INTRODUCTION Civil Society Organisations and Aid for Trade- Roles and Realities Nairobi, Kenya; 15-16 March 2007 Capacity Constraints of Civil Society Organisations in dealing with and addressing A4T needs Trade is not just about economic growth; it also can lead to the improvement of social and other factors. Economic growth and the development of these social factors among others can lead to sustainable development, but this correlation from trade to sustainable development is far from a linear one. Once developing countries are on the path to sustainable growth, an expanding economic pie will allow them to address a wide range of needs, including environmental protection and the elimination of poverty. Sustainable development is in essence what developing countries need: sustainable development is about achieving the sustained economic growth needed to meet human needs, to improve living standards, and to provide the financial resources that make environmental protection possible. Aid for Trade (A4T) is part of the efforts to increase developing countries' economic growth and sustainable development. It must be seen as an endeavour to strengthen developing countries' trade and productive capacities and as an element of the broader Overseas Development Assistance policies and objectives to support the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The exceptional significance of the A4T initiative is now broadly recognized and implementation is the next important stage. The decision to insert the notion of A4T at the Hong Kong WTO Ministerial Conference in December 2005, as well as the creation of a Task Force to work on the A4T initiative in early 2006, and the subsequent Task Force s recommendations (WT/AFT/1), prepared in record time, include all the elements needed to move A4T to this. This is even more the case since the WTO General Council formally approved these recommendations in October 2006. It is largely accepted that trade can serve as a strong catalyst for growth and poverty reduction in developing countries. Nevertheless, it is obvious that formal market access is not necessarily translated into effective exports from developing countries. A telling fact is that the market share of the poorest developing countries in world trade has remained marginal, despite the preferential trade regimes granted by industrialised countries. There is ample evidence that the poorest countries successful integration onto the world trade scene requires not only improved market access but also increased support for trade and productive capacities together with domestic reforms as well as more effective international trade rules. As rightfully pointed out in the Task Force recommendations, while it is clear that A4T is a necessary complement to successful trade negotiations, it is not a substitute for these. Where negotiations create market access for products and services from developing countries and trade rules can help reduce costs to trade, A4T can help developing countries take advantage of new market access opportunities by assisting them with the implementation of new trade commitments; strengthening their supply side 1
capacity; and, where necessary, helping them to deal with adjustment challenges resulting from a changing external trade environment. A4T thus goes beyond traditional aid programmes on trade issues. A4T needs to address those adjustment challenges developing countries will face as a result of compliance to new rules, be it in social, environmental or labour aspects. A4T will help those countries overcome the adjustments they will be bound to make to abide by those new international rules and by doing so A4T will put those countries in the path of sustainable development. This is what makes A4T such a new and important initiative. A4T has an important value in itself and its delivery should not be conditional upon the speed of progress in trade negotiations. However, benefits from A4T as well as the demand for it are expected to increase if the negotiation agendas are concluded successfully, as developing countries will have more trade agreements to comply to, and thus more adjustments to undergo to abide by those new commitments. INVOLVING CIVIL SOCIETY IN THE A4T DEBATE What Civil Society Organizations do A formal definition states that: Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) refer to any organization that works in the arena between the household, the private sector, and the state, to negotiate matters of public concern. CSOs include non-governmental organizations (NGOs), community groups, research institutes, think tanks, advocacy groups, trade unions, academic institutions, parts of the media, professional associations, and faith-based institutions. 1 CSOs actually cover a wide range of organizations, from very small NGOs acting on the ground level in-country to bigger activist and lobbyist organizations operating at the multilateral level. This paper will mainly address the role and constraints faced by NGOs and think tanks when dealing with trade policies in general and Aid for Trade in particular. Besides, it is important to emphasize the diversity of constraints faced by NGOs, depending on where they operate, i.e. at the filed level or at the multinational level in developed countries. The role of Civil Society Organizations in relation to policy The number of CSOs around the world is growing. Many CSOs have become aware that policy engagement can lead to significant pro-poor impacts, and are beginning to move beyond service delivery. More and more CSOs engage in informed advocacy as an important tool to social change and a means of holding governments accountable. Sometimes, the work of CSOs lead to impressive outcomes but this is far from always the case. Evidence suggests that adverse political contexts are partly responsible: CSOs have to deal with different political situations depending on where their scope of action lies, as well as to different government rules and reactions to their actions. Nevertheless some of the main obstacles lie within the CSOs themselves. CSOs can engage with policy processes in many different ways; they can: Identify political constraints and opportunities and develop strategies for engagement. Inspire support for particular issues or actions; raise new ideas or question old ones. Share expertise and experience; put forward new approaches. Improve, add, correct or change policy issues; hold policymakers accountable; evaluate and improve their own activities, particularly regarding service provision. CSOs can be influential in each of the four main stages of policy processes: agenda setting 1 J. Court, E. Mendizabal, D. Osborne, and J. Young with H. Jones, 2006; Civil Society, research-based knowledge, and policy.-.knowledge Management for Development Journal 2(3): 86-96; page 1 2
policy formulation decision, implementation monitoring and evaluation. CSOs can have very different influences at various levels, depending on their scope, objectives and means. There are indeed many different ways to influence policy processes, be it at the national level, the international negotiations level or even the multilateral level. The role of Civil Society Organizations in relation to trade The work of civil society groups can be very relevant for the development of trade potential in developing countries. Some of these groups can be involved in trade themselves through activities in support of micro-entrepreneurs or fair trade for example. Other groups promote the interests of workers or farmers. They have first hand knowledge of how workers, farmers and entrepreneurs are affected by trade reform. Their views would thus be a very valuable contribution to the debates during the development stage of trade strategies, be it in the needs assessment phase, or even in the more practical stage of designing actual projects. There are mainly three areas where CSOs expertise can be of particular value: in identifying supply-side constraints on the ground, in proposing new policies, and in understanding adjustment. The role of Civil Society Organizations in relation to international development There is increasing recognition of the fact that CSOs based both in developed and developing countries are crucially important players in international development. They provide development services and humanitarian relief, innovate in service delivery, build local capacity and advocate with and for the poor. Nevertheless, the wide existing spectrum of CSOs makes them each have different positions and roles in the overall development processes. But with mixed progress across the developing world in meeting the MDGs, work needs to be done to make policy and practice more pro-poor, and CSOs need to engage in policy processes more effectively. The last 15 years have seen significant changes in the contexts affecting the relationship between CSOs and policymakers: it has been a period shaped by globalization, democratization, decentralization, reductions in conflict, and advances in information and communication technologies. Overall the operating environment for civil society is improving, and there is potential for progressive partnerships involving the public and private sectors and CSOs in more and more developing countries. CSOs now play an increasing role in policy development. 3
CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS (CSO): LIMITING FACTORS OF CSOS CAPACITIES Acess to Information CSOs often have to deal with difficulties in accessing relevant information to build knowledge and design strategic intervention and strategies to influence trade policies. This is particularly true for CSOs acting at the field level, where the access to information can be difficult due to government policies or local capacities for example. Those CSOs also often have to face a lack of awareness with regards to trade policies in country, and even worse an actual lack of interest from the general public and a lot of the government officials. In a lot of those developing countries, multilateral negotiations and WTO news seem far away from the daily concerns of many, which makes the work of CSOs in that matter even more difficult. It might thus prove tricky for them to engage in the Aid for Trade debate, as they lack the necessary knowledge to have an informed opinion and they lack the necessary interlocutors to actually be able to have an influence in this initiative. Capacity Building Not all NGOs have the knowledge and capacities to work on influencing trade policies. There is an actual gap between CSOs working at the grassroots level and the ones working in developing countries at the multilateral level. The latter tend to use the very technical trade jargon used in Geneva, Washington DC or Paris, when the former are usually not part of these very specific technical debates on trade policies. Some kind of mechanism should link the two, as to allow the CSOs acting at the grassroots level to be more knowledgeable on those technical issues, as well as to allow the CSOs acting at the multilateral level to be more aware of constraints faced by their colleagues in the field. This is a crucial gap to fill as both areas of work are important, but they need to feed off one another to truly be able to have a useful pro-poor impact. Governments Governments must share the same goals or perceptions as CSOs to take an interest in the first place; they must be interested in the same subject matters for any policy influence from CSOs to actually be efficient. There are ways