S.V.DivvaakarManaging DirectorAce Global Private Limited

Commissioned by CUTS in July 2008Methods:

Desk ReviewsField missions: 4 countries- Vietnam, Bangladesh, Uganda and Zambia, besides India: Nov- Dec 2008Questionnaire survey of partner organizations and stakeholders

Submission/acceptance of report: Feb 2009Donors’ supplementary evaluation: Mar- May 2009

Unprecedented scale and geographic coverage of national experiences on T D P

All activities completed, no cost and marginal time overrunsThree design amendments:

National dialogues replaced by multiple local outreach workshopsRegional capacity building workshops replaced by pre-Accra events.Producer Consumer dialogues in EU replaced by AfT workshops

Qualitative backstopping /guidance suffered:High profile 14-member Advisory Committee did not convene Lack of continuity in project management at HQ, staff changesInadequate partner feedback and donor engagement Role of regional resource centres not well established in some locations

Results 1. Cross fertilisation of experiencesVery useful materials produced, first of its kind approachValuable insights for policy formulationHowever, lack of sustained engagement with policy makers except at eventsDissemination: enormous aggregate, but limited in individual countriesUseful policy lessons from experiences with similar sectors were not synthesized Partners’ lateral interactions were limited and not spontaneous

Results 2. Policy support, know how and do how on trade and development issues

Not duly addressed in activities targeted at national levelDisseminating research materials alone cannot lead to policy actionsFocus remained only on Trade ministry, and other major government stakeholders were not engagedIssues identified in case studies were not taken up locally through/ with sector bodiesNo customization of trade issues at local outreach meetings : disconnect between project and local advocacy needs

Results 3. Facilitating synergies (G-CS, N-S) to strengthen collective perspectives

Significant exposure of perspectives at international high profile events: Hong Kong, Geneva Events organized by LRC in Europe attended by all relevant policy actors and development agenciesIn-country activities: restricted to the annual National workshop. Participation of major stakeholders ended after the format shifted to local meetings.Key donors not aware of the project activities in countriesOpportunities of national workshops not used well.

Results 4. Advocating development oriented trade policies

Principal result : International Advocacy Document with seven key messages.Very useful messages, but need to be contextualized in each setting. Many actions not under the purview of trade ministry. Other agencies: agriculture, industries, etc. need to be involved.Direction of project’s advocacy has been international, instead of national.

Benefits to target groups

Programme partners:Several partners got new exposure to trade related issues through the project.CUTS international visibility and reach have increased , regional resource centres have become locally influential.New spin-off projects on similar themes in some countriesPartners can access the entire CUTS network, and research and advocacy materials, and can learn from experiences of others.Some countries used the research materials in consultations (EPA)Capacity development on trade measures (e.g. import safeguards) could not be done

Key Influencers: Useful compendium of materials for policy makers and development agencies, and useful lessons:

Unfettered liberalisation may cause more harm than good to weaker stakeholders.Trade does not automatically lead to poverty reduction, but needs targeted resource allocations, and labour-technology-capital choices/trade offsTrade liberalization brings additional risks due to external factors and needs concomitant attention to: macro economic stability, currency management, fiscal and monetary policy, market development assistance, trade facilitation, standards, etc.Besides trade, other key stakeholders: finance, HRD, line ministries need to be on board ad fully engaged. So far, focus has been only on trade ministries.

Practitioners/final beneficiaries: Opportunities existed but could not be developed due to design and funding constraints

Limitations and Shortcomings

Absence of Country level Results Matrix for ImpactsThin spread of activities over extremely long duration: context and continuity issues emerged in latter years Limited engagement with sector/industry bodies and national policy actorsStaff turnover and project management/backstopping

Pro-poor dimension:

Using available policy spaces to nurture and guide the composition of trade such that

it has a positive effect on the lives of the weaker and vulnerable

sections.

Evidence needs to be sought not in the aggregate trade performance, but in the performance of sectors involving the poorest sections:

e.g.: agriculture, labour-intensive low-tech

manufacturing

ImpactEvidence of pro-poor trade policies in National Development Strategies: Increasing CSO involvement in PRSPs formulation and monitoring; donor support, resource allocation for tradeDomestic safeguards and mitigating measures: isolated evidence- India (edible oils), Zambia (maize export ban), but not linked to the projectEnhancement of productive capacities in labour-intensive export-competitive sectors: Bangladesh and VietnamHarnessing of preferential market access opportunities: Trade capacity development support: adequate sensitization on AfT

Impact areas not influenced directlyIncreased private sector investment in tradeIncrease in trade in labour-intensive productsEmployment , livelihoods creation through inclusion in trade related activities

However, these are not part of the project design.Therefore, impacts not measurable or attributable to TDP.

Recommendations

Flexible, shorter duration modulesNational/ local level Results accountability Partner selection: combine domain knowledge with advocacy outreach, some partners can be common for many countriesEngagement with sector bodies and other government stakeholdersBudgets should be based on size and geographic coverage

Confirms implementation weaknesses, while recognizing CUTS as a capable and effective organization.Pluses:

Long term partnerships in south Asia, and new relationships in AfricaLarge volume of research outputs and advocacy aids

Minuses:Advocacy influencing strategy was not clear; successes were not directly because of project activitiesProject management suffered in the complex project; outcome focus was lost in later years

More focus needed on developing skills/capacities of partners Organization’s rapid growth led to some of these challenges: more management resources needed