Alex Werth Advisor Trade & Sustainable Development/CUTS

1

Stakeholder Feedback on TDP Initiatives in ESA:

Key Messages and Possible Way Forward – A CSO Perspective

Presented at the Civil Society Consultative Forum

held on

23-25 June in Livingstone, Zambia

Alex WerthAdvisor Trade & Sustainable Development/CUTS

2

OUTLINE

Research Objective and MethodologyMain Issues of CSO InterestStakeholder Recommendations Initial AssessmentPossible Way Forward

3

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE & METHOD.

Objective Study a select number of TDP (trade, development &

poverty reduction) initiatives (TDPIs) in Eastern and Southern African (ESA) countries provided by (inter-) governmental institutions

By reviewing the origin, objectives and outcomes of TDPIs And gathering information necessary for making

recommendations on how to make existing TDPIs more relevant for ESA development and poverty reduction efforts

4

Research objective and methodology – cont’d

Methodology Look at one bilateral TDPI each in Kenya, Uganda and

Zambia: DFID - Kenya Trade and Poverty Programme (KTTP); EU - Uganda Programme on Trade Opportunities and Policy (UPTOP); and USAID - Zambia Trade and Investment Enhancement Project (ZAMTIE).

Look at one regional TDPI each under COMESA, EAC and SADC: ACBF - COMESA Capacity Building Project; GTZ – Technical Assistance to EAC Secretariat; and DFID/IMANI – Regional Trade Facilitation Programme (RTFP) for SADC.

5

Research objective and methodology – cont’d

Look at one international TDPI: World Bank/IMF/UNCTAD/WTO/ITC/UNDP-lead Integrated Framework (for Uganda and Zambia).

Main research tool: direct interview with trade officials at Trade Ministries and regional bodies, on the one hand, and donor agency representatives, on the other (so far just a small number of CSO representatives consulted).

6

Elements of Key CSO Interest

Underlying rationale of TDPIsMain focus of TDPIsMajor modes of implementationAchievements of TDPIs/ReplicabilityDemand- vs. donor-driveness of TDPIs

7

Elements of key CSO Interest – Cont’d

Consultation with target recipient(s) Involvement of civil societyHow do they take an integrated approach to

TDP?Major strengths of TDPIsTheir major limitations

8

- Underlying rationale of TDPIs

Donors: – Spur T&I as major tools for development and poverty

reduction, mainly throughassisting policymakers in creating enabling environmentSupporting business organisation/development

Recipients:– “Capacity building”

9

- Main focus of TDPIs

Donors: balanced distribution of work on skills development of producers/workers, enhancing regulatory compliance and building trade negotiating capacity (but last component strongest!)

Recipients: clear bias against skills development!!

10

- Major Modes of implementation

Technical Assistance Capacity building workshops Training Institutional Capacity Building Multistakeholder policy dialogue Trade policy research Facilitating participation in negotiations Logistical support

11

- Achievements of TDPIs/Replicability

Donors are clearly more positive about the level of capacity being built than the recipients, while

Recipients are more confident about the replicability of the transferred knowledge by recipient stakeholders then are the donors

12

- Demand- vs. donor-driveness of TDPIs

General motivation of recipient and donor Apparently ESA recipients are interested in support – but

actual interest is in political cooperation/ integration, the supply side dimension and institutional capacity building

The focus on trade liberalisation is largely donor-driven (donors expressed this most explicitly!)

As significant funds are being provided, recipients make use of it – but often also pursuing other agendas than the donors

13

Demand- vs. donor-driveness of TDPIs – Cont’d

At concrete TDPI design stage: TDPIs more or less responsive to ‘demands’, but donors

sometimes also come with full fledged packages Donors often ask (often non-local) consultants to

undertake needs assessment and come up with project proposal

Sometimes initiative clearly comes from within, but explicit donor interest in trade related work often seems instrumental

14

Demand- vs. donor-driveness of TDPIs – Cont’d

At TDPI implementation stage GOVT and PS, which are usually the key targets,

have strong influence on work programme But sometimes takes part in priority setting as well

as how much is spent on what (e.g. TA vis-à-vis CB)

In few cases of multistakeholder CB workshops, SH can influence agenda of CB sessions

15

- Consultation with target recipient(s)

Mostly consultations held with ministry/regional secretary officials, as well as apex business associations

Hardly with grass roots SH Consultations often continue throughout

implementation phase (e.g. in IITC, KELPOTRADE, Zambia Business Forum, Working Group on Trade)

16

- Involvement of civil society

Business NGOs are often involved Not so much political NGOs/CSOs In some cases ‘fair trade advocates’ involved Stated reason for little civil society involvement: “CSO

are mostly rather inactive on trade”! Usual modes of CSO involvement: participation in

multi-SH fora (e.g. IITC, KEPLOTRADE) or in CB/sensitisation workshops; beneficiaries of research grants

17

- In how far do TDPIs take an integrated approach to TDP?

