michael posted on July 23, 2009 20:17
Trade Related Technical Assistance, ASIE/2003/005-718 (EC) Pakistan
Midterm Evaluation
Executive Summary
The programme itself is quite unique in concept and in execution. The EC Commission decided to deliver the TRTA with Pakistan by means of a collaborative technical implementation by two United Nations (UN) institutions, the International Trade Centre (ITC) and the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO). As a further delivery mechanism the ITC subcontracted one of the components (Intellectual Property Rights) to another UN agency, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).
Both ITC and UNIDO have an existing presence in Pakistan and their practical experience was extremely useful in the completion of the TRTA.
"The overall objective of the TRTA - Pakistan programme is to assist Pakistan in fostering its integration into the world economy, and ultimately, contributing to poverty alleviation through the achievement of trade-related conditions for sustained and stable economic growth"
"The purpose of the TRTA programme is therefore to enhance awareness among government officials, the business sector and civil society about the implications of WTO agreements...and to assist Pakistan in building the necessary capacity to address the issues resulting... "
The main expected results are set out as follows:
Awareness and knowledge about WTO issues among Pakistani officials, business sector and civil society.
Operational capacity in the Ministry of Commerce (MoC) and other ministries to be strengthened.
Institutional framework for dialogue on WTO matters to be in place.
Assessment of Technical Barriers to Trade (TBTs) and SPS.
Capacity of Pakistan's exporters to comply with standards and certification requirements.
Institutional framework for policy formulation, administration and enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).
OBJECTIVES OF PROGRAMME
EVALUATION
The evaluators undertook the following procedures:
1. Study of all relevant materials as presented by the partners.
2. Interview the partner institutions
3.Field visit to Pakistan
. Programme Partnership
Component I. WTO Capacity building delivered by ITC
Component II: Standards, Metrology, Testing and Quality infrastructure development delivered by UNIDO
Component III: Intellectual Property (IP) delivered by WIPO subcontracted by ITC
The UN partners are mature and strong institutions themselves and have their own bureaucratic procedures for decision making, approval and accountability which had to be coordinated between ITC and UNIDO and finally tallied with the EC Commission's internal procedures for disbursement of funds.
Initially at the contract stage this led to inevitable delays.
Any future cooperation should take this aspect of cooperation into account and plan a longer lead-in period from initial agreement to implementation which pays due regard to the different partners' own internal procedures.
The inter-institutional problems were settled amicably and professionally and in no way hindered the delivery, except for a time delay which has led to a request for an extension of the programme by approximately the same time as the initial delay (nine months).
Purely as a pragmatic operation to deliver Component III, was sub-contracted through ITC to WIPO.
Again this caused some complication in matching the demands of working methods in different institutions. Resulting operational difficulties were once again dealt with in a professional manner and there was no detrimental effect on the delivery.
Reducing the number of delivery agents (by one) has a superficial advantage for the funding institution; however, the immediate partners themselves (EC Commission, ITC and WIPO) will have to consider the overall effectiveness. Dealing with two partners rather than three might indeed actually decrease the efficiency, by adding an indirect contractual arrangement which initially causes some delays. In addition, it would be more positive to include this third party (WIPO) with its range of experience and connections as a full partner.
Some clear advantages emerged from this innovatory cooperation between the EU and International agencies under the UN umbrella:
The EU Commission could rely on strong partners with a presence and experience in the field
Those partners have a wide range of experienced contacts at their disposal which allows employment of experts with genuinely appropriate skills
Such contacts enabled the UN agencies to recruit also beyond Europe, which facilitated South-South exchanges and strengthened South-South contacts, a stated goal of EU external policy
UN agencies are regarded as neutral in having no political agenda in their approach to problem solving and responding to local need
The EC Commission is concerned about its "visibility" in such programmes and this is where dealing with strong partners has a slight negative aspect which calls for attention from the Commission itself in future.
The EU's logo was prominent displayed and the role of the EU was acknowledged in publications, in seminars, events and newspaper articles.
There is an inevitability that the programme will be perceived as the programme of the deliverer, with the EU at best seen as the benevolent funder, and in some cases witnessed by the evaluators, not perceived as being involved at all.
The Commission will have to give some thought to how to lift its own profile within the limits of its budget and manpower.
Overall this innovatory cooperation has been a success.
