1
IMPROVING INCLUSIVENESS OF TRADE POLICY
MAKING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Presentation to CUTS Geneva Resource Centre
Session during the WTO Geneva Week
6 May, 2010
By Rashid S. Kaukab
Deputy Director and Research Coordinator, CUTS Geneva Resource Centre
[email protected]
www.cuts-grc.org
STRUCTURE OF PRESENTATION
2
 Brief Introduction
 Trade policy making process: main stakeholders and some
features of formal consultative mechanisms
 Challenges as viewed by stakeholders
 Measuring inclusiveness: the Inclusive Trade Policy Making
(ITPM) Index
 Conclusions and Recommendations
I. INTRODUCTION
3
 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 MAKING: MAIN
STAKEHOLDERS
4
Features of an Inclusive Trade
Policy
Key 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)
Other relevant government
ministries/departments (e.g., those dealing
with agriculture, employment and labour,,
competition, etc.)
Linked with other governmental
policies
Timely inputs and feedback from
other government
ministries/departments
Linked with international
commitments (to implement the
commitments as well as to guide the
positions regarding future possible
commitments)
Balancing the interests of all key
stakeholders
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)
Regular inputs and feedback from
key non-state stakeholders
Clear implementation plan with
adequate resources
Articulation of implementation plan
and commitment of required
Key non-state actors (e.g., representatives
of the private sector, farmers, consumers,
and the civil society)
Relevant government ministries (e.g.,
Ministries of Trade, Finance, Planning)
II. TRADE POLICY MAKING: MAIN
STAKEHOLDERS
5
1. Government Ministry Responsible for Trade Policy
 Role of the ministry as the primary institution to deal with all trade
policy issues is generally recognized now and reflected in
governmental procedures
 Responsible for trade policy making, and monitoring its
implementation
 Also generally responsible for developing negotiating positions for
various trade negotiations
 Entrusted with the task of consulting all relevant stakeholders on
trade policy issues including through the establishment and
functioning of consultative mechanisms
II. TRADE POLICY MAKING: MAIN
STAKEHOLDERS
6
2. Other Relevant Government Ministries and
Agencies
 Providing overall policy direction to ensure coherence with the long
term development vision and strategy, e.g. President’s Office,
Ministry for National Planning
 Providing specific, expert inputs on issues that are under the
mandate of a particular ministry/government agency, e.g., Ministry
of Agriculture
 Implementing trade policy measures that are covered under the
mandate of a particular ministry/government agency, e.g. National
Revenue Authority, District Commercial Officers, etc
II. TRADE POLICY MAKING: MAIN
STAKEHOLDERS
7
3. Private Sector
 Organized in overall umbrella organizations (e.g. National Chamber
of Commerce and Industry) as well as on sectoral basis (e.g.
associations of fresh fruit exporters, textiles and garments industry,
etc)
 Representation generally through large umbrella and / or sectoral
associations but occasionally individual firms also play key role
 Informal sector generally not represented
II. TRADE POLICY MAKING: MAIN
STAKEHOLDERS
8
4. Civil Society Organizations
 Organization: international, regional, national; faith-based; project,
policy; network
 Focus of activities: awareness-raising, advocacy, research, capacity
building, project execution, networking
 Substantive issue coverage of activities: human rights, trade and
development, gender and youth issues, finance and monetary issues
 Issues of representation and mandate
II. TRADE POLICY MAKING: CONSULTATIVE
MECHANISMS
9
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 MAKING: CONSULTATIVE
MECHANISMS
10
Mandate/Membe
rship
Multistakeholder
Public-Private
sectors
Only
governmental
Multiple issues
including trade
Uganda ACF
Kenya JICCC
Malawi PPD
Tanzania NBC
Uganda PEC
Kenya IMCs
Malawi IMCs
Tanzania IMTC,
Zambia SCS
All trade issues
Malawi NWGTP
Uganda IITC
Zambia NWGT
Zambia TEWG
Kenya Cabinet subcommittee on trade
Specific trade
Negotiations
Kenya NCWTO
Kenya NDTPF
Malawi NDTPF
Tanzania NETT
Uganda NDTPF
III. CHALLENGES AS VIEWED BY
STAKEHOLDERS
11
Ministry Responsible for Trade Policy
 Lack of capacity and technical human resources
 Issues of internal and external coordination
 Lack of financial and human resources to ensure regular functioning of
consultative mechanisms
 Diversity and evolving nature of issues
 Changes in governments/restructuring of ministries
III. CHALLENGES AS VIEWED BY
STAKEHOLDERS
12
Other relevant Government Ministries and Agencies
 Lack of capacity and technical human resources
 Issues of coordination among governmental machinery
 Lack of regular and timely information flow on trade issues
 Issue of primary mandate
III. CHALLENGES AS VIEWED BY
STAKEHOLDERS
13
Private Sector
 Limited technical understanding, and advocacy capacities
 Need to balance the interests of members
 Tight timelines to provide feedback on trade issues
 Need to improve opportunities for less powerful business associations
 Representation of informal sector?
III. CHALLENGES AS VIEWED BY
STAKEHOLDERS
14
Civil Society Organisations (CSOs)
 Limited technical understanding of complex issues
 Need to strengthen research-based advocacy
 Need for better coordination and information sharing among CSOs
 Occasional tensions with the government
 Limited opportunities for participation
 Lack of resources to maintain sustained engagement and retain the knowledge and expertise
gained on trade issues
 Issues of representation and mandate ?
IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE
TRADE POLICY M15
AKING (ITPM) INDEX
Objectives of ITPM Index
 Raising awareness about the political economy aspects of trade policy making
 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 M16
AKING (ITPM) INDEX
Methodology
 Development of analytical framework: defining main features of inclusive trade
policy; linking these features with elements of trade policy making process and
relevant stakeholders; and developing action variables to assess performance
 Constructing initial ITPM Indices for all five countries based on the analytical
framework and the information collected during the study
 Validation of the framework and the initial IPTM Index values and finalization
after incorporating the comments
IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE
TRADE POLICY M17
AKING (ITPM) INDEX
IPTM Index: Action Variables, Actors and Values
Part I: Ministry Responsible for Trade Policy
Action Variable
A. Identification of all key stakeholders
Possible Action Value
Yes = 1
No = 0
Most identified = 0.75
Some identified = 0.5
Few identified = 0.25
B. Creating awareness about the need for trade policy Yes = 1
No = 0
Many efforts made = 0.75
Some efforts made =
0.5
Few efforts made = 0.25
C. Establishment of formal consultative mechanisms Yes = 1
No = 0
Established for most trade policy issues = 0.75
Established for some trade policy issues = 0.50
Established for few trade policy issues = 0.25
D. Regular functioning of formal consultative
Yes = 1
No = 0
mechanisms
Functioning most of the time = 0.75
Irregular functioning = 0.5
Ad hoc functioning =
0.25
E. Regular information flow to the stakeholders
Yes = 1
No = 0
including on the content of trade policy
Information flowing most of the time = 0.75
Irregular information flow = 0.5
Ad hoc information
flow = 0.25
IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE
TRADE POLICY M18
AKING (ITPM) INDEX
IPTM Index: Action Variables, Actors and Values
Parts II, III, and IV: Other Relevant Government Ministries, Private Sector, and
CSOs
Action Variables
Possible Action Value
F, I, and L. Regular participation in the process and Yes = 1
feedback to the relevant authorities
Most of the time = 0.75
Little and / or ad hoc = 0.25
G, J, and M. Faithful representation of and regular
feedback to the represented constituencies
H, K, and N. Acquiring relevant knowledge and
expertise
No = 0
Irregular = 0.5
Yes = 1
No = 0
Most of the time = 0.75
Occasional faithful representation and/or irregular feedback =
0.5
Little faithful representation and / or ad hoc feedback = 0.25
Yes = 1
No = 0
Substantial knowledge and expertise = 0.75
Some knowledge and expertise = 0.5
Little knowledge and expertise = 0.25
IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE
TRADE POLICY M19
AKING (ITPM) INDEX
Explanation of Possible Action Values
 Yes = maximum value of 1 = when appropriate action has been taken by
the actor concerned
 Many/Most = high value of 0.75 = when quite a lot has been done but
some gaps remain
 Some = intermediate value of 0.5 = when action has been taken but is not
sufficient
 Few / Little = low value of 0.25 = when some action has been taken but
much remains
 No = 0 value assigned = when no action has been taken by the actor
concerned
IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE
20
TRADE POLICY MAKING (ITPM) INDEX
ITPM Action Variable
Part I. Ministry
responsible for Trade
KENYA MALAWI
TANZA
NIA
UGAND
A
ZAMBI
A
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 Score
3.50/5 3.25/5.0
.00
0
2.50/ 2.75/5.0 3.75/5.
5.0
0
00
IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE
21
TRADE POLICY MAKING (ITPM) INDEX
ITPM Action Variable
Part II. Other relevant
government
ministries/agencies
F. Regular participation in the process
and feedback to the relevant
authorities
G. Faithful representation of and
regular feedback to the represented
constituencies
H. Acquiring relevant knowledge and
expertise
Part II Score
Part III. Private sector and
business umbrella
organizations
KENYA
MALAWI TANZANIA UGANDA ZAMBIA
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.75/3.0
1.75/3.0
0
2.00/3.0
1.75/3.00
0
1.50/3.
00
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 Score
2.00/3.0
2.25/3.0
2.00/3.
2.00/3.00
2.00/3.0
IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE
22
TRADE POLICY MAKING (ITPM) INDEX
ITPM Action Variable
Part IV. Civil society
organizations
KENYA
MALAWI TANZANIA UGANDA ZAMBIA
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 Score
2.00/3.0
1.25/3.00
0
1.50/3.
2.00/3.0
1.75/3.00
00
0
ITPM Index Score
9.50/14. 8.50/14.0
0
0
7.50/1 8.25/14.0 9.50/14.
4.00
0
00
V. MAIN C
23ONCLUSIONS
 Several consultative mechanisms on trade issues established; however

Lack legal mandates and adequate resources

Multiplicity of consultative fora

Not all trade issues covered by consultative fora

Irregular and ad hoc functioning
 Improved stakeholders participation; but

Not all stakeholders being represented

Not all stakeholders have equal opportunities to participate
V. MAIN CONCLUSIONS
24
 Remaining challenges classified in three broad categories

Related to capacity (limited technical, human, and financial capacities
of stakeholders)

Related to institutional and structural issues (design and functioning of
consultative mechanisms)

Related to challenges internal to each group of stakeholders
V. SOME RECOMMENDATIONS
25
 Identification and involvement of all relevant stakeholders: by
governments and concerned ministries
 Awareness-raising on trade issues: by all actors
 Regular information flow on trade issues to key stakeholders: by
concerned ministries
 Rationalization and strengthening of consultative mechanisms: by
governments and concerned ministries
 Better coordination among relevant government ministries and agencies
on trade issues: by governments
V. SOME RECOMMENDATIONS
26
 Better opportunities for CSO participation: by concerned ministries
 Better feedback and input loops between CSOs and the private sector
umbrella organisations on the one hand, and their constituencies on the
other: by private sector and CSOs
 Investment on knowledge and expertise building: by all including
development partners
 Promotion of a culture of dialogue and inclusiveness: by all
27
Inclusiveness will generate national ownership
which is the best guarantee for effective
implementation of trade policy as part of
overall development policy