Trade liberalisation – together with trade development -improves incomes

Looking at complementary issues (infrastructure, development integration, supply constraints)

“Sector-approach” – e.g. Ag and working with peasants. Working at the same time with GOVT, PS and CS Embedding TDPIs in existent DEVT strategies Through empowerment of SH in trade policy that they

can advocate for pro-poor, pro-DEVT trade policies

18

- When do TDPIs work well?

Autonomous, flexible, unbureaucratic, and responsive programmes

Multilevel approach Mixing direct and indirect approaches Employing various modes of delivery Using multi-SH consultative fora Fostering real engagement through fully responsive

CB plus follow up (e.g. research)

19

When do TDPIs work well? – Cont’d

True commitment of ground-level SH (here mostly business community)

Real ownership of the recipient (e.g. Ministry) Good-will of political leaders Good project governance structure

20

- When do they not work?

Lack of resources Both donor and recipient sometimes have to work with

counterparts which they are not comfortable with Donor provides TA as it doesn’t trust its counterparts GOVT is not fully committed – due to lack of interest in

trade, limited absorptive capacity or top-down donor approach

Multi-SH cannot come up with common agenda TDPI is too unfocussed TDPI lacks focus on domestic and regional trade

21

- When do they not work? – Cont’d

TDPI does not look at major bottlenecks in production and marketing

Backstopping capacity of non-governmental ‘centres of excellence’ still low and sporadic

Slow process when working exclusively through Ministries and regional secretariats (mode of operation)

Lack of required trust given to local people Lack of methodologies to really tackle the relevant TDP

issues Human aspects not considered, especially in TA

22

SH Recommendations on TDPIs

Focus of TDPIs Have development in the centre of every project Raising standard of living should be overall target Establish clearer T-D-P linkages Link macro-level with micro-level Combat main constraints at micro-level rather than having a superficial

programme targeting the macro-level More focus on supply constraints/bottlenecks More work on trade development Look at backward linkages in production Promotion of linkages between poor ESA producers and markets i.e.

distributors in major consumer markets Employ issue-/commodity-specific approaches

23

SH Recommendations on TDPIs – Cont’d

Process Make a proper needs assessment Develop TDPI concept jointly with target recipient Consultative, consensus-building arrangements Joint recipient-donor implementation according to recipient's priorities Increase accountability of recipient Include the poor/TP users in planning and implementation Only those who trust each other should work together Work on T&I is only only meaningful with those who “life the talk” Involve grassroots-level SH - especially CS - more pro-actively throughout TDPI

process Cooperate with CSO actors as they operate faster, less formalistically and can

interact with SH more freely

24

Initial Assessment

The overall theme of the TDP agenda – trade liberalisation – is often donor-driven, recipients’ actual priorities neglected

In traditional GOVT-2-GOVT set-up, level of mutual trust sometimes low (particularly in work on trade negotiations)

In this setting it is often hard to generate ‘critical mass’ for working on T&I as tools for DEVT and poverty reduction

GOVT-centered TDPIs are often comparatively slow and inflexible during implementation process

The actual TDPI beneficiaries, i.e. the poor, are seldom involved in process

25

Initial Assessment – Cont’d

Approach in general rather top-down – i.e. intervening at the level of ministries, regional secretariats and apex business organisations

Regarding work on trade policy and negotiations, lack of focus on empowerment of actual trade policy users

TDPIs lack innovative methodologies for building TDP linkages

Focus on trade development and main binding constraints wanting

26

Possible Way Forward

CSOs often have comparative advantage in areas such as confidence- and consensus-building; outreach to, and empowerment of, the poor and other SH at the grassroots-level; integrated work at both micro- and macro-level; as well as innovative and context-specific work on poverty in general

Non-governmental players in general have better access to less bureaucratic and formalistic modes of operation

Work done by local/regional CSO/NGOs minimises perceived interference from “outside” organisations

Local CSOs/NGOs seem best placed to help developing applicable modalities for establishing concrete TDP linkages

27

Possible Way Forward – Cont’d

A strong case could be made that CSOs should play a much greater role in TDPIs – not only as involved SH, but also in the operational aspects

In general interested CSOs should seek much a stronger role as consultative partners in the design and implementation of TDPIs

Also, local/regional CSOs/NGOs could explore and test further opportunities for attracting ‘at-arms’-length’ donor support to, or for build partnerships with donors at operational level, for directly participating in the conceptualisation implementation of TDPIs

Regarding trade policy/negotiations, further pooling existing capacity in regional ‘trade think tank’ or network could be an option

28

THANK YOU!