define their TA priorities and the appropriateness of the TA provided to answer country needs.

Definition of priorities

The chronology of work plan formulation shows that country TA priorities were sufficiently addressed in order to be received favorably by the SCs, including the country representatives on them. In the Evaluation Team’s interviews, most country representatives, including both SC members and nonmembers, expressed general satisfaction with both AFRITACs’ assistance in defining their TA needs in the so-called IMF core areas (relevant to macroeconomic policy making and execution); the inclusion of activities to address those needs in the 2003 and 2004 work programs; and the centers’ flexibility in adapting their activities to client agency work schedules and evolving needs that became clear in the course of work plan execution. The non- visited country respondents found AFRITAC had helped them in setting priorities (77% of respondents); 10% of respondents found they were not very helpful; and the other 13% were unable to judge because of noninvolvement in the process.

At the same time, many AFRITAC clients who were consulted, particularly more senior individuals, insisted that it was up to the countries themselves to define their TA priorities; and that, insofar as the AFRITACs had presented work plans reflecting those priorities, this was because the centers’ staff had listened to their country discussion partners. This process also reflects the demand-driven nature of the AFRITACs. Some clients noted that AFRITAC staff played a useful role in translating general descriptions of TA needs into TOR for specific TA missions or workshops to be mobilized by AFRITAC or other TA providers.

Some discussion partners reported that AFRITAC had turned down requests for assistance for functions that the Center described as outside its scope—for example, supplying programmers to install software packages. However, participating agencies did not indicate disagreement with the Center’s explanation of its modus operandi and financial constraints.

By consulting the member countries in drafting work plans and submitting those for SC approval, then jointly reviewing and, as requested, modifying the plans in their application on the ground, the AFRITACs have provided substantial assistance to the countries in defining their TA priorities.

Appropriateness of AFRITAC TA to country needs

Within the seven countries visited, the ET interviewed officials of 69 agencies and agency departments that had interacted with AFRITAC advisors or AFRITAC- recruited experts on TA missions, or sent staff to AFRITAC regional workshops (see Appendix XIV). In only one case did an interviewee state that advice and recommendations provided by AFRITAC did not address his unit’s needs and that the unit had accordingly chosen not to request follow-up TA from AFRITAC. The Center involved defended its advice and claimed that the agency in question had not responded to it.⁷

Though the overwhelming majority of country officials expressed satisfaction with the TA provided by the centers, a significant number in West Africa nuanced their observations by indicating it was too early to detect a positive impact on agency performance. Only a small number of interviewees cited negative outcomes. Box 4.1 illustrates some of the clients’ views on appropriateness, both positive and negative, toward AFRITAC advisors and short-term experts’ interventions.

In a small number of cases, appropriateness could not yet be determined because the first TA mission is scheduled for early 2005. In one case the client expressed disappointment in AFRITAC’s delay in scheduling the first mission.

Among the non-visited countries, 87% of respondents agreed that AFRITAC had indeed enhanced the quality of delivery of TA in their country. The other 13% of respondents either were not able to judge or did not answer. No respondents charged AFRITAC with inability to enhance TA delivery.

The satisfaction expressed by all consulted agencies applied to (a) TA provided directly by the AFRITAC resident advisors; (b) TA provided by the centers through the advisors’ participation in missions out of the IMF Headquarters; and (c) TA provided by other short-term experts recruited by the centers.

Country representatives described the TA as oriented toward developing solutions to practical problems and the creation of capacity among agency counterparts to continue and sustain the work. They expressed appreciation for the fact that the centers’ proximity, its staff’s concentration on serving the member countries, and their repeat visits facilitated continuous contact with the advisors and reinforced the establishment of capacity.

Conclusion: Following a large-scale consultation with beneficiary countries, the centers submitted a representative work plan for Steering Committee approval. This was the basis for the formulation of the demand-driven TA approach of AFRITAC. By jointly reviewing and, as requested, modifying the plans in their application on the ground, the AFRITACs have provided substantial assistance to the countries in defining their TA priorities. Moreover, country agencies interviewed by the Evaluation Team described the overwhelming proportion of AFRITAC- provided TA as appropriate to their needs.

Finding #1: The centers have indeed enhanced the quality of TA delivered to AFRITAC member countries by providing substantial assistance to the countries in defining their TA priorities and providing TA appropriate to their needs.

4.1.2 Value Added Relative to Other TA Delivery Modes

For discussion purposes, the AFRITAC was compared with four other TA delivery modes:

• Short missions by the IMF Headquarters (Washington-based) staff or outside short- term experts recruited and managed by Headquarters;

• TA provided to countries in a region by long-term regional advisors based in one country and covering several neighboring countries (sometimes referred to as peripatetic, regionally based IMF advisors);

• Long-term resident advisors provided by (a) the IMF Headquarters, (b) bilateral donors, or (c) hired directly by AFRITAC member countries out of loan funds; and

• Training at the IMF Institute (INS) in Washington.

To begin with, the comparison has to take into account the fact that TA needs differ among countries, among agencies within a country, and at different times within a given agency. TA needs include consultation to identify the needs; design of policies and administrative measures to implement them; implementation of specific proposals (e.g., VAT and large taxpayers’ units); and follow-up/evaluation of implementation.

The ET did not find evidence that any delivery mode X is generically better suited than mode Y to fulfill any of these needs. The delivery mode selected depends in part on the particular mix of skills and experience of AFRITAC advisors versus HQ staff. On different occasions AFRITAC advisors have addressed all the foregoing needs competently; on the other hand, situations arise (e.g., where IMF Headquarters decides that a major input of resources is warranted) where an intervention from HQ can be more effective than an AFRITAC’s more limited input.