Not least it is appreciated by the partners (ITC, UNIDO and WIPO) as a welcome opportunity to deal with the EC Commission, both institutionally in Europe and operationally in Pakistan. In addition, dealing with programme has been a stimulus to the partners to develop working methods within their own institutions which are adjudged to be beneficial.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The programme suffered from a delay in implementation owing to complications arising from the welcome and innovatory nature of the cooperation between the EU, UNIDO and ITC. The further subcontracting of Component III by ITC to WIPO, though adding a vital ingredient to the successful delivery, initially slowed down the implementation. Direct cooperation with delivery institutions should be the preferred option.
It is recommended that in any future similar cooperation there should be an initial and preliminary clarification of the roles and responsibilities of all parties paying due respect to their different methods of working before the actual initiation of the programme. Initial problems and significant delays ensued whilst trying to mesh together the working systems of the partners, EC Commission, ITC, UNIDO and WIPO. If a common plan of action and agreed operating procedure is designed before implementation, this would enhance the effectiveness of any future programme.
The involvement of the EU Delegation was not optimal largely due to a discontinuity in the office of the programme officer. There is a need in any future programme to ensure regularity of liaison. The EU Delegation must also take care that its representation at different levels of meetings reflects an appropriate standing in protocol terms.
The programme has been itself efficient, effective and relevant. It has acted as a catalyst on several levels not least in encouraging cooperation between international partners themselves and between international partners and national partners in Pakistan. According to beneficiaries, similar international programmes in the recent past have not achieved the same high level of result and appreciation.
Attention in the standards side has focussed necessarily on technical issues of accreditation in hygiene (SPS) and export goods quality. In any successor programme it would be recommended to look into Social Accountability standards more deeply (SA 8000) which are an increasing concern to European consumers and retailers.
The EC Commission requested specifically that the question of the visibility of the EU be investigated. "Visibility" has been seen in a somewhat mechanical light e.g. the logo of EU is displayed in seminars, materials and there have been ceremonial presentations. The international partners have endeavoured to stress the role of the EU not only as the donor but as a partner. However the beneficiaries on the ground were sometimes found to be unaware of the EU’s involvement. The EC Delegation itself must consider how to raise its profile within its constraints of manpower and budget. It should increase the more personal side of diplomacy by courtesy calls to stakeholders, relevant particularly to visibility with Resource Centres, laboratories, etc.
The programme has acted as a catalyst in stimulating cooperation between partners within Pakistan. One of the key aims of the programme. Previously the various actors in trade policy in Pakistan have remained in distinctly separate spheres. The various actors have been brought into active and mutually beneficial cooperation under the auspices of the programme. This interaction will form a sustainable basis for the expected outcomes to be achieved. In addition, the programme has acted as a catalyst for mobilising domestic cooperation and funding.
An extension of the programme is justified to deliver key components of the programme already factored in which will ensure the programme’s overall success. This is with particular reference to the accreditation of laboratories under Component II and sectoral studies under Component I.
This successful and innovatory programme could well serve as a working model for cooperation between the EU and countries at a similar developmental stage as Pakistan particularly in the South Asian sub region. A degree of regional cooperation has to some extent been achieved in SAARC and there is a formal structure in place to further such cooperation. Component II with its emphasis on standards which are of universal application could be rolled out under the auspices of SAARC.
It is recommended that a consideration be given to a successor programme:
to take proper advantage of the practical cooperation that has taken place, and
to consolidate the institutional strengthening, both nationally and internationally, which has been stimulated so far.
However any successor programme should have a more visible and demonstrable "European" value added. This first programme has necessarily concentrated on international aspects resulting from WTO agreements. There remains considerable scope for developing training on specific EU-Pakistan bilateral aspects of trade relating to such questions as IPR, supply side development, business, investment and trade partnerships SPS and Market Access etc. This should take place against the background/framework of Pakistan’s own trade policy and EU’s own country strategy paper for Pakistan for 2007-2013.
As early as possible an indication to proceed with the conceptualising of any successor programme should be given in order to allow continuity planning within partners and beneficiaries to be considered. This should allow ample planning time for beneficiaries and partners in order to ensure that a successor stage makes a smooth transition from the general emphasis to a more specifically EU/Pakistan focus.
The programme had three components: