Alex Werth Advisor Trade & Sustainable Development/CUTS

1. Stakeholder Feedback on TDP Initiatives in ESA: Key Messages and Possible Way Forward – A CSO PerspectivePresented at the Civil Society Consultative Forumheld on 23-25 June in Livingstone, Zambia Alex Werth Advisor Trade & Sustainable Development/CUTS

2. OUTLINE • Research Objective and Methodology • Main Issues of CSO Interest • Stakeholder Recommendations • Initial Assessment • Possible 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 TDPIs • Main focus of TDPIs • Major modes of implementation • Achievements of TDPIs/Replicability • Demand- vs. donor-driveness of TDPIs

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

8. - Underlying rationale of TDPIs • Donors: • Spur T&I as major tools for development and poverty reduction, mainly through • assisting policymakers in creating enabling environment • Supporting 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 • Combatmain constraints at micro-levelrather 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!