Value added relative to all other delivery modes. The overwhelming consensus in the ET’s interviews with country, donor, and the IMF representatives was that AFRITAC’s unique governance structure gives it an added value over all alternative modes. The SCs with their broad representation of stakeholders provide a forum for give and take among representatives of member countries, multilateral and bilateral aid agencies, and the IMF Headquarters as well as regional (AFRITAC) staff. Country representatives informed the ET that they profit from exchanging views and experiences with each other, with donors, and with the IMF regarding the status of macroeconomic reform measures and TA needs.

Country representatives also agreed that the opportunity given to them to assert their sovereignty and approve or modify AFRITAC work plans enhances country ownership of the exercise.⁸ Discussion of how to apportion AFRITAC resources as a function of relative needs of member countries augments regional solidarity.

For their part, donors, especially those with thin representation in the field, indicated that the SCs make them better informed about country situations and needs. All interviewees agreed that the AFRITAC coordinators’ and advisors’ obligation to report to the SCs and seek their approval enhances accountability on the part of the centers’ staff.

The pressure exerted on the AFRITACs by the SCs to make increasing use of regional expertise has clearly reinforced the staff’s efforts to identify and prepare African experts and petition Headquarters to include them in its expert panels. These efforts are evidenced by the fact that one resident advisor in East AFRITAC and two in West AFRITAC are citizens of member countries and the centers’ use of regional experts is growing rapidly.

For evaluation of the SCs’ effectiveness, see Section 4.2.4 below.

Short missions out of Washington.

TA missions managed by AFRITAC and missions managed by IMF Headquarters are not mutually exclusive because AFRITAC advisors regularly participate in the latter. For example, during 2003–04, East AFRITAC advisors participated in all, or portions of, at least 18 HQ-led missions.

Interviews in Washington and the field pointed to a division of labor between TA missions to AFRITAC member countries that are managed by HQ technical departments (FAD, Monetary and Financial Systems Department (MFD), Statistics Department (STA)) and those managed by AFRITAC. This division of labor and the relative advantages of AFRITAC are spelled out in Box 4.2.

Long-term/peripatetic regionally based IMF advisors

This model does not currently exist in sub-regions served by AFRITAC. It would involve several long-term regional advisors working out of the office of an IMF resident representative, or out of host government offices (e.g., finance ministries), utilizing the offices’ logistical services including staff support. The TA would be provided to several neighboring countries. As is noted in Section 4.1.3 below on cost-effectiveness, the model could avoid part of the AFRITACs’ overhead. However, it is the ET’s view, presented in Box 4.3, that such a scenario would forgo several advantages of the AFRITACs and offer less value added.

Long-term resident advisors.

In most of its interviews with government staff, the ET invited views as to the relative advantages of short- and long-term advisors. A range of opinions, sometimes contradictory, was expressed. The team heard stories of foreign advisors who had operated in a country for ten or more years and created little or no local capacity to succeed them.

Nearly all interviewees agreed that the relative advantages were heavily influenced by the skills, motivations, and personalities of individual foreign experts. In contrast to the stories of overextended stays by foreign advisors, examples were cited of long-term advisors who had been motivated to create local capacity and tried hard to do so. It was also agreed that government agencies were often to blame for failure to support capacity building by refusing to assign trainable counterparts, neglecting incentives that would keep trained staff on the job, and/or shifting staff among posts with little regard to their institutional knowledge and skills.

Nonetheless, the team found a consensus regarding circumstances in which long-term advisors were likely to be more productive than short-termers, and vice versa. Box 4.4 spells out the relative advantages of the two modes as outlined in the team’s interviews.

The IMF’s TA departments informed the ET that long-term advisors are playing a decreasing role in their TA to Africa as well as other regions. At the time this report was prepared, the IMF was supporting three resident advisors in as many East AFRITAC countries and none in the West AFRITAC region.

Data are available from OTM on the evolution of the breakdown between long-term and short- term experts in the IMF-managed TA to East AFRITAC countries during the past six years (including a projection for FY 2005). These data classify the AFRITAC resident advisors, whose activity begins in FY 2003, as long-term experts.

In fact, the resident advisors, although based full-time in Dar es Salaam, function as short-term experts vis-à-vis the individual East AFRITAC beneficiary countries. Table 4.1 shows the distribution of long- and short-term experts on both classifications of the advisors. If they are treated as long-term, the share of short-term experts rises during the period from 12% to 32%. If the short-term classification is used, the trend is much more dramatic, with the share of short- termers ending up at 68% in FY 2005. Indeed, classifying the advisors as short-term reverses the shares of long- and short-term experts in that year.

Table 4.1 -

Distribution of Long- and Short-Term Experts in the IMF TA to East AFRITAC Countries FYs 2000–2005¹

Data are in person-years and percentages of total TA

¹Including TA delivered through AFRITAC.

²Projection.

Note: These data relate only to long- and short-term experts, and exclude other categories of TA included in Table 4.6. Both sets of figures were provided by OTM.

