Upload
aubrey-dawson
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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!