EVALUATION OF THE ENHANCED INTEGRATED ...

EVALUATION OF THE ENHANCED INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK

Presented to: The Enhanced Integrated Framework Board

Prepared by: Capra International Inc.

In Partnership with The Trade Facilitation Office Canada

November 24, 2014

Evaluation of the Enhanced Integrated Framework. Final Report Capra International Inc. and the Trade Facilitation Office Canada

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ........................................................................................ i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................iii

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose of the Evaluation ............................................................................................ 1

1.2 Overview of EIF ........................................................................................................... 1

1.2.1 Evolution of AfT .................................................................................................... 1

1.2.2 EIF ........................................................................................................................ 2

2.0 Objectives and Methodology of the Evaluation........................................................... 7

2.1 Objectives of the Evaluation ......................................................................................... 7

2.2 Review Questions ........................................................................................................ 7

2.3 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 8

2.4 Limitations ................................................................................................................... 9

3.0 Evaluation Findings .....................................................................................................11

3.1 Relevance ...................................................................................................................11

3.2 Effectiveness ..............................................................................................................15

3.2.1 Progress Against Outcomes ................................................................................15

3.2.2 Monitoring and Evaluation....................................................................................26

3.3 Efficiency ....................................................................................................................28

3.3.1 Portfolio Review ...................................................................................................28

3.3.2 Organization and Delivery ....................................................................................31

3.3.3 Disbursements, Pace of Implementation and Pipeline .........................................36

3.4 Sustainability ...............................................................................................................38

3.5 Potential Impact ..........................................................................................................42

4.0 Options for Future Programming ................................................................................46

5.0 Conclusions and Lessons ...........................................................................................48

5.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................48

5.2 Lessons ......................................................................................................................50

6.0 Recommendations .......................................................................................................52

6.1 Recommendations for EIF ..........................................................................................52

6.2 Recommendations for more streamlined and dynamic approaches of the EIF ............55

Annex 1 – Terms of Reference ...............................................................................................59

Annex 2 – Overview of Evaluation Methodology ..................................................................73

Annex 3 – List of People Consulted ......................................................................................78

Annex 4 – Organizational Structure of EIF ............................................................................92


Annex 5 - Summary of On-going and Completed Projects by Country ...............................93

Annex 6 – Summary of Projects in the Pipeline by Country ................................................99

Annex 7 - Summary of Outcome Results Against Logframe Indicators ........................... 101

Annex 8 – Total Aid for Trade by Individual LDCs Active in EIF ........................................ 105

TABLE OF TABLES Table 1 – Summary of EIF Project Approvals ........................................................................ 5 Table 2 – Overview of Evaluation Issues ................................................................................ 7 Table 3 – Examples of Countries that have Formulated Trade Strategies ..........................17 Table 4 – Change in Institutional and Management Capacity ..............................................18 Table 5 – Examples of Countries Mainstreaming Trade into National Development Plans .................................................................................................................................................19 Table 6 – Change in Mechanisms for Consultations, Alignment and Influence .................22 Table 7 – Extent of Increase in Joint Donor Initiatives Last Five Years ..............................24 Table 8 – EIF Financial Status and Pipeline ..........................................................................37 Table 9 – Support within Country for Trade-Related Issues ................................................39 Table 10 – Prospects of Sustainability ..................................................................................41 Table 11 – Examples of Potential Impact in Tier 2 Projects .................................................42 Table 12 – Extent of EIF Possible Contribution ....................................................................43

TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Overview of EIF Stages .......................................................................................... 4 Figure 2 – Overview of Programme Level Logframe ............................................................. 6 Figure 3 – Summary of Approvals and Disbursements .......................................................36 Figure 4 – Conditions for Results ..........................................................................................44


i

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AfT Aid for Trade

AM DTIS Action Matrix

DF EIF Donor Facilitator

DRC Democratic Republic of the Congo

DTIS Diagnostic Trade Integration Study

ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States

ED Executive Director of the Executive Secretariat for the EIF

EIF Enhanced Integrated Framework

EIFSC EIF Steering Committee

EIFTF EIF Trust Fund

ES EIF Executive Secretariat

FDI Foreign direct investment

FP EIF Focal Point

GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH

IF Integrated Framework

IMF International Monetary Fund

ITA International Trade Advisor

ITC International Trade Centre

Lao PDR Lao People’s Democratic Republic

LDC Least Developed Country

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MIE Main Implementing Entity

