Conclusions of GEMAP's failure are premature

In 2005, the Liberian interim government and its international partners—UN, US, EU, ECOWAS, etc, — signed an economic framework known as the Governance Economic Management Assistance Program (GEMAP). It was a move to bring fiscal sanity and sound economic management to a financially ruined country.

GEMAP has now been in existence for about 15 months and is gradually coming under increasing scrutiny. Several Liberians have begun expressing ambivalent sentiments about the program. Many are questioning the program's utility and relevance to the country. A fortnight ago, for example, Cllr. Negbalee Warner, former civil society representative on the GEMAP steering committee, voiced out the strongest criticism against GEMAP so far at the Edward Wilmot Blyden Press Union forum. Mr. Warner said "[GEMAP] has lost its true objectives and lacks accountability and transparency in its design.”

Thus, Mr. Warner’s statement, compounded by the public cynicism toward GEMAP, the suspicion that corruption led to the firing of its expert assigned at the Liberia Petroleum Refining Company (LPRC), the general dearth of awareness of the program among ordinary people, and the public growing contempt toward exogenous driven and managed program, are forcing Liberians of various persuasions to a conclusion that GEMAP is a failure.

I find some of Mr. Warner's remarks noteworthy, especially his concern that GEMAP needs to recruit qualified Liberians to serve as experts. A Liberian expert would bring familiarity and understanding of the social-political environment to the position. However, this is not a recipe for success either, and if done improperly, could may as well do more damage.

But it was Mr. Warner's imputation that GEMAP was fast-tracked on the Liberian people that I find puzzling. I do not think GEMAP was fast-tracked. GEMAP involved considerable debate over a 5 month period involving the major stakeholders shuttling between Copenhagen, Accra, Niamey and other capitals. GEMAP had to undergo a prolonged adjustment process. This process let to the first proposition, Economic Governance Assistance Program (EGAP). After EGAP was proposed, discussion soon followed in the subregion, as there were some concerns that the new proposition was deflecting attention away from the Accra Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA).

Then on June 27, 2005, two days before the international donors formally submitted EGAP to NTGL, Chairman Bryant and his officials presented a counter-proposal, the Liberia Governance and Economic Management Assistance Programme (LEGAP).

In late July-August, 2005, the EGAP drafters along with the NTGL team, presented a document as a joint resolution agreed by both parties. It was this document that came to be called GEMAP, and Chairman Bryant signed it on September 9, 2005.

The notion that GEMAP was fast-tracked on Liberia, as claimed by Mr. Warner, has little merit in so far as judging from all the processes that went in the final signing of the document, some of which I have described in the the preceding paragraphs.

Mr. Warner also questioned the transparency and relevance of GEMAP to Liberia. I do think GEMAP is very relevant and so far is transparent in its dealings. GEMAP has led to an increment in revenue collection at the Ministry of Finance, which should be seen as a major achievement given the notoriety of Finance as a redoubt for corruption, "Ghost Checks", and its almost impenetrable bureaucratic structures. These gains, however marginal, must be attributed to GEMAP's presence, justifying the program's relevance to the country.

Also, the presence of GEMAP has enhanced credibility and confidence in the international community about the governing structures of the country, especially within its revenue and expenditure control system. This credibility is vital to Liberia because it could increase its chances of receiving future loans or grants from donor agencies.

The difficulty that GEMAP faces from the beginning, and even now, especially its inability to reach the broad political spectrum of the society, can be blamed in part to the negative press coverage it suffered from its inception. Also, its failure to inform the general public about its scope of activities have significantly contributed to this perception as well. These criticisms, however, should now provide the occasion for the program to adopt a better approach of informing the general public.

The last time a plan similar to GEMAP was carried out in Liberia was in 1988, when the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) sponsored a Liberia Economic Stabilization Support Project to improve collection and expenditure control. This project failed after less than a year because the government at the time would not commit to the overhaul of public financial management.

The difference this time around is that the present administration has so far cooperated with GEMAP. Back in 1988, it was the government who refused to work with the economic stabilization plan; now, is the general public, including Mr. Warner, who are questioning GEMAP's utility and relevance. However, it is worth mentioning that GEMAP has serious problems of its own. The manner in which it handled the abrupt dismissal of the LPRC expert has left more questions than answers. Yet, those problems do not justify questioning its relevance.

The statement by Mr. Warner is worrying and a major setback to GEMAP's efforts at winning the hearts and minds of an increasingly doubtful public. Because Mr. Warner has an in-depth experience with the program. To the extent that civil society's former point-person on the GEMAP steering committee is questioning a program perceived by some to be central to the consolidation of democracy in the country has important implications for GEMAP and the way the public sees it.

In conclusion, GEMAP still has 15 months remaining before it expires, a sufficient time to make significant improvements where it has lagged so far. Moreover, it is being implemented in a society where infrastructure and institutional support are a major challenge. This requires restraints and patience. To question its relevance and utility is to ignore the significant changes it has brought to the country. So far, the evidence adduced by Mr. Warner and others do not merit questioning its relevance. Those are important questions that can be used to improve it. We can not make any definitive conclusions as to GEMAP's failure or success until it completes its term of reference, otherwise, these conclusions will be premature.