1. FOSTERING EQUITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE TRADING SYSTEM (FEATS) PROJECT: MEETING WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS 29 MARCH 2010 Inclusiveness of Trade Policy Making in Zambia: Presentation of the Main Findings of the First Phase Research By Rashid S. Kaukab Deputy Director and Research Coordinator, CUTS Geneva Resource Centre www.cuts-grc.org

2. STRUCTURE OF PRESENTATION

Introduction

Trade policy making process in Zambia: key consultative mechanisms

Challenges in participation: views of 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: Inclusive Trade Policy Making (ITPM) Index

4. II. TRADE POLICY MAKING PROCESS IN ZAMBIA: KEY CONSULTATIVE MECHANISMS Consultative Mechanism Mandate Composition National Working Group on Trade (NWGT) Agriculture Consultative Forum (ACF)Trade Expansion Working Group Steering Committee of Secretaries All trade issues Agriculture issues Trade issues All issues Multi-stakeholder Multi-stakeholderPublic and private sectorInter-ministerial coordination 5. II. TRADE POLICY MAKING PROCESS IN ZAMBIA: KEY CONSULTATIVE MECHANISMS Mandate/Membership Multi-stakeholder Public-Private sectors Only governmental Multiple issues including trade Zambia SCSAll trade issues Zambia NWGTZambia TEWGSpecific trade issues 6. III. CHALLENGES IN PARTICIPATION AS VIEWED BY STAKEHOLDERS

Ministry of Commerce, Trade and Industry (MCTI)

Limited number of technical staff

Need to improve the information flow to all stakeholders, particularly non-state actors

7. III. CHALLENGES IN PARTICIPATION AS VIEWED BY STAKEHOLDERS

Other relevant Government Ministries and Agencies

Need for coherence in various policies, strategies and plans to avoid contradictions

Lack of capacity of all relevant ministries and government agencies to understand and implement the linkages between trade policy and their respective areas

Issues of coordination among governmental machinery

Lack of regular and timely information flow on trade issues

8. III. CHALLENGES IN PARTICIPATION AS VIEWED BY STAKEHOLDERS

Private Sector Umbrella Organizations

Lack of analytical capacity

Lack of interest in broad trade policy issues

Need for reconciling multiple interests

9. III. CHALLENGES IN PARTICIPATION AS VIEWED BY STAKEHOLDERS

Civil Society Organisations (CSOs)

Lack of capacity and technical human resources

Lack of domestic specialists on trade issues

Need for better coordination and information sharing among CSOs

Limited opportunities for effective participation

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

MCTI SCORE

Action Variable Score A.Identification of all key stakeholders0.75 (most identified) B.Creating awareness about the need for trade policy 0.75 (many efforts made) C.Establishment of formal consultative mechanisms 1.00 (Yes) D.Regular functioning of formal consultative mechanisms 0.75 (functioning most of the time)E.Regular information flow to the stakeholders including on the content of trade policy 0.50 (irregular information flow) Total MCTI 3.75/5.00 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) 1.00 (Yes) G, J, and M.Faithful representation of and regular feedback to the represented constituencies 0.50 (occasional faithful representation and/or irregular and feedback) 0.50 (occasional faithful representation and/or irregular and feedback) 0.50 (occasional faithful representation and/or irregular and feedback) H, K, and N.Acquiring relevant knowledge and expertise 0.50 (some knowledge and expertise) 0.50 (some knowledge and expertise) 0.50 (some knowledge and expertise) Total 1.75/3.00 2.00/3.00 2.00/3.00 15. 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. 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. 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

• Not all trade issues covered by consultative fora

• 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

Awareness-raising on trade issues:action by all actors 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 MCTI 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

For further information please contact[email_address]or[email_address]