Table 4.1 -

Distribution of Long- and Short-Term Experts in the IMF TA to East AFRITAC Countries FYs 2000–2005¹

Data are in person-years and percentages of total TA

Long-Term vs. Short-Term Distribution According to OTM
IMF fiscal years		2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	20052
Long Term	person-yrs	9.0	8.1	11.8	9.0	9.7	9.5
	%	88%	84%	85%	83%	75%	68%
Short Term	person-yrs	1.2	1.6	2.0	1.8	3.3	4.6
	%	12%	16%	15%	17%	25%	32%
Total IMF Delivery	person-yrs	10.2	9.7	13.9	10.8	13.0	14.1
Classifying AFRITAC resident advisors as short- instead of long-term
Long Term	person-yrs	9.0	8.1	11.8	6.51	4.71	4.53
	%	88%	84%	85%	60%	36%	32%
Short Term	person-yrs	1.2	1.6	2.0	4.32	8.28	9.58
	%	12%	16%	15%	40%	64%	68%
Total IMF Delivery	person-yrs	10.2	9.7	13.9	10.8	13.0	14.1

¹Including TA delivered through AFRITAC.

²Projection.

Note: These data relate only to long- and short-term experts, and exclude other categories of TA included in Table 4.6. Both sets of figures were provided by OTM.

View Table

Table 4.1 -

Distribution of Long- and Short-Term Experts in the IMF TA to East AFRITAC Countries FYs 2000–2005¹

Data are in person-years and percentages of total TA

Long-Term vs. Short-Term Distribution According to OTM
IMF fiscal years		2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	20052
Long Term	person-yrs	9.0	8.1	11.8	9.0	9.7	9.5
	%	88%	84%	85%	83%	75%	68%
Short Term	person-yrs	1.2	1.6	2.0	1.8	3.3	4.6
	%	12%	16%	15%	17%	25%	32%
Total IMF Delivery	person-yrs	10.2	9.7	13.9	10.8	13.0	14.1
Classifying AFRITAC resident advisors as short- instead of long-term
Long Term	person-yrs	9.0	8.1	11.8	6.51	4.71	4.53
	%	88%	84%	85%	60%	36%	32%
Short Term	person-yrs	1.2	1.6	2.0	4.32	8.28	9.58
	%	12%	16%	15%	40%	64%	68%
Total IMF Delivery	person-yrs	10.2	9.7	13.9	10.8	13.0	14.1

¹Including TA delivered through AFRITAC.

²Projection.

Note: These data relate only to long- and short-term experts, and exclude other categories of TA included in Table 4.6. Both sets of figures were provided by OTM.

OTM’s February 2004 “Review of Technical Assistance” (p. 7) sums up this trend Fund-wide by noting that, during the 1990s, “TA delivery modalities changed, as the menu of delivery options expanded, shifting in part away from the traditional long-term resident advisor to short-term expert assignments, peripatetic expert visits, and headquarters-based staff missions, as well as regional approaches.”

Training at the IMF Institute.

Estimating the net value added of AFRITAC’s training activities, comprising both regional workshops⁹ and single-country events, is not possible because INS/Washington courses that would be relevant to the officials attending AFRITAC workshops—that is, excluding seminars for senior officials—are considerably longer, and therefore presumably convey deeper understanding of the material. Specifically, INS/Washington courses last six to eight weeks, whereas most AFRITAC workshops last one week or less. (Five of West AFRITAC’s first seven workshops lasted four days; the others lasted two, five, and three days, respectively; of East AFRITAC’s first 11 workshops, two lasted two weeks and one was only three days long.)

Box 4.5 lists the advantages of the AFRITAC workshops over INS/Washington courses that were cited by both agency managers and participants interviewed by the ET.

Conclusion: AFRITAC has demonstrated value added in relation to four other TA delivery modes, both in its role as a complement to them and as a replacement or substitute. The advantages most emphasized by country authorities are AFRITAC’s full-time preoccupation with their TA needs and its proximity. AFRITAC has shortened response times to their TA requests. Its staff gain close familiarity with local problems. Its unique governance structure promotes country ownership and regional solidarity. It has accelerated the process of developing regional expertise. Its workshops accommodate multiple trainees from each country and promote exchange of comparable experiences.

Finding #2: AFRITAC has demonstrated value added in relation to four other TA delivery modes, both in its role as a complement to them and as a replacement or substitute.

4.1.3 Relative Cost-Effectiveness, Especially in Capacity Building

The team’s investigations in the field confirmed the difficulty of judging benefits of capacity- building activities. Judging costs is much less difficult because the AFRITAC centers maintain full and transparent accounts, which this section draws on below. Moreover, for the purpose of comparing costs of different TA delivery modes, the IMF has conducted thorough analysis of costs of Headquarters-managed TA, to which this discussion will likewise refer. The problem on the cost side arises in deciding which indirect costs to include in overhead for comparable activities of AFRITAC and IMF technical departments.

Quantifying capacity building.

Over the past two years, the AFRITACs have had considerable outreach. TA interventions and training workshops have covered 113 subject areas (see Section 3.2.8). The 2003–04 work plans provided for delivery of 1182 person-weeks (p-w) of TA and training: 694 p-w by East AFRITAC over 24 months and 488 p-w by West AFRITAC over 16 months. Participants in regional workshops numbered 358 in the East and 188 in the West. In the team’s view, AFRITAC’s design overlooked opportunities for assessing progress in the area of capacity building which, though not subject to valuation in money terms, would have provided more information of a quantitative nature than is now available. Specifically, arrangements could have been made for preparing inventories of trained personnel in agencies targeted by AFRITAC and tracking changes—subtractions as well as additions—over time. Obviously, not every positive change could be attributed to AFRITAC, but the question of its share in them would be much more focused than would a search for the project’s overall benefit. Agency managers as well as AFRITACs and the IMF Headquarters staff could make rough estimates that would come closer to measuring impact than is currently possible.