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

MTP Medium-term Programme

MTR Mid-Term Review

NDP National development plans

NGO Non-governmental organization

NIAs EIF National Implementation Arrangements

NIU EIF National Implementation Unit

NSC EIF National Steering Committee

ODA Official Development Assistance


ii

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PRC Project Review Committee (TFM)

RPM Regional Portfolio Manager

TAC 1 EIF Tier 1 Appraisal Committee

TAC 2 EIF Tier 2 Appraisal Committee

TFM EIF Trust Fund Manager

ToR Terms of Reference

TRTA Trade-related Technical Assistance

UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization

UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services

UNWTO World Tourism Organization

USD United States Dollar

WB World Bank

WTO World Trade Organization

Executive Summary - Evaluation of the Enhanced Integrated Framework Capra International Inc. and the Trade Facilitation Office Canada

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Evaluation of the Enhanced Integrated Framework

Purpose and Approach The Enhanced Integrated Framework (EIF) is a multi-donor programme started in 2008 that works with Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to assist them in becoming more active players in the global trading system. It supports LDCs in mainstreaming trade into national development strategies and building the capacity to trade, including addressing critical supply-side constraints. The EIF is supported by a multi-donor trust fund with contributions from 23 Donors and a funding target of USD 250 million. The mandate of the EIF ends on December 31 2015, with project implementation continuing until December 2017. Since 2008, the EIF has funded 120 Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects in 45 countries. Some of the Tier 1 projects have supported Diagnostic Trade Integration Studies (DTIS) and DTIS Updates aimed at developing a detailed understanding of the trade-related constraints facing the country and identifying pragmatic remedies and trade policy reforms. Priorities are outlined in a DTIS Action Matrix (AM). Other Tier 1 projects provide support to National Implementation Arrangements (NIAs) aimed at mainstreaming trade, building capacity within the country to implement trade strategies, coordinating Aid for Trade and trade related technical assistance and mobilizing resource for the implementation of the DTIS AM. Tier 2 projects assist with the implementation of priorities identified in the Action Matrix and build trade-related and supply side capacities. The intent is that they complement existing projects, fill gaps and be catalytic. To date, they have focused on agricultural value chains, trade facilitation, standards, tourism and textiles. The current evaluation was commissioned by the EIF Board. Using a mixed methods approach, the evaluation assessed the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and potential impacts of the EIF programme. It looked at the global (programme) level, country (project) level and the intersection between the project and programme levels. The evaluation identified lessons, challenges and opportunities from implementing the EIF for future strategic programming. While this evaluation covers the period from October 2008 to August 2014, the intention in the Terms of Reference was that the evaluation would build on, and add to, the evidence and information emerging from a Mid-Term Review (MTR)1 concluded in November 2012 and a Review of the EIF Trust Fund Manager Operating Tools and Procedures completed in April 2014.2

Findings

Relevance All the evidence streams confirmed that the EIF remains relevant to and supports the trade needs of LDCs. The Tier 1 and Tier 2 windows were seen to be flexible enough to adapt to local conditions. The DTIS and DTIS Updates were important for setting priorities and

1 Saana Consulting. November 15, 2012. “Mid-Term Review of the EIF”.

2 Dalberg. April 2, 2014. “Review of EIF Trust Fund Manager Operating Tools and Procedures: Final

Report”.


