1. FOSTERING EQUITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE TRADING SYSTEM (FEATS) PROJECT: MEETING WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS KAMPALA, 9 MARCH 2010 Inclusiveness of Trade Policy Making in Uganda: Presentation of the Main Findings of the First Phase Research By Atul Kaushik Director, CUTS Geneva Resource Centre [email_address] www.cuts-grc.org

2. STRUCTURE OF PRESENTATION

Introduction

Trade policy making process in Uganda: key consultative mechanisms

Challenges in participation as viewed by stakeholders

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

Conclusions and Recommendations

3. I. INTRODUCTION

FEATS first phase research focus on trade policy making process and role of stakeholders in Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia

Importance of inclusive trade policy making to ensure national multi-stakeholder ownership

Two publications titled Towards More Inclusive Trade Policy Making: Process and Role of Stakeholders in Select African Countries (full research publication) and Improving Ownership through Inclusive Trade Policy Making Process: Lessons from Africa (short advocacy monograph)

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

4. II. TRADE POLICY MAKING PROCESS IN KENYA: KEY CONSULTATIVE MECHANISMS Consultative Mechanism Mandate Composition Presidents Economic Council (PEC) / The National Forum Inter-Institutional Trade Committee (IITC) Uganda National Development and Trade Policy Forum (NDTPF) All issues All trade issues EPA negotiations only High level public and private sectorMulti-stakeholder Multi-stakeholder 5. II. TRADE POLICY MAKING PROCESS IN UGANDA: KEY CONSULTATIVE MECHANISMS Mandate/Membership Multi-stakeholder Public-Private sectors Only governmental Multiple issues including trade Uganda ACF Uganda PECAll trade issues Uganda IITCSpecific trade negotiations Uganda NDTPF 6. III. CHALLENGES IN PARTICIPATION AS VIEWED BY STAKEHOLDERS

Ministry ofTourism, Trade and Industry (MTTI)

Lack of capacity and technical human resources to deal effectively with all trade policy issues

Lack of full engagement by non-state stakeholders

Lack of financial and human resources to ensure regular functioning of consultative mechanisms

7. III. CHALLENGES IN PARTICIPATION AS VIEWED BY STAKEHOLDERS

Other relevant Government Ministries and Agencies

Lack of involvement and participation

Issues of coordination among governmental machinery

Lack of capacity to fully implement necessary reforms

Lack of regular information flow on trade issues

8. III. CHALLENGES IN PARTICIPATION AS VIEWED BY STAKEHOLDERS

Private Sector Umbrella Organizations

Lack of ownership and sense of real participation

Limited capacity to regularly follow all trade policy developments and engage with the relevant government authorities

Need to balance the interests of all members

Who represents the informal sector?

9. III. CHALLENGES IN PARTICIPATION AS VIEWED BY STAKEHOLDERS

Civil Society Organisations (CSOs)

Limited capacity to do sustained and research-based advocacy

Limited outreach to rural areas and the grassroots

Occasional tensions with the government:limited trust between government and civil society since civil society does not agree with many aspects of the governments neo-liberalapproach

Lack of official mandate and effective consulting with their own stakeholders

10. IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE TRADE POLICY MAKING (ITPM) INDEX

IPTM Index: Action Variables, Actors and Values

Part I: Ministry Responsible for Trade Policy

Action Variable Possible Action Value A.Identification of all key stakeholdersYes = 1No = 0 Most identified = 0.75Some identified = 0.5 Few identified = 0.25 B.Creating awareness about the need for trade policy Yes = 1No = 0 Many efforts made = 0.75Some efforts made = 0.5 Few efforts made = 0.25 C.Establishment of formal consultative mechanisms Yes = 1No = 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 mechanisms Yes = 1No = 0 Functioning most of the time = 0.75 Irregular functioning = 0.5Ad hoc functioning = 0.25 E.Regular information flow to the stakeholders including on the content of trade policy Yes = 1No = 0 Information flowing most of the time = 0.75 Irregular information flow = 0.5Ad hoc information flow = 0.25 11. IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE TRADE POLICY MAKING (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 feedback to the relevant authorities Yes = 1No = 0 Most of the time = 0.75Irregular = 0.5 Little and / or ad hoc = 0.25 G, J, and M.Faithful representation of and regular feedback to the represented constituencies Yes = 1No = 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 H, K, and N.Acquiring relevant knowledge and expertise Yes = 1No = 0 Substantial knowledge and expertise = 0.75 Some knowledge and expertise = 0.5 Little knowledge and expertise = 0.25 12. IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE TRADE POLICY MAKING (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

13. IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE TRADE POLICY MAKING (ITPM) INDEX

MTTI SCORE

Action Variable Score A.Identification of all key stakeholders0.75 (most identified) B.Creating awareness about the need for trade policy 0.25 (few efforts made) C.Establishment of formal consultative mechanisms 1.00 (Yes) D.Regular functioning of formal consultative mechanisms 0.50 (irregular functioning)E.Regular information flow to the stakeholders including on the content of trade policy 0.25 (ad hoc information flow) Total MTTI 2.75/5.00 14. IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE TRADE POLICY MAKING (ITPM) INDEX

Scores by Other Groups of Stakeholders

Action Variables Score by Other Relevant Government Ministries Score by Private Sector Organizations Score by CSOs F, I, and L.Regular participation in the process and feedback to the relevant authorities 0.75 (most of the time) 1.00 (Yes) 0.25 (little and/or ad hoc) G, J, and M.Faithful representation of and regular feedback to the represented constituencies 0.50 (occasional representation and/or irregular feedback) 0.50 (occasional representation and/or irregular feedback) 0.50 (occasional representation and/or irregular feedback) H, K, and N.Acquiring relevant knowledge and expertise 0.50 (some knowledge and expertise) 0.50 (some knowledge and expertise) 0.75 (substantial knowledge and expertise) Total 1.75/3.00 2.00/3.00 1.75/3.00 15. IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE TRADE POLICY MAKING (ITPM) INDEX ITPM Action Variable KENYA MALAWI TANZANIA UGANDA ZAMBIA 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 Score 3.50/5.00 3.25/5.00 2.50/5.0 2.75/5.00 3.75/5.00 16. IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE TRADE POLICY MAKING (ITPM) INDEX 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 Score 2.00/3.00 1.75/3.00 1.50/3.00 1.75/3.0 1.75/3.00 Part 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 Score 2.00/3.00 2.25/3.0 2.00/3.00 2.00/3.00 2.00/3.00 17. IV. MEASURING INCLUSIVENESS: THE INCLUSIVE TRADE POLICY MAKING (ITPM) INDEX 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 Score 2.00/3.00 1.25/3.00 1.50/3.00 1.75/3.00 2.00/3.00 ITPM Index Score 9.50/14.0 8.50/14.00 7.50/14.00 8.25/14.00 9.50/14.00 18. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Several consultative mechanisms on trade issues established; however

• Lack legal mandates and adequate resources

• Irregular andad hocfunctioning

Improved stakeholders participation; but

• Not all stakeholders being represented

• Not all stakeholders have equal opportunities to participate

19. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

20. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Identification and involvement of remaining stakeholders:action by government and concerned ministries needed

Regular information flow on trade issues to key stakeholders:action by concerned ministries needed

Rationalization and strengthening of consultative mechanisms:action by government and concerned ministries needed

Better coordination among relevant government ministries and agencies on trade issues:action by government needed

21. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Better opportunities for CSO participation:action by MTTI needed

Better feedback and input loops between CSOs and the private sector umbrella organisations on the one hand, and their constituencies on the other:action by private sector umbrella organizations and CSOs needed

Investment on knowledge and expertise building:action by all including development partners needed

Promotion of a culture of dialogue and inclusiveness:sustained efforts by all stakeholders needed

22.

Inclusiveness will generate national ownership which is the best guarantee for effective implementation of trade policy as part of overall development policy