An indispensable component of modern management is tracking the qualifications of staff in different departments as measured by academic preparation, time in post, exposure to TA, and in-service training, including participation in courses such as those run by AFRITAC. The coming of new staff on board, gaining of experience, exposure to TA, and additional in-service training augment capacity, whereas staff departures diminish it. Some agencies in AFRITAC- member countries track these changes closely, but nearly all the managers interviewed by the ET demurred when queried about inventories of staff capacity. All admitted that such information was desirable, and most said its preparation was on their near-term agenda.

In the ET’s views, it is urgent to help AFRITAC client agencies to systematically monitor their staff capacity and its evolution over time as well as institutional capacity-building efforts. To that end, the ET recommends that the IMF help mobilize donor assistance. Until that is done, assessing AFRITAC’s impact on capacity building will remain a stab in the dark.

Appendix XV describes the proposed TA investment, which in the ET’s view could be carried out by engaging a few months’ worth annually of consultant time. The appendix also presents a pro forma spreadsheet illustrating the personnel data that AFRITAC client agencies should be collecting and evaluating.

AFRITAC beneficiary agencies should also prepare plans for improving institutional capacity. Ideally, such a plan would include the current status of the area (statistics, public finance, etc) and an action plan for the agency to follow in order to meet international standards. An inventory of reforms already under way through donor support should be included. Agency performance indicators would be established according to international standards.

Several tools for measurement already exist and may be explored. For example, the statistics bureau’s performance could be followed using the General Data Dissemination System (GDDS). In the area of PEM, scores attained by AFRITAC-member countries in the periodic joint IMF/International Bank of Reconstruction (IBRD)[ PEM Assessment and Action Plan (AAP), part of the HIPC debt relief program, could be used to measure evolution of institutional capacity. HIPC countries are assigned marks of A, B, and C on 16 criteria of PEM. The Bank and IMF determine benchmarks (marks of A or B) that they believe HIPC countries could reasonably be expected to attain at the present time. A country’s progress over two or three years is assessed according to the number of benchmarks met or exceeded in the later year, compared with the number met or exceeded in the earlier year. A joint IMF-Bank Board paper, scheduled for release in March 2005, will compare scores assessed in 2001 and 2004 for 28 HIPC countries, including 11 of the 16 AFRITAC-member countries. Appendix XVI lists the 16 criteria.

An institutional capacity-building plan would help beneficiary agencies clarify their goals. It would give AFRITAC staff a clearer picture of where they should focus their capacity-building efforts. These plans and their indicators could roll into the logframe (or Logical Framework Approach [LFA]). The ET recommends that the AFRITACs should support the beneficiary agencies in preparing these plans.

Comparative costs of TA delivery modes.

Table 4.2 gives comparative costs of the two AFRITACs as budgeted by OTM based on the entire budget of each center’s three-year life (for West AFRITAC, which started operations several months after the East, this carries through the first month of the IMF’s fiscal year 2007). Also, West AFRITAC has supplied actual per-month costs of short-term experts, showing these to be only $15,500, or 55% of OTM’s budgeted $28,000. Table 4.2 uses the lower figure for West AFRITAC but not the East.

Table 4.2 -

AFRITAC Budgeted Costs, FYs 2003-2007^a

(cost data in $’000 except per person/day)

^*Table excludes IMF administrative fee of 13% on externally funded costs.

^**Assumes 22 working days per month.

^***Based on actual costs of short-term experts, May ’04-Feb. ’05, which are only 55% of originally budgeted cost (equal to figure of $28,000 used for East AFRITAC).

^****(d)Government of Mali’s budgeted contribution does not include imputed rent of premises in BCEAO/Bamako headquarters. For comparability, figure used here is $150,000, based on per meter2 rental cost of World Bank offices in Bamako X 400 m2 AFRITAC office space X 3 years.

Table 4.2 -

AFRITAC Budgeted Costs, FYs 2003-2007^a

(cost data in $’000 except per person/day)

					Share in local overhead				Unit Costs
				Person/months	Direct costs	%	$	Total cost incl. overhd.	Direct cost	…including local overhead
				A	B	C = B/B8	D = C*B13	E = B+D	F = B/A	G = E/A
EAST AFRITAC - FYs 2003-06
1	Long-term experts			175
2		Salary & benefits			3 194
3		Travel			952				Cost per p/month
4			Total, l-t experts		4 146	50.5%	840	4 986	23.7	28.5
5	Short-term experts			106	2 968	36.2%	601	3 569	28.0	33.7
6		Subtotal, experts			7 114
7	Training				1 091	13.3%	221	1 458
8		Subtotal, experts & training			8 205		1 662	10 966
9	Overhead (local, exclud. HQ)				Overhead
10		Office support, communications, etc.			118				Cost per p/day**
11		Bank of Tanzania			319		Long-term experts		1 077	1 295
12		IMF - Coordinator & operations			1 224		Short-term experts		1 273	1 530
13			Total overhead (local)		1 662
14	Total costs				9 867
WEST AFRITAC - FYs 2004-07
1	Long-term experts			216
2		Salary & benefits			3 999
3		Travel			861				Cost per p/month
4			Total, l-t experts		4 860	63.6%	1 000	5 860	22.5	27.1
5	Short-term experts			104	1,607	21.0%	331	1 938	15.5	18.6
6		Subtotal, experts			6,467
7	Training***				1,175	15.4%	242	1 417
8		Subtotal, experts & training			7 642		1 573	9 215
9	Overhead (local, exclud. HQ)				Overhead				Cost per p/day**
10		Office support, communications, etc.			200		Long-term experts		1 023	1 233
11		Government of Mali****			230		Short-term experts		703	847
12		IMF - Coordinator & operations			1 143
13			Total overhead (local)		1 573
14	Total costs				9 215

^*Table excludes IMF administrative fee of 13% on externally funded costs.