iv

developing an approach that links into other national development plans, strategies and institutions. The process of the DTIS, the operation of the National Implementation Unit (NIU) and National Steering Committee (NSC) brought people together and acted as a common platform for interaction and coordination of efforts. This built a common understanding of and a basis for moving forward on trade issues. Tier 2 projects were seen to be even more important since they are tackling concrete constraints to trade. Several new funding windows have been opened as well to improve flexibility of support to LDCs including for feasibility studies under Tier 2, trade mainstreaming and International Trade Advisors (ITAs) under Tier 1 NIA Support. To maintain its relevance, however, the EIF needs to reassess how it is approaching a number of key issues. The intention is to ensure that sufficient flexibility is maintained in programming approaches in the future to allow LDCs to understand the changing global environment and chose strategies that best fit their context. For example, increasing globalization has begun to change how trade operates globally. One key trend is a shift away from a focus on exports to joining the right value chain. The growth of global value chains has increased the extent to which economies are interconnected, triggering increased specialization within value chains on certain stages. How LDCs relate to these changes needs to be considered at the country level in setting priorities, mainstreaming trade, undertaking policy reforms and structuring Tier 2 projects. Some LDCs will have exports as the best prospect; others may be able to link to global value chains. EIF should be able to facilitate whatever option is appropriate at the country level. With this shifting context, the role of the private sector in the EIF programme needs to be better defined and looked at more strategically. The private sector is active currently in advising on the DTIS and sectoral plans, participating in the NSC and public-private consultation mechanisms and assisting to operationalize some Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects. Recent issues have arisen about their potential role in Tier 2 projects, however. This has highlighted the narrow approach that has been taken to date by the EIF in terms of engagement with the private sector. To meet the trade agenda of an LDC, the private sector, both domestic and international, plays an important role and this role needs to be facilitated by the EIF programming. This includes considering the private sector in the resource equation—not as an EIF funder but as part of the aid, trade and investment equation. In addition, the growing emphasis by LDCs on regional and bilateral trade agreements means that the EIF will need to think how it can support new opportunities that are emerging on a regional level. The EIF is country focused which makes regional efforts more complex to undertake since cross-country implementation is not allowed. LDCs are increasingly looking to these regional arrangements, however, for developing stronger networks and linkages. Some programming is being done at the country level to meet regional obligations. New options for programming that can addresses regional frameworks and relationships need to be considered so that EIF can support the regional opportunities and requirements of the LDCs.

Effectiveness Institutional and management capacity has clearly been built in many of the countries that have received Tier 1 funding although variations across countries continue. The ability to formulate trade strategies and plans has improved in recent years with 50% of the countries now having good quality trade strategies in place including Malawi, Maldives, Liberia, Comoros and Nepal. Other countries are close to completing their trade strategies including Chad, Lesotho and the Solomon Islands. The ability to implement the plans and strategies remains weaker, however.


v

One reason is that trade continues to receive more limited resources at the country level from both government and donors. This impacts the ability to implement the trade plans that are generated and continues to be a frustration for LDCs. Mainstreaming trade into other plans and strategies remains an important issue for LDCs and the EIF has contributed to this in many of its Tier 1 countries. A total of 28 countries (78%) have now successfully integrated trade into the national development plans, generating broader support for the trade agenda. In a number of countries, the DTIS Updates played a key role in the national development plan process including in Burundi, Chad and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Sector plans are also increasingly having a trade focus. Almost all (91%) of the countries with Tier 2 projects have sector plans that include trade. Building broad based support within a country remains a challenge. Modules have been developed and rolled out to build capacity to mainstream. New approaches are being developed and funded to have more customized support for trade mainstreaming based on needs assessments, strengthening advocacy for mainstreaming and enhancing inter-ministerial coordination mechanisms on trade and development. The importance of all of these was confirmed with stakeholders since gaps still exist in terms of the extent to which trade is becoming embedded in policies, plans and processes within some countries. Substantial differences are seen across EIF countries in terms of the progress being made. The EIF is a framework for coordination and integration of efforts focused on trade-related issues and resources. The intent is to have the DTIS AM identify priorities that can be funded by other donors or through the Tier 2 projects. Under the EIF model, the Donor Facilitator and the Focal Point work together to facilitate donor coordination and the donor–government dialogue on trade issues and AfT. This approach has worked well in some locations and produced solid results. In others countries, it has not worked at all. The extent of coordinated delivery around the AM varies widely as a result and some new approaches may need to be taken to improve coordination. This is further reflected in the more limited results seen on the fourth outcome—securing resources. The EIF is intended to act as a catalyst to bring donors and LDCs together around the DTIS AM. While 22 countries have had some success in mobilizing resources, in some cases the amounts are quite small. Only a few countries have more substantial resources being leveraged from donors. Overall, there is recognition that more resources need to be leveraged around the DTIS AM. Different models are being tried now to mobilize more funds. Two countries—Lao PDR and Cambodia—have been using more sector wide approaches and have raised substantial funds. Others such as The Gambia are using donor platforms. Some countries such as Comoros are developing a Medium-Term Programme which indicates financing needs for DTIS priorities and encourages alignment. Governments are committing more funds to the trade agenda, with 60% of the countries allocating funds to trade. However, the overall availability of resources at the country level limits their ability to effectively implement the trade strategies, making donors funds even more critical. The lack of donor funding and the constraints on the government finances are causing the Tier 2 projects to become more important at the country level. The Tier 2 projects are now being viewed basically like another donor funded project, which was not the original intent. The Tier 2 projects are considered essential to demonstrate results and the effectiveness of the EIF since