of forcing an agenda onto the political arena, but governments must be aware (or be made aware) of the importance of the agenda and the direction in which the agenda is heading. Indeed, it is just as important that governments continue to uphold these goals during the lengthy policy process, particularly during the later monitoring and evaluation stages. Obviously unstable political contexts such as those in Latin America will increase the risk of policies being rejected at later stages by subsequent governments. Timing is a significant factor in the presentation of evidence. Matters such as general elections or international political pressures can have great influence on the success or failure of converting agendas into implemented policies. Hence strategic thinking in terms of timely intervention, as well as carefully targeted interlocutors are crucial elements for the failure or success of an efficient influence on trade policies at the government level. Moreover, in many cases governments are still very wary of or even full of mistrust for CSOs (as indeed many CSOs continue to mistrust governments an equally serious issue). The credibility of CSOs is still often questioned by policymakers not just the credibility of the source of their research (an issue that will be addressed later in the paper), but the credibility of the CSOs ability to provide an accurate, fair and critical analysis. The right advocate must be selected to present the findings chosen for their presentation skills as much as their expertise on the subject. They must understand the policy process, including understanding who to present the evidence to, and how. Networks can help CSOs bypass obstacles to obtain consensus; assemble coalitions for change; and mobilise resources among others. Developing effective links and trust-based relationships with policymakers, the media and other stakeholders is necessary for CSOs to engage fully in policy processes. It is therefore imperative for every CSO to have access to good quality evidence, and networking between CSOs, for example, can make this possible. It is important too that the smaller 4
CSOs have the capacity to correctly analyse others research and make good use of it to avoid contradictory, irrelevant or confusing evidence being presented to policymakers. Networking between CSOs and policymakers can improve credibility and trust on both parts. If CSOs can build a portfolio of information within these clusters, they will be able to better understand the policy process and more clearly identify the types of approaches that might maximize their chances of policy impact. Using different types of evidence more effectively would help CSOs influence policy and practice in a pro-poor manner Policymakers are often frustrated by the inability of many CSOs to communicate effectively in policy processes. To gain greater influence, CSOs need to make their points more accessible and timely for policy discussions and reform. Financial Resources To get involved in policy-influencing, CSOs must have sound resources. Ideally CSOs would have the knowledge as well as the resources to undertake their own in-house research, but it is accepted that not every CSO will have the capacity to do this due to financial and technical limitations, among other capacity issues. In their quest for funding, CSOs also might encounter hindrances to their work as donors might want to influence their research or actions in return for financial support. Credibility CSOs also need to be perceived differently, and they need to gain in credibility if they want to have full access to the media or to be heard in the political arena. For effective policy influence CSOs need to be able to: understand the policy process in their specific context; generate high-quality, relevant research, or have access to such research; and link to and communicate with policymakers and other actors. This requires a wide range of technical capacities. A practical starting point is for CSOs to generate rigorous assessments of political contexts and policy processes. Recent work has identified five key clusters of issues that CSOs should focus upon: the macro political context, specific policy context, the situation surrounding the implementation of the policy, decisive moments in the policy process, and the way policy makers think. Media The media have an important role to play in all those processes. It can actually relay some concerns on trade policy expressed by CSOs. Nevertheless freedom of the media (or more accurately lack of) in certain countries can make this relaying of information on needs for changes at the trade policy level impossible. Nevertheless, the media could represent important partners on trade policy advocacy. Using the media can also be a useful means of reporting findings back to grassroots level. Some NGOs based in developed countries, like Oxfam, have understood the importance the media can have in helping them get their message across. This is something small NGOs in developing countries could learn from, and raise the awareness and even the interest on trade issues in-country. It is certain that politicians take more interest in issues when they are brought to public attention, in either a positive or negative way. Work coherence and Networking In some cases, CSOs within the same country should seek to work together, to form a united voice on policy, rather than compete for resources and entry points. Collaboration enables CSOs to pool resources, cut costs, combine knowledge with resources (and funding), learn from successes and 5
failures, and prevent duplicated, contradictory or misinterpreted research. Uniting CSOs that work towards the same goals also has the added bonus of strength in numbers when engaging with policymakers. Competition between CSOs can become a serious issue, especially for smaller local CSOs. Besides a more comprehensive approach can be useful in the case of trade policies in country, when once consider the sheer number of different programmes dealing with trade in developing countries: EPA negotations, JITAP, IF, DTIS, WO issues, etc. Various CSOs could help each other out in better understanding and better dealing with those programmes. Besides, developing working relationships with academics and senior researchers could help develop the capacity building process. They can combine research and advocacy to make objective proposals. Access CSOs must work in an environment which allows access at different levels: government must have mechanisms in place to allow the access to the policy process for any CSOs action to be truly efficient. Role of stakeholders and mission statement In their work and in their will to influence policy processes CSOs should keep close to their stakeholders spirit and to their mission statement. It is what makes each and every one of them unique, and their work only one of its kind. CSOs need to understand what is expected of them by their members and to act accordingly. CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS (CSO): ICTSD S INFLUENCE IN THE AID FOR TRADE AGENDA The International Centre on Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) is an independent organization dedicated to sustainable development that brings together knowledge, strategic thinking and stakeholders to shape international trade policies and rules for a future that builds economic opportunity, resilient societies and a healthy environment for all. Founded in 1996 in Geneva, Switzerland, the Centre works to enable, facilitate and support interaction among stakeholders and trade policy-makers through three kinds of activities: (i) reliable, non-partisan reporting and analysis, (ii) policy dialogue and (ii) well-targeted research and capacity building. ICTSD has contributed in the Aid for Trade debate mainly through policy dialogues and meetings with relevant stakeholders. ICTSD followed closely the work of the A4T Task Force and met with its members on a regular basis while the Task Force was preparing its recommendations. Before those recommendations were submitted in July 2006 and through the organization of a dialogue on the Architecture of Aid for Trade and the WTO, ICTSD pushed forward the concerns of the structure of an A4T initiative and thus helped clarify some of the issues on this debate. ICTSD also organized a dialogue in late 2006, once the recommendations were formally approved by the General Council. The dialogue focused on Adjusting Capacity to Maximize Sustainability in a Liberalizing Global Economy with a view to discuss next steps and implementation. Through these dialogues, ICTSD learnt by doing. By being involved in every step of the way of the Aid for Trade debate, through the aforementioned dialogues and meetings as well as through active participation in relevant conferences on Aid for Trade and active networking ICTSD has offered suggestions on to how better organize the A4T initiative. ICTSD also proposed ways to move forward onto the implementation stage. Furthermore, ICTSD provided a discussion platform to allow relevant stakeholders to meet and exchange points of views to move forward on the A4T agenda. CONCLUSIONS For CSOs to have greater impact in policy processes, there is no such thing as a one size fits all approach, as various CSOs have different scopes, different goals, and evolve in very different 6
political contexts. Nevertheless it is crucial that they all take part at their own level in the A4T process for it to be efficient and country driven, as well as country owned. There is need to strengthen the A4T agenda: by ensuring that A4T activities respond to real needs on the ground, which cannot properly be understood by government and which is definitely one of the major the value-added of CSOs by assisting in the delivery of A4T in building the supply-side capacities, through extensive on the ground networks, as well as through utilizing a deeper knowledge of how things actually work on the ground, which a government is not capable to correctly assess either. Only CSOs working in the field on a daily-basis can weigh this up. For any comments on this paper- please email: nvialle@ictsd.ch 7
REFERENCES J. Court, E. Mendizabal, D. Osborne, and J. Young with H. Jones, 2006; Civil Society, researchbased knowledge, and policy. Knowledge Management for Development Journal 2(3): 86-96 The International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law; Volume 8, Issue 1; November 2005 UNCTAD Trade and Development Board, fifty-third session; Civil Society Statement Delivered by Sam Kuloba Watasa Uganda Consumers' Protection Association (UCPA); 27 September 2006 European Commission contribution to An EU Aid for Trade Strategy; Issue paper for consultation; February 2007 Naved Chowdhury, Chelsie Finlay-Notman and Ingie Hovland; Working Paper 272 CSO Capacity for Policy Engagement:Lessons Learned from the CSPP Consultations in Africa, Asia and Latin America; August 2006 -Overseas Development Institute UNCTAD Trade and Development Board, fifty-third session ;Geneva, 27 September 2 October and 10 October 2006 ;Hearing with Civil Society and the Private Sector Anneke Slob; Floor Smakman; A Voice, Not a Vote- Evaluation of the Civil Society Dialogue at Directorate General for Trade; ECORYS Nederland BV Report from the World Bank-CSO Policy Forum; April 2005 Oxfam Briefing Note; Scaling up aid for trade: how to support poor countries to trade their way out of poverty ; November 2005 UNDP and Civil Society Organizations: A Policy Note on Engagement 8