^**Assumes 22 working days per month.

^***Based on actual costs of short-term experts, May ’04-Feb. ’05, which are only 55% of originally budgeted cost (equal to figure of $28,000 used for East AFRITAC).

^****(d)Government of Mali’s budgeted contribution does not include imputed rent of premises in BCEAO/Bamako headquarters. For comparability, figure used here is $150,000, based on per meter2 rental cost of World Bank offices in Bamako X 400 m2 AFRITAC office space X 3 years.

View Table

Table 4.2 -

AFRITAC Budgeted Costs, FYs 2003-2007^a

(cost data in $’000 except per person/day)

					Share in local overhead				Unit Costs
				Person/months	Direct costs	%	$	Total cost incl. overhd.	Direct cost	…including local overhead
				A	B	C = B/B8	D = C*B13	E = B+D	F = B/A	G = E/A
EAST AFRITAC - FYs 2003-06
1	Long-term experts			175
2		Salary & benefits			3 194
3		Travel			952				Cost per p/month
4			Total, l-t experts		4 146	50.5%	840	4 986	23.7	28.5
5	Short-term experts			106	2 968	36.2%	601	3 569	28.0	33.7
6		Subtotal, experts			7 114
7	Training				1 091	13.3%	221	1 458
8		Subtotal, experts & training			8 205		1 662	10 966
9	Overhead (local, exclud. HQ)				Overhead
10		Office support, communications, etc.			118				Cost per p/day**
11		Bank of Tanzania			319		Long-term experts		1 077	1 295
12		IMF - Coordinator & operations			1 224		Short-term experts		1 273	1 530
13			Total overhead (local)		1 662
14	Total costs				9 867
WEST AFRITAC - FYs 2004-07
1	Long-term experts			216
2		Salary & benefits			3 999
3		Travel			861				Cost per p/month
4			Total, l-t experts		4 860	63.6%	1 000	5 860	22.5	27.1
5	Short-term experts			104	1,607	21.0%	331	1 938	15.5	18.6
6		Subtotal, experts			6,467
7	Training***				1,175	15.4%	242	1 417
8		Subtotal, experts & training			7 642		1 573	9 215
9	Overhead (local, exclud. HQ)				Overhead				Cost per p/day**
10		Office support, communications, etc.			200		Long-term experts		1 023	1 233
11		Government of Mali****			230		Short-term experts		703	847
12		IMF - Coordinator & operations			1 143
13			Total overhead (local)		1 573
14	Total costs				9 215

^*Table excludes IMF administrative fee of 13% on externally funded costs.

^**Assumes 22 working days per month.

^***Based on actual costs of short-term experts, May ’04-Feb. ’05, which are only 55% of originally budgeted cost (equal to figure of $28,000 used for East AFRITAC).

^****(d)Government of Mali’s budgeted contribution does not include imputed rent of premises in BCEAO/Bamako headquarters. For comparability, figure used here is $150,000, based on per meter2 rental cost of World Bank offices in Bamako X 400 m2 AFRITAC office space X 3 years.

For the sake of comparison with other TA modes, the table adds regional travel to the salaries and benefits of the resident advisors to arrive at their direct costs. (Direct costs of short-term experts already include travel.) It should be noted that the cost of regional travel for East AFRITAC includes travel to six countries whereas West AFRITAC includes travel to ten countries. Three budgeted items are treated as center overheads: an item labeled “office support and communications”; payments by the host government for rent and local staff; and costs of the Center Coordinator (IMF staff member) together with operating costs not included in the first item.

West AFRITAC is housed in the office building of the national BCEAO agency, which does not charge rent. Center staff suggested that the ET use the actual unit rental paid by the World Bank for its Bamako office space to ensure comparability of the two centers. Multiplying this figure times 400 square meters of AFRITAC space times 3 years gives roughly $150,000 equivalent.

Table 4.2 apportions center overheads among (a) long-term advisors, (b) short-term experts, and (c) training according to each one’s share in the total direct cost of experts and training (line 8).

A February 2004 paper entitled “Review of Technical Assistance,” prepared by OTM, gives a table (p. 26) comparing direct costs of three TA delivery modes. It is reproduced here as Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 -

Typical Direct Cost of Selected Technical Assistance Delivery Modes, FY 2003 ^1/

^1/The results are weighted averages of TA departments’ TA delivery data. Salary and benefits costs are derived from standard cost data for IMF staff and for TA experts. Travel cost data are derived from a survey of actual travel costs for IMF staff and TA experts.

^2/Direct cost data are applicable to a single long-term advisor serving two or more countries, and to a long-term advisor attached to a regional TA center. Data do not include any overhead costs.

Table 4.3 -

Typical Direct Cost of Selected Technical Assistance Delivery Modes, FY 2003 ^1/

Mode of Delivery	Time (person-days)	Salary and Benefits	Travel Cost	Total Direct Cost	Total Direct Cost per day
Headquarters-based mission	77	$52,000	$43,000	$95,000	$1,230
Short-term expert	22	$19,100	$10,800	$29,900	$1,360
Long-term regional advisor - 2/	260	$215,600	$49,000	$264,600	$1,020

^1/The results are weighted averages of TA departments’ TA delivery data. Salary and benefits costs are derived from standard cost data for IMF staff and for TA experts. Travel cost data are derived from a survey of actual travel costs for IMF staff and TA experts.

^2/Direct cost data are applicable to a single long-term advisor serving two or more countries, and to a long-term advisor attached to a regional TA center. Data do not include any overhead costs.

View Table

Table 4.3 -

Typical Direct Cost of Selected Technical Assistance Delivery Modes, FY 2003 ^1/

Mode of Delivery	Time (person-days)	Salary and Benefits	Travel Cost	Total Direct Cost	Total Direct Cost per day
Headquarters-based mission	77	$52,000	$43,000	$95,000	$1,230
Short-term expert	22	$19,100	$10,800	$29,900	$1,360
Long-term regional advisor - 2/	260	$215,600	$49,000	$264,600	$1,020

^1/The results are weighted averages of TA departments’ TA delivery data. Salary and benefits costs are derived from standard cost data for IMF staff and for TA experts. Travel cost data are derived from a survey of actual travel costs for IMF staff and TA experts.

^2/Direct cost data are applicable to a single long-term advisor serving two or more countries, and to a long-term advisor attached to a regional TA center. Data do not include any overhead costs.

OTM’s estimate of a long-term regional advisor’s direct cost per day is close to the computation for AFRITAC resident advisors in this report’s Table 4.2, which gives $1,077 for East AFRITAC and $1,023 for the West compared with OTM’s $1,020. By contrast, the AFRITACs’ figure of $1,273 for short-term experts is about 3% higher than the OTM estimate for a member of a Headquarters-based (short-term) mission.

These comparisons are summarized in Table 4.4, which also shows the AFRITACs’ figure for short-term experts to be 7% less than OTM’s estimate of $1,360 for a Headquarters-managed expert.

Table 4.4 -

Unit (Per Day) Costs of Alternative Modes of Technical Assistance Delivery

Note: A negative value means that the AFRITAC costs are less expensive than the coresponding delivery mode.

Table 4.4 -

Unit (Per Day) Costs of Alternative Modes of Technical Assistance Delivery

	Total Direct Cost per day according to OTM (Table 4.3)	Direct cost per day of AFRITACs (Table 4.2)		AFRITACs versus Alternative Delivery Modes Cost Difference (%)
Delivery mode		East	West	East	West
HQ-based mission	$1,230
Short-term expert	$1,360	$1,273	$703	-7%	-48%
Long-term regional advisor	$1,020	$1,077	$1,023	5%	0.3%

Note: A negative value means that the AFRITAC costs are less expensive than the coresponding delivery mode.

View Table

Table 4.4 -

Unit (Per Day) Costs of Alternative Modes of Technical Assistance Delivery

	Total Direct Cost per day according to OTM (Table 4.3)	Direct cost per day of AFRITACs (Table 4.2)		AFRITACs versus Alternative Delivery Modes Cost Difference (%)
Delivery mode		East	West	East	West
HQ-based mission	$1,230
Short-term expert	$1,360	$1,273	$703	-7%	-48%
Long-term regional advisor	$1,020	$1,077	$1,023	5%	0.3%

Note: A negative value means that the AFRITAC costs are less expensive than the coresponding delivery mode.

The minor cost differential between the AFRITACs and OTM’s “long-term regional advisor” delivery mode could be explained by the difference in travel costs. In Table 4.3, the travel cost associated with long-term regional advisors covering, on average, two countries is $49,000. The budgeted annual travel cost for East AFRITAC resident advisors, covering six countries, works out to about $64,000, whereas the corresponding figure for West AFRITAC, covering ten countries, is $48,000. (West AFRITAC reports that its actual travel costs for FY 2005 have amounted to only $27,500, or 57% of budget.)

Dealing with overhead costs.

Treatment of overhead costs gives rise to ambiguity in comparing costs. Adding in only overhead costs incurred at the centers raises AFRITAC unit costs by about 20% (20.3% in the East, 20.6% in the West). All categories of AFRITAC assistance now appear more costly than the alternative delivery modes listed in Table 4.3. However, at least for long-term regional advisors, this comparison is misleading, because they also incur local overhead costs.

Table 1 in the OTM paper (p. 25, not reproduced here) allocates $1,383,000 in Headquarters staff costs to each of the AFRITACs for the single fiscal year 2004. These are defined as “direct costs for backstopping, supervision, and inspection visits, and indirect costs for support.” The paper explains further:

The complex TA environment characterizing the countries served by the AFRITACs has meant that the centers are drawing on Headquarters staff resources for backstopping of experts, coordination of TA work between headquarters and the centers, formulation of the centers’ work programs, and coordination with other TA providers, to a greater extent than expected. (p. 23)

Over three fiscal years the allocation increases the total cost of each AFRITAC by $4.15 million, or 42% for the East and 45% for the West. If this cost is distributed among resident advisors, short-term experts, and training in the same way as Table 4.2 distributes local overhead, the results in Table 4.5 are obtained:

Table 4.5 -

Impact on AFRITAC Unit Costs of Attributing Full IMF/Headquarters Staff Costs

(2002 versus 2004)

Source: Unit cost data from Table 4.2; additional IMF HQ overhead cited in text.

