Session: Impact and Outreach
Topic: Evaluation Findings and Recommendations
S.V.Divvaakar
Managing Director
Ace Global Private Limited
Commissioned by CUTS in July 2008
Methods:
Desk Reviews
Field missions: 4 countries- Vietnam, Bangladesh, Uganda and Zambia,
besides India: Nov- Dec 2008
Questionnaire survey of partner organizations and stakeholders
Submission/acceptance of report: Feb 2009
Donors’ supplementary evaluation: Mar- May 2009
Research materials
Outreach and
Advocacy
tools/materials
Meetings and
Conferences
• Country background studies, sector case studies
• Synthesis Reports: 2 volumes
• 18 Briefing/Analytical papers
• Local campaign kits
• Advocacy document
• Dissemination: over 22000 people globally
• National Workshops (Annual)
• Regional workshops (capacity development…)
• Global/ regional conferences (700 attendees)
Unprecedented scale and geographic coverage of national experiences on T D P
All activities completed, no cost and marginal time overruns
Three design amendments:
National dialogues replaced by multiple local outreach workshops
Regional 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 changes
Inadequate partner feedback and donor engagement
Role of regional resource centres not well established in some locations
Results 1. Cross fertilisation of experiences
Very useful materials produced, first of its kind approach
Valuable insights for policy formulation
However, lack of sustained engagement with policy makers
except at events
Dissemination: enormous aggregate, but limited in individual
countries
Useful 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 level
Disseminating research materials alone cannot lead to policy
actions
Focus remained only on Trade ministry, and other major
government stakeholders were not engaged
Issues identified in case studies were not taken up locally
through/ with sector bodies
No 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 agencies
In-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 countries
Opportunities 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 countries
Partners 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
Benefits to target groups
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 offs
Trade 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 Impacts
Thin spread of activities over extremely long duration: context
and continuity issues emerged in latter years
Limited engagement with sector/industry bodies and national
policy actors
Staff 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.
Trade –fordevelopment
planning
Trade creation/
expansion
Pro-poor resource
allocations
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
Trade facilitation
Trade capacity
development
Incubation
• New opportunities
Expansion
Retention
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mitigation
• Risk assessment
• Diversification, redeployment
Dispersion
Consumption
• Sector development strategy
Output volume
Value: nominal and real terms
Employment/livelihood creation
Inclusion of weaker, poorer sections
Disposable incomes
Access to basic services
Competitiveness , skills development
Institutions, enabling framework
Impact
Evidence of pro-poor trade policies in National Development
Strategies: Increasing CSO involvement in PRSPs formulation
and monitoring; donor support, resource allocation for trade
Domestic safeguards and mitigating measures: isolated
evidence- India (edible oils), Zambia (maize export ban), but not
linked to the project
Enhancement of productive capacities in labour-intensive
export-competitive sectors: Bangladesh and Vietnam
Harnessing of preferential market access opportunities:
Trade capacity development support: adequate sensitization on
AfT
Impact areas not influenced directly
Increased private sector investment in trade
Increase in trade in labour-intensive products
Employment , 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.
Political Support
• Positive for TDP
type
interventions
• Donors – follow
on projects
• CSO credibility
and limits of
advocacy
Institutional
Factors
• Broad basing of
influence: other
line ministries
need to be
engaged
effectively
• Sector
regulatory
development
bodies
CSO Capacities
• Trade is a new
area, needs
specialization
• Attracting and
retaining talent
a problem in
southern CSOs
• Management
bandwidth
• Predictable
funding
External Factors
• Global
economic
trends
• Macro
economic
stability and
external risk
mitigation
Recommendations
Flexible, shorter duration modules
National/ local level Results accountability
Partner selection: combine domain knowledge with advocacy
outreach, some partners can be common for many countries
Engagement with sector bodies and other government
stakeholders
Budgets 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 Africa
Large volume of research outputs and advocacy aids
Minuses:
Advocacy influencing strategy was not clear; successes were not directly because of
project activities
Project 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