IMPROVING OWNERSHIP OF TRADE POLICY THROUGH INCLUSIVE

PROCESSES

Presentation to CSEND and CUTS Book Vernissage: “Inter-ministerial Coordination and

Stakeholder Consultation of Trade Policy Making”

19 July, 2010

By Rashid S. Kaukab

Deputy Director and Research Coordinator, CUTS Geneva Resource Centre

rsk@cuts.org

www.cuts-grc.org

1

STRUCTURE OF PRESENTATION

2

Introduction

Trade policy for development: stakeholders and formal consultative mechanisms

Effective participation: challenges as viewed by stakeholders

Measuring inclusiveness: the Inclusive Trade Policy Making (ITPM) Index

Conclusions and way forward to maximize inclusivity pay-offs

I. INTRODUCTION3

Importance of trade and trade policy as a means to achieve growth and development

Importance of inclusive trade policy making to ensure relevance and effective implementation

Based on recent CUTS research under the FEATS project with focus on Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia

II. TRADE POLICY FOR DEVELOPMENT: MAIN

STAKEHOLDERS4Features of an Inclusive Trade

PolicyKey Elements of Inclusive Trade

Policy Making Process Relevant Stakeholders

Based on national development policy

Clear guidance/directions from national development policy makers

National development policy makers (e.g., President’s Office, Ministry for Planning and Development, parliament, etc)

Linked with other governmental policies

Timely inputs and feedback from other government ministries/departments

Other relevant government ministries/departments (e.g., those dealing with agriculture, employment and labour,, competition, etc.)

Linked with international commitments (to implement the commitments as well as to guide the positions regarding future possible commitments)

Timely inputs and feedback from relevant ministries and negotiators

Relevant ministries (e.g., Ministry of Foreign Affairs, etc.) and negotiators (e.g., dealing with the WTO and EPA negotiations)

Balancing the interests of all key stakeholders

Regular inputs and feedback from key non-state stakeholders

Key non-state actors (e.g., representatives of the private sector, farmers, consumers, and the civil society)

Clear implementation plan with adequate resources

Articulation of implementation plan and commitment of required resources

Relevant government ministries (e.g., Ministries of Trade, Finance, Planning) and donors (multilateral and bilateral)

II. TRADE POLICY FOR DEVELOPMENT: CONSULTATIVE

MECHANISMS5

Categorization by Mandate

On specific trade negotiations (e.g. EPA, WTO)

On all trade issues

On larger set of issues that includes trade

Categorization by Membership

Only governmental actors

For public and private sectors

Multi-stakeholder

II. TRADE POLICY FOR DEVELOPMENT: CONSULTATIVE

MECHANISMS6

Mandate/Membership

Multi-stakeholder

Public-Private sectors

Only governmental

Multiple issues

including trade

Uganda ACF Kenya JICCC Malawi PPD Tanzania NBC Uganda PEC

Kenya IMCsMalawi IMCs Tanzania IMTC,Zambia SCS

All trade issues

Malawi NWGTP Uganda IITC Zambia NWGT

Zambia TEWG Kenya Cabinet sub-committee on trade

Specific trade Negotiations

Kenya NCWTO Kenya NDTPF

Malawi NDTPF Tanzania NETT Uganda NDTPF

III. EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION: CHALLENGES AS VIEWED BY

STAKEHOLDERS7

Common Challenges

Lack of capacity and technical human resources to deal with diverse and evolving issues

Issues of internal and external coordination Lack of regular and timely information flow on trade issues

III. EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION: CHALLENGES AS VIEWED BY

STAKEHOLDERS8

Challenges Specific to Categories of Stakeholders

Ministry responsible for trade: Lack of financial and human resources to ensure regular functioning of consultative mechanisms

Other relevant government ministries/agencies: Issue of primary mandate

Private sector: Need to improve opportunities for less powerful business associations

CSOs: Occasional tensions with the government and limited opportunities for participation

IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE TRADE POLICY

MAKING (ITPM) INDEX9

Objectives of ITPM Index

Assessing the inclusiveness of a country’s trade policy making processes in terms of the capacities and participation of main stakeholders in these processes

Identifying the weaknesses and gaps that should be the target of related capacity building and other activities by the governments, donors, and various stakeholders

Allowing for comparisons across countries to identify the good practices as well as prompting actions by countries lagging behind

Improving prospects for domestic ownership of trade policies through development and application of more inclusive trade policy making processes

IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE TRADE POLICY MAKING

(ITPM) INDEX10

ITPM Action Variable KENYA MALAWITANZA

NIAUGAND

AZAMBI

A

Part I. Ministry responsible for Trade

A. Identification of all key stakeholders

0.75 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.75

B. Creating awareness about the need for trade policy 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.75

C. Establishment of formal consultative mechanisms

0.75 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00

D. Functioning of formal consultative mechanisms

0.75 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.75

E. Regular information flow to the stakeholders including on the content of trade policy

0.50 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.50

Part I Score3.50/5

.003.25/5.0

02.50/5.0

2.75/5.00

3.75/5.00

IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE TRADE POLICY MAKING

(ITPM) INDEX11

ITPM Action Variable KENYA MALAWI TANZANIA UGANDA ZAMBIA

Part II. Other relevant government

ministries/agencies

F. Regular participation in the process and feedback to the relevant authorities

1.00 0.75 0.50 0.75 0.75

G. Faithful representation of and regular feedback to the represented constituencies

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

H. Acquiring relevant knowledge and expertise 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Part II Score2.00/3.0

01.75/3.00

1.50/3.00

1.75/3.01.75/3.0

0Part III. Private sector and

business umbrella organizations

I. Regular participation in the process and feedback to the relevant authorities

1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00

J. Faithful representation of and regular feedback to the represented constituencies

0.50 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.50

K. Acquiring relevant knowledge and expertise 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Part III Score2.00/3.0

02.25/3.0

2.00/3.00

2.00/3.002.00/3.0

0

IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE TRADE POLICY MAKING

(ITPM) INDEX12

ITPM Action Variable KENYA MALAWI TANZANIA UGANDA ZAMBIA

Part IV. Civil society organizations

L. Regular participation in the process and feedback to the relevant authorities

0.75 0.25 0.50 0.25 1.00

M. Faithful representation of and regular feedback to the represented constituencies

0.75 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

N. Acquiring relevant knowledge and expertise

0.50 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.50

Part IV Score2.00/3.0

01.25/3.00

1.50/3.00

1.75/3.002.00/3.0

0

ITPM Index Score9.50/14.

08.50/14.0

07.50/1

4.008.25/14.0

09.50/14.

00

V. MAIN CONCLUSIONS13

Improved (and further improving) inclusiveness, better informed stakeholders, and emerging culture of dialogue at nation al levels

But

Not all relevant stakeholders involved (e.g. parliamentarians, informal sector, consumers), and

Consultative forums lack effective mandates

And

Further efforts also needed to maximize inclusivity pay-offs in an evolving setting

V. WAY FORWARD TO MAXIMIZE INCLUSIVITY PAY-OFFS FOR TRADE-LED

DEVELOPMENT: SOME RECOMMENDATIONS14

Broadening national consultations: identification and involvement of all relevant stakeholders

Strengthening national consultative mechanisms: more resources and better mandates

Linking with results: measure impact of improved inclusivity/ownership on trade policy content and outcomes

Focusing on specific areas: make better use of inclusivity processes for EIF and Aid for Trade

Addressing the regional dimension: build similar processes at the regional level among RECs

15

Inclusiveness can generate national ownership leading to effective

implementation of trade policy as part of overall development policy