Table 4.5 -

Impact on AFRITAC Unit Costs of Attributing Full IMF/Headquarters Staff Costs

(2002 versus 2004)

		East AFRITAC				West AFRITAC
A.	HQ FY 2004 overhead per centeracc. to OTM	$1,383,000				$1,383,000
		Resident advisors		Short-term experts		Resident advisors		Short-term experts
B.	No. person-months per year	60		35		72		35
C.	% share in overhead (Table 4.2)	50.5%		36.2%		63.6%		21%
		p-month($’000)	ya)p	p-month($’000)	p-day($)	p-month($’000)	p-day($)	p-month($’000)	p-day($)
D.	Unit costs incl. local overhead (Table 4.2)	$ 28.5	$1,295	$ 33.7	$1,530	$ 27.1	$1,233	$ 18.6	$847
E.	HQ FY 2004 overhead per p-month or p-day (= C*A/B)	$ 11.6	$ 529	$ 14.3	$ 650	$ 12.2	$ 555	$ 8.3	$ 378
F.	Unit costs including local and HQ overhead (= D+E)	$ 40.1	$1,825	$ 48.0	$2,180	$ 39.3	$1,788	$ 26.9	$1,225
G.	% excess, F over D	41%				45%

Source: Unit cost data from Table 4.2; additional IMF HQ overhead cited in text.

View Table

Table 4.5 -

Impact on AFRITAC Unit Costs of Attributing Full IMF/Headquarters Staff Costs

(2002 versus 2004)

		East AFRITAC				West AFRITAC
A.	HQ FY 2004 overhead per centeracc. to OTM	$1,383,000				$1,383,000
		Resident advisors		Short-term experts		Resident advisors		Short-term experts
B.	No. person-months per year	60		35		72		35
C.	% share in overhead (Table 4.2)	50.5%		36.2%		63.6%		21%
		p-month($’000)	ya)p	p-month($’000)	p-day($)	p-month($’000)	p-day($)	p-month($’000)	p-day($)
D.	Unit costs incl. local overhead (Table 4.2)	$ 28.5	$1,295	$ 33.7	$1,530	$ 27.1	$1,233	$ 18.6	$847
E.	HQ FY 2004 overhead per p-month or p-day (= C*A/B)	$ 11.6	$ 529	$ 14.3	$ 650	$ 12.2	$ 555	$ 8.3	$ 378
F.	Unit costs including local and HQ overhead (= D+E)	$ 40.1	$1,825	$ 48.0	$2,180	$ 39.3	$1,788	$ 26.9	$1,225
G.	% excess, F over D	41%				45%

Source: Unit cost data from Table 4.2; additional IMF HQ overhead cited in text.

In other words, inclusion of Headquarters staff costs according to OTM’s table raises the unit staff costs (including local overhead) of East AFRITAC by 41% and West AFRITAC by 45%. However, the paper is not entirely consistent, because on page 25 it states,

Owing to data limitations, it is not possible to compare the resources spent on management, coordination, backstopping and administration of a regional TA center with the indirect cost of backstopping and administration of a single expert providing TA to one or more countries. Informal staff surveys and Budget Reporting System (BRS) data suggest that these types of overhead costs may add around 25 percent [emphasis added] to a long-term expert’s total cost. Backstopping and overhead costs for short-term peripatetic experts appear to be somewhat higher.

To make an authoritative comparison with alternative delivery modes, one would need data on the backstopping, supervision, field visits, and indirect costs for support incurred by the IMF’s technical departments for each mode. How can support costs be evaluated for staff of the departments themselves in preparing, conducting, and following up on field missions? The ET was informed that no consensus has formed behind efforts to estimate such costs. This lack of consensus is not surprising, given the multiplicity of tasks performed by IMF departmental managers.

AFRITAC model versus long-term/peripatetic regionally based IMF advisors.

The delivery model that seemingly comes closest to the AFRITACs is the long-term/peripatetic regionally based IMF advisors discussed in Section 4.1.2. The first question concerning costs is whether and how costs of HQ backstopping would differ between that model and the AFRITACs. IMF departments noted to the ET that working through the CCs and SCs subsumes considerably more department staff time than dealing solely with regionally based advisors. On the other hand a comparison of the two models has to take into account the fact that the IMF could not support additional regionally based advisors out of its own budget, but would have to seek donor support. Accordingly some staff effort would be required in any case to report periodically to donors and satisfy them regarding the program’s benefits.

To be sure, the peripatetic regionally based advisor model does not envisage a component of consultation among host countries such as that conducted through the SCs. The question then becomes one not of comparative costs, but whether the country and regional ownership of TA conveyed by the SCs is worth the extra cost. The ET believes that it is. To deliver a product fully comparable to the AFRITACs, long-term/peripatetic regionally based IMF advisors would need a similar level of office support. They would not have access to the services of a coordinator, who currently negotiates with high levels of beneficiary governments and accounts for his or her center’s activities to donors. Instead, they would have to perform such services themselves. Thus, while “saving” the roughly $50,000 annual per-advisor cost of a coordinator, the peripatetic model would impose significant additional burdens on advisors’ time.

Few host government agencies would provide a single resident advisor, much of whose time was allocated to other countries, with the same level of office management and communications now provided by the AFRITACs. If they did, they would forgo the economies of scale now achieved by the AFRITACs with only one office manager, one or two other support staff, and two drivers serving five or six resident advisors.

Table 4.6 compares the daily cost including local overhead of an AFRITAC advisor with costs of a long-term peripatetic regionally based IMF advisor, assuming equal extent and quality of office support.

Table 4.6 -

Daily Costs Comparison between AFRITAC Advisors and Long-term/peripatetic regionally-based IMF advisors

¹⁾Based on approx. $ 25,000 annual salary / 260 days

²⁾Based on driver salary and vehicle upkeep, etc of $20,000 / 260 days

³⁾Not available for peripatetic regional model.

