Stakeholder Feedback on TDP Initiatives in ESA Key

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 Werth 1 Advisor Trade & Sustainable Development/CUTS

OUTLINE Research Objective and Methodology l Main Issues of CSO Interest l Stakeholder Recommendations l Initial Assessment l Possible Way Forward l 2

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE & METHOD. Objective l Study a select number of TDP (trade, development & poverty reduction) initiatives (TDPIs) in Eastern and Southern African (ESA) countries provided by (inter-) governmental institutions l By reviewing the origin, objectives and outcomes of TDPIs l And gathering information necessary for making recommendations on how to make existing TDPIs more relevant for ESA development and poverty reduction efforts 3

Research objective and methodology – cont’d Methodology l 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). l 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. 4

Research objective and methodology – cont’d 5 l Look at one international TDPI: World Bank/IMF/UNCTAD/WTO/ITC/UNDP-lead Integrated Framework (for Uganda and Zambia). l 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).

Elements of Key CSO Interest Underlying rationale of TDPIs l Main focus of TDPIs l Major modes of implementation l Achievements of TDPIs/Replicability l Demand- vs. donor-driveness of TDPIs l 6

Elements of key CSO Interest – Cont’d Consultation with target recipient(s) l Involvement of civil society l How do they take an integrated approach to TDP? l Major strengths of TDPIs l Their major limitations l 7

- Underlying rationale of TDPIs 8 l Donors: – Spur T&I as major tools for development and poverty reduction, mainly through l assisting policymakers in creating enabling environment l Supporting business organisation/development l Recipients: – “Capacity building”

- Main focus of TDPIs 9 l Donors: balanced distribution of work on skills development of producers/workers, enhancing regulatory compliance and building trade negotiating capacity (but last component strongest!) l Recipients: clear bias against skills development!!

- Major Modes of implementation l l l l 10 Technical Assistance Capacity building workshops Training Institutional Capacity Building Multistakeholder policy dialogue Trade policy research Facilitating participation in negotiations Logistical support

- Achievements of TDPIs/Replicability 11 l Donors are clearly more positive about the level of capacity being built than the recipients, while l Recipients are more confident about the replicability of the transferred knowledge by recipient stakeholders then are the donors

- Demand- vs. donor-driveness of TDPIs General motivation of recipient and donor l l l 12 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 donordriven (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

Demand- vs. donor-driveness of TDPIs – Cont’d At concrete TDPI design stage: l l l 13 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

Demand- vs. donor-driveness of TDPIs – Cont’d At TDPI implementation stage l GOVT and PS, which are usually the key targets, have strong influence on work programme l But sometimes takes part in priority setting as well as how much is spent on what (e. g. TA vis-à-vis CB) l In few cases of multistakeholder CB workshops, SH can influence agenda of CB sessions 14

- Consultation with target recipient(s) l l l 15 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)

- Involvement of civil society l l l 16 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

- In how far do TDPIs take an integrated approach to TDP? l l l 17 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

- When do TDPIs work well? l l l 18 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)

When do TDPIs work well? – Cont’d l l 19 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

- When do they not work? l l l 20 l 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

- When do they not work? – Cont’d l l l 21 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

SH Recommendations on TDPIs Focus of TDPIs l l l l l 22 l 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

SH Recommendations on TDPIs – Cont’d Process l l l l l 23 l 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 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

Initial Assessment l l l 24 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

Initial Assessment – Cont’d l l 25 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

Possible Way Forward l l 26 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

Possible Way Forward – Cont’d l l 27 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

THANK YOU! 28