vi

other resources are not being mobilized. Tackling trade-related issues requires broader Aid for Trade support which is only slowly emerging but will be critical for substantial gains to be made in integrating LDCs in the global trading system. The monitoring and evaluation system is now operational at the programme level and in all EIF Countries with Tier 1 projects. The training provided was well received and assisted in building capacity. Some issues still remain with the implementation, however, which may require some adjustments. These issues include how to: effectively integrate Tier 2 projects into the EIF programme logframe; improve the interface between the EIF monitoring and country level systems; improve the capacity at the country level to monitor and evaluate; and fine tune some of the indicators.

Efficiency While the number of approvals has accelerated since the MTR, the approval times for the various EIF stages have not significantly improved. A total of 37 countries have approved Tier 1 NIA projects with the average time from first proposal to first disbursement being 16.9 months. The number of approvals of Tier 2 projects has accelerated over the last two years since the MTR, however, the time required from proposal submission to first disbursement has not improved, averaging over 16 months in the last two years. The feedback received from a wide range of stakeholders during the evaluation highlighted their frustration with the complexity and slowness of the process to develop and receive approval for Tier 1 and 2 projects. In addition, implementation remains slow in some cases. For example, a total of 31 countries have received funding for DTIS Updates from the EIF, but only 13 of these have been completed and validated to date. A majority of the countries participating in the EIF have validated DTIS from prior to 2008 and the financial crisis. The MTR concluded that the EIF had selected a complex, elaborate and expensive system of governance and management. Three organizational and governance issues were identified in the MTR as needing to be addressed. There was a need for: re-commitment by EIF partners; a movement away from micromanagement by the EIF Board; and a streamlining of overly prescriptive procedures. While actions have been taken by the EIF Board and Executive Secretariat (ES) to address these concerns, issues remain and are continuing to decrease the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the EIF. The EIF Board continues to be involved in management level issues and decisions and this lengthens the approval and implementation processes. The amount of time required by the Executive Secretariat to serve the needs of the EIF Board and EIF Steering Committee was raised by stakeholders at the country level and donors as an issue in terms of the extent of support that the ES could provide to countries and the understanding the ES could have of the individual country contexts. In addition, the model of management and administration has proven more costly than anticipated initially anticipated. The level of standardization of processes and procedures continues to be an issue raised across all stakeholders. The strictness of the application of procedures and processes and the rigidity of the approaches means that it is often difficult for countries to move forward in formulating or implementing projects. The result is frustration with the system. The transaction costs are high when dealing with the EIF. Added to this is the pace of implementation by some of the Main Implementing Entities (MIEs). This was raised in the context of both the DTIS


vii

Updates and the Tier 2 projects where some countries had limited leverage to not only ensure rapid implementation but to influence the achievement of results. While the EIF mandate ends at the end of 2015, it is currently facing a funding gap where the pipeline projects exceed the funds available. The intention is to allocate the remaining resources based on a first come, first served basis. A better approach might be to focus on other criteria such as the extent to which gains made to date in individual countries can be consolidated, the momentum built can be continued and success and performance can be rewarded. This would mean placing higher priority on funding Tier 1 Phase 2 projects, trade mainstreaming and Tier 2 projects in countries that do not have current Tier 2 projects.

Sustainability EIF has fostered local ownership of the trade agenda and engagement of a range of stakeholders in its implementation. In some countries, the prospects for sustainability are good. The greatest levels of ownership were seen when several approaches were implemented within the EIF support. The process of the DTIS and DTIS Updates was owned and managed by the country. The EIF structures were effectively integrated into existing mechanisms, ministries and groups with the country. Buy-in was obtained from other ministries outside of trade to ensure that trade was mainstreamed. The government was willing to engage with a wide range of stakeholders including the private sector and build a broad base of support. Some concerns were raised about the ability to sustain the gains made at the country level, however. While exit strategies are developed during the proposal stage, the extent they are being implemented varies across countries due to a range of factors including budgets and priorities. For Tier 2 projects, questions are already emerging about how to reach a critical point where the efforts will become sustainable. For example, the value chain work requires extensive time and effort and will not necessarily be at a point, at the end of the current EIF mandate, where the linkages are able to be maintained without more outside support. This will mean that additional funding will need to be mobilized before the end of the Tier 2 funding.

Potential Impact The EIF is starting to make progress on the purpose level result of assisting LDCs to become more fully integrated into the trading system through mainstreaming trade. Both direct and indirect contributions by the EIF programme are beginning to be identified. Some of the Tier 2 projects are showing signs that they are making progress in areas such as exports and employment growth, although the gains remain small on a relative scale. This is being seen in mango and the gum Arabic in Mali, sesame in Burkina Faso, cashews in The Gambia, mushrooms in Lesotho, honey in Zambia and Yemen and coffee in Burundi. Optimism is seen with stakeholders in terms of achieving results in the trade facilitation area and export capacity. Some countries, such as Liberia. Zambia and Burundi, have already improved their business environment. Cambodia and Lao PDR have improved customs and import export requirements. However, the extent of the contribution to achieving these results will depend on a series of conditions being met—some are within EIF’s control, others outside. The initial set of conditions focus on how well the Tier 1 and 2 projects are implemented including flexibility to meet country needs, alignment of donors to the AM, methods to build ownership and systems supporting the achievement of results. To achieve the intended outcomes and trade integration requires a series of other conditions. A critical mass of results will not emerge unless donors


viii

provide resources to fund other aspects of the AM. Trade needs to be further embedded into the approaches at the country level, making the mainstreaming activities particularly important. The outcomes need to translate into greater competitiveness of the private sector, an improved business climate and improved trade environment. The more these conditions are met, the greater the EIF contribution will be to the LDCs’ trade integration.

Options for Future Programming The EIF has been extended to December 2015, with implementation finishing at the end of 2017. The question then becomes what happens next? While designing a subsequent phase is beyond the scope of this evaluation, the ToR requested that an indication of the extent to which changes in programme strategy and delivery would be required for any future programming. There are basically three options: allow the EIF to complete its work until 2017 and then end with no follow-up programme (phase out); extend the EIF mandate with a replenishment; maintaining the status quo with limited changes; or streamline with some rethinking and reshaping of approaches and strategies. Each of these options has pros and cons and must be assessed seriously by the EIFSC before a decision is made. This evaluation is recommending that option 3 be chosen.

Overall Conclusions The overall conclusion of the evaluation is that the EIF remains highly relevant and important for LDCs’ trade needs. The EIF is supporting LDCs in mainstreaming trade, clearly defining priorities and bringing stakeholders together to support the trade agenda. Gains are already being seen in achieving some of the targeted results. Initial indications show that many of the results have good prospects for sustainability. Signs are emerging that the purpose level outcome of trade integration is starting to be achieved in areas such as employment and exports. The progress on all these fronts varies widely across countries, with some showing more limited changes. However, the EIF faces challenges that are undermining its effectiveness, efficiency and potential to maximize its impact. The governance structure and complexity of the approval and implementation processes continue to slow progress, decrease ownership and buy-in and dampen the extent to which results are emerging. Countries are struggling to mobilize the resources required to implement their priorities. Key stakeholders such as the private sector are not fully engaged as partners, despite the key role they play. The shifting trade paradigms and the emergence of regional trade agreements need to be fully integrated into EIF programming. EIF is at an interesting crossroad, where it can reshape itself and move to a new level and, in the process, increase its relevance and impact. More streamlined and dynamic approaches are needed after the current EIF mandate. While many of the tools and approaches remain relevant, some fundamental rethinking is needed in terms of governance, procedures, roles and approaches to trade integration. If this is not done, the relevance of any initiative will decline, with partners and donors looking for other solutions. This current transition period should allow a fresh look at how best to support the LDCs in their ability to become global trading partners. Opportunities are there to make a significant difference to LDCs’ trade prospects, but it will require moving to a new way of thinking, toward a more responsive and flexible.


ix

Recommendations

Recommendations for the EIF

Recommendation #1 – Develop additional tools to assist the LDCs to better mainstream trade. Two capacity development models are suggested for the EIF ES to develop. One is aimed at building a broader based knowledge of trade and its importance. The second focuses on enhancing specific skills for policy analysis.