Sources: Tables 4.2, 4.3, and standard cost estimates.

Table 4.6 -

Daily Costs Comparison between AFRITAC Advisors and Long-term/peripatetic regionally-based IMF advisors

				Long-term peripatetic regionally- based advisor		East AFRITAC advisor		West AFRITAC advisor
Direct cost of advisors				$	1,020	$	1,077	$	1,023
	Local overhead costs
		• Office support/manager (1)		$	96
		• Driver and vehicle (2)		$	77
		• Office space (3)		Not available		Included in total below
		• Cost of travel to 4 additional
			countries (4)	$	58
Total local overhead costs				$	231	$	218	$	189
Total costs				$	1,251	$	1,295	$	1,212

¹⁾Based on approx. $ 25,000 annual salary / 260 days

²⁾Based on driver salary and vehicle upkeep, etc of $20,000 / 260 days

³⁾Not available for peripatetic regional model.

Sources: Tables 4.2, 4.3, and standard cost estimates.

View Table

Table 4.6 -

Daily Costs Comparison between AFRITAC Advisors and Long-term/peripatetic regionally-based IMF advisors

				Long-term peripatetic regionally- based advisor		East AFRITAC advisor		West AFRITAC advisor
Direct cost of advisors				$	1,020	$	1,077	$	1,023
	Local overhead costs
		• Office support/manager (1)		$	96
		• Driver and vehicle (2)		$	77
		• Office space (3)		Not available		Included in total below
		• Cost of travel to 4 additional
			countries (4)	$	58
Total local overhead costs				$	231	$	218	$	189
Total costs				$	1,251	$	1,295	$	1,212

¹⁾Based on approx. $ 25,000 annual salary / 260 days

²⁾Based on driver salary and vehicle upkeep, etc of $20,000 / 260 days

³⁾Not available for peripatetic regional model.

Sources: Tables 4.2, 4.3, and standard cost estimates.

For lack of data—the cost of office space for a single resident advisor would vary widely among host institutions and countries—this item was not factored into the daily costs of a long-term peripatetic regionally based IMF advisor. On the other hand, because the cost of office space is known for East AFRITAC, the AFRITAC advisor figure includes it.

On the foregoing assumptions, Table 4.6 indicates that the daily cost of a long-term peripatetic regionally based IMF advisor would be higher than the daily costs of the AFRITAC advisors. The ET realizes the figures used are rough estimates and systematic evaluation of overhead costs of the alternative model would require further work.

Comparative costs of training.

The same OTM paper (p. 28) compares direct costs of the IMF Institute (INS) courses in Washington and at regional training institutes supported by the Institute. Table 4.7 below takes data from the paper’s Table 4 and adds cost data from East AFRITAC’s first eleven workshops and West AFRITAC’S first seven.

Table 4.7 -

Comparative Training Costs

Dollar cost per participant week

^1/Participant costs and staff travel costs.

^2/Unweighted average of regional programs.

^3/WA data show most courses lasting four days, treated here as one week

Source: INS costs from OTM, Review of Technical Assistance, February 2004. AFRITAC workshop costs provided by respective centers.

Table 4.7 -

Comparative Training Costs

Dollar cost per participant week

	Sponsor		Regional programs 2/	Washington courses
Comparison of IMF Institute & East AFRITAC costs excluding honoraria
	IMF Institute1/
		All courses	1,850	1,890
		Typical two-week course	1,620	2,670
	East AFRITAC1/
		11 workshops - $511,000 total cost divided by 367 participant-weeks	1,392
		Two two-week courses, $151,000 divided by 120 participant weeks	1,258
	West AFRITAC 1/
		7 workshops - $404,000 total cost divided by 188 participant-weeks 3/	2,149
Comparison of East & West AFRITAC costs including honoraria
	East AFRITAC
		11 workshops - $638,000 total cost divided by 367 participant-weeks	1,738
	West AFRITAC
		7 workshops - $465,000 total cost divided by 188 participant-weeks 3/	2,472

^1/Participant costs and staff travel costs.

^2/Unweighted average of regional programs.

^3/WA data show most courses lasting four days, treated here as one week

Source: INS costs from OTM, Review of Technical Assistance, February 2004. AFRITAC workshop costs provided by respective centers.

View Table

Table 4.7 -

Comparative Training Costs

Dollar cost per participant week

	Sponsor		Regional programs 2/	Washington courses
Comparison of IMF Institute & East AFRITAC costs excluding honoraria
	IMF Institute1/
		All courses	1,850	1,890
		Typical two-week course	1,620	2,670
	East AFRITAC1/
		11 workshops - $511,000 total cost divided by 367 participant-weeks	1,392
		Two two-week courses, $151,000 divided by 120 participant weeks	1,258
	West AFRITAC 1/
		7 workshops - $404,000 total cost divided by 188 participant-weeks 3/	2,149
Comparison of East & West AFRITAC costs including honoraria
	East AFRITAC
		11 workshops - $638,000 total cost divided by 367 participant-weeks	1,738
	West AFRITAC
		7 workshops - $465,000 total cost divided by 188 participant-weeks 3/	2,472

^1/Participant costs and staff travel costs.

^2/Unweighted average of regional programs.

^3/WA data show most courses lasting four days, treated here as one week

Source: INS costs from OTM, Review of Technical Assistance, February 2004. AFRITAC workshop costs provided by respective centers.