ALive is not a project/program, it is a platform which aims at putting around the table all stakeholders involved in the development of livestock in sub-Saharan Africa and discuss all together the best pathways to do so. In addition, ALive also has an annual program of activity (which is an annual breaking down of a 3-year Action Plan, the first one covering 2004-2007) to provide policy makers with information and tools that are commonly and consensually elaborated through discussions and experiences/knowledge shared on the Platform. All tools provided are up-stream to usual country operations (example of the livestock PRSP-methodology which is a tool to help countries to properly integrate livestock in their PRSP). These programs of activity might have brought the confusion that ALive was a project/program.
Back to TOP
2. Is ALive a top-down process elaborated by the World Bank?
It has indeed been initiated by the World Bank (2003), which wanted to reconsider his support to the livestock sector after a decade of contested actions. To do so, the World Bank has built a unique and innovative approach based on field experience and lessons learnt from its own operations and discussions with national stakeholders, which underlined that (i) there are only few financial and human resources dedicated to the sector in Africa and (ii) there is a need for a common approach on the best way to develop livestock in Africa. It was thus proposed that all actors involved in the sector be gathered on a platform to consensually propose solutions and take the best of all institutions based on their comparative advantages.
ALive is not a World Bank initiative, it is a multi-partners Platform
3. Why WB, OIE FAO seem to have a prominent role at the beginning, rather that indigenous institutions such as AU, AU-IBAR and the Regional Economic Communities (RECs)?
The international technical agencies such as FAO and OIE have played a crucial role in supporting ALive form the beginning since their international reputation was needed to give full credibility to the Platform. Let’s just remember that the African countries are all members of OIE and FAO and that they could fully make their voice through these institutions.
The African institutions have been involved since the first steps of ALive and have been presented as the main beneficiaries of the Platform. Donors such as the European Commission have conditioned their support to ALive to its progressive adoption by / transfer to the African institutions.
The only reason was to take advantage of the presence of many African stakeholders gathered at that time in Paris (ALive did not have its own budget at that time and could not finance partners’ participation expenses).
5. Why is the Secretariat hosted by the Bank in Washington DC?
The Secretariat is hosted by the World Bank since 2003. This is considered as an important in-kind contribution of the Bank to the Partnership.
The Operational Guidelines of ALive propose in their initial version the transfer of the Secretariat to an African institution after a 3-year phase, which was necessary to put the Platform on track. This transfer is conditioned to the ability of the targeted host institution to provide logistical and human resources to the Secretariat for its daily functioning . The option is currently being discussed among the members of the Executive Committee (see resolutions of the EC8).
6. Why having AU as the chairperson was not immediately envisioned? Has the transfer to AU been made in response to outside criticisms?
Again, OIE, FAO and the WB’ s supports were very useful in the first phase of the Partnership due to their international reputation / convening power to put everybody around the table. However:
i)the composition of the Executive Committee of ALive(the decisional body) gives a prominent place to the African institutions (5 members), which is the Caucus the best represented;
ii) an African personality, Dr Abdoulaye Niang, was in charge of the initial chairmanship of the General Assembly and was speaking on behalf on the African stakeholders;
iii)Right after the official launching of ALive, the Secretariat visited most of the RECs (UEMOA, SADC, IGAD), the NEPAD in Pretoria, Au-IBAR in Nairobi and AU in Addis Ababa to have them really involved and get their views on the short term developments of the governance (ownership by AU);
iv)It is important to transfer the governance to AU at the right time: for the General Assembly, this was effective in May 2005; for the Executive committee, at the request of the Director of IBAR himself, this will happen in June 2007, almost a year after the initial schedule. This is not transferring just for the principle, but rather when the African institutions agree and have the capacities to fully handle and lead the initiative. This is why the decision of the Director of IBAR – who said he needed some more time to be ready – was fully understood and appreciated.
7. What are the roles of the Platform? What are the most important?
ALive roles are to:
i)ensure coordination among all actors and their respective programs/projects;
ii) develop common strategies, policies and action plans at the regional level;
iii)facilitate knowledge and experiences sharing, develop and disseminate best practices, and build capacities, at the sub-regional level;
iv) provide analytical support and operational assistance at the country level.
These roles are all important and complementary. However, the functioning of the platform (involvement of all actors = i) is crucial for ii), iii) and iv).
8. Regarding the development of actions plans, is ALive not duplicating the existing work of IBAR and AU Directorate for Rural Economy and Agriculture?
ALive is a platform at the service of AU-IBAR and DREA. It intends to support / help them in the implementation of their own activities. As a concrete example, the EU-IBAR PACE program achievements are now presented and discussed during the ALive meetings for a broader dissemination of its results and information. For the first time, the RECs have participated as observers in the PACE Advisory Committee in October 2006 and are now fully aware of its objectives and results.
ALive is a federative platform to share information on existing initiatives, to strengthen collaborations and avoid duplication. Every actor, in particular IBAR and DREA – can benefit from the Platform.
9. Does ALive impinge the roles of existing African institutions?
On the contrary, ALive enhances the participation and actions of the African institutions. For the first time, the RECs have an arena to discuss the development of the livestock sector in Africa.
11. With regard to ongoing activities, to what extent have the projects envisioned in the three year plan been carried out?
There has been a shift in priorities because of avian flu, which has been added to the initial action plan (flexibility), notably in the perspective of the International Conference of Bamako on Avian and Human Influenza. As a result, the initial activities implementation has been slightly delayed. However, all activities should be performed by October 2007 (end of the first 3-year Action Plan).