Recommendation #2 – Work with agencies, donors and LDCs to determine how to better promote donor alignment and resource generation at the country level. Three areas are suggested here for the EIF ES and EIF TFM to implement to improve the prospects for resources mobilization. The first is working with countries and donors, where the Donor Facilitator model is not working, to develop individual action plans to resolve the issue. The solutions will likely vary by country and require different models. The second is working with the Focal Points to ensure they understand their responsibilities and identify methods to improve collaboration between the FP and DF. The third is a forum where lessons can be shared among countries on effective and innovative techniques for resource mobilization.

Recommendation #3 – Work with MIEs to find methods to increase the pace of implementation of key projects, particularly the DTIS and DTIS Updates. The first portion of this recommendation focuses on trying to accelerate the pace of implementation of the DTIS and DTIS Update. EIF ES and EIF TFM should convene a meeting of the main implementing agencies and countries and pinpoint obstacles in the process that are causing delays. Options for streamlining would be developed and discussed and support be provided to the MIEs for implementation of the changes if required. The second portion deals with the issue of the slow pace of implementation on some Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects. The EIF ES and EIF TFM would identify the projects that are behind schedule and the issues they face. An action plan would then be developed to better facilitate the resolution of issues with various types of MIE.

Recommendation #4 – In the short term, select pipeline projects for funding from the available resources in the EIFTF by a criterion other than first come first served. With the current funding gap, only a portion of the projects in the pipeline will be able to be approved until new funds are released into the EIFTF. The evaluation is suggesting the following approach to allow a consolidation of gains and continue the momentum built to date in order to maximize results. The priority sequence would be: #1 – Support to NIA – Phase 2; #2 Trade Mainstreaming; #3 - Tier 2 projects in countries without an existing Tier 2. As additional funds are placed into the EIFTF, the priority sequence could revert back to the first come, first served or other criteria chosen by the EIF Board.

Recommendations for more streamlined and dynamic approaches of the EIF Recommendation #5 – The EIF Board establishes a process to build on the work and achievements of the EIF but develop more streamlined and dynamic approaches for the future. A three step approach is being recommended. The desire is to have as smooth a


x

transition as possible as the EIF moves beyond its current mandate, while ensuring that the required changes are done in a systematic and effective manner.

Step 1 – Establish a Task Force - A small high level Task Force should be established as soon as possible to set the overall parameters that will guide improvements of the EIF. The Task Force should have two representatives from each stakeholder group—the LDCs, core agencies and donors. Over a three month period, the Task Force should develop recommendations on the following areas: timeframe; funding targets; strategy for engagement with donors and agencies; EIF programme governance structure; , proportion of the future contributions to the EIFTF that will go to administration, fees and management and a recommended delivery model; parameters for accessing funds and graduation; changes to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 modalities including the parameters for possible regional programming; range of approaches for integration of the private sector; and milestones for programming after the current mandate ends.

Step 2 - - Approval by the EIF Board and Endorsement by the EIF SC: The Task Force should present recommendations to the EIF Board for review within three months. The recommendations should clearly provide parameters for future programming. Once approved, the EIF Board should then present the recommendations to the EIF SC for endorsement.

Step 3 –Establish Working Groups - Once the EIF Board has approved the recommendations, more work will be needed to develop the details for implementation and undertake specific actions. It is anticipated that five Working Groups will be needed: Governance and Management; Local Ownership and Management; Programming; Approvals and Implementation Processes; and Re-engagement and Replenishment Process. The representation on these should include: LDCs, core agencies; and donors. The work should be finalized as quickly as possible to allow a full rollout by January 2016.


1

Evaluation of the Enhanced Integrated Framework

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Evaluation The Enhanced Integrated Framework (EIF) is a multi-donor programme started in 2008 that works with Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to assist them in becoming more active players in the global trading system. It supports LDCs in mainstreaming trade into national development strategies and building the capacity to trade, including addressing critical supply-side constraints. In this way, the programme works towards a wider goal of promoting economic growth and sustainable development and helping to lift more people out of poverty. The EIF is supported by a multi-donor trust fund, the EIF Trust Fund (EIFTF), with contributions from 23 Donors. The funding target was USD 250 million. The EIF Board commissioned the current evaluation. The results‐based management nature of the EIF requires that it be evaluated after five years to take stock of the results achieved and to identify lessons learned. The evaluation assessed the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and potential impacts of the EIF programme at the global (programme) level, country (project) level and the intersection between the project and programme levels. The evaluation identified lessons, challenges and opportunities from implementing the EIF for future strategic programming. The Terms of Reference (ToR) guided the evaluation along with an approved Inception Report that specified the detailed evaluation questions and outlined a rigorous methodology. While the evaluation covers the period from October 2008 to August 2014, the intention in the ToR was that the evaluation would build on and add to the evidence and information emerging from a Mid-Term Review (MTR)3 concluded in November 2012 and a Review of the EIF Trust Fund Manager Operating Tools and Procedures completed in April 2014.4

1.2 Overview of EIF

1.2.1 Evolution of AfT The Integrated Framework (IF) for Trade Related Technical Assistance, which was the forerunner of the Enhanced Integrated Framework, was launched in 1997. At that time it was becoming clear that the overall capacity of LDCs did not allow them to respond to the challenges and opportunities offered by the shifting trading regimes. LDCs were raising concerns that they were not being adequately integrated into the multilateral trading system. The IF was started to provide trade-related technical assistance (TRTA), including human and institutional capacity development, to LDCs to support their trade and trade-related activities—allowing them to integrate more fully into the global economy. The intention was to streamline TRTA delivered by six agencies—World Trade Organization (WTO); International Monetary Fund (IMF); International Trade Centre (ITC); United Nations Conference on Trade and

3 Saana Consulting. November 15, 2012. “Mid-Term Review of the EIF”.

4 Dalberg. April 2, 2014. “Review of EIF Trust Fund Manager Operating Tools and Procedures: Final

Report”.


2

Development (UNCTAD); United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); and the World Bank (WB). An evaluation in 2000 highlighted the need to clarify the IF’s objectives and set clearer priorities.5 The IF was revamped, with its objectives being strengthened to include mainstreaming trade into development plans and poverty reduction strategies along with TRTA. Changes were also made to the governance structure. Pilots were done to test new tools such as the Diagnostic Trade Integration Study (DTIS), which was aimed at examining a country’s trade potential and major bottlenecks to improving trade performance. Further changes were made to the IF as a result of evaluations in 20036 and 20047. A number of shortcomings were identified and the Integrated Framework Working Group established a Task Force in 2005, with representatives of LDCs and Donors, to assess the changes required. The Task Force presented its recommendations for an enhanced IF the following year. It was agreed that the enhanced IF would comprise three specific elements: increased, additional, predictable financial resources to implement Action Matrices; strengthened in-country capacities to manage, implement and monitor the IF process; and enhanced IF governance.8 During this same period, recognition was building for the importance of Aid for Trade (AfT). In 2005, the WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong established a Task Force on Aid for Trade. The Task Force made a series of recommendations in 2006 focused on improving areas such as coordination and fund flows in support of Aid for Trade. These coordinated efforts produced results in terms of generating additional revenues for LDCs to tackle issues impacting their trade and development. With this increased funding came a need to ensure greater coordination of efforts and increased ownership and leadership at the country level. Priorities needed to be clear and funding channelled to the most important areas. This placed greater importance on ensuring that trade was a key element of development strategies and priorities of governments. The launching of the Enhanced Integrated Framework in October 2008 represented both an evolution of the IF and a method to build on the momentum to operationalize the Aid for Trade agenda.

1.2.2 EIF The EIF focuses on three principles:

Country ownership ensuring that the LDCs identify and manage trade development activities with national, regional and international bodies and donors;

Using trade as a development tool; and

Taking a partnership approach with greater coordination and commitments from all EIF partners.

5 Rajapathirana, Sarath; Charles Lusthaus; Marie-Hélène Adriene. Report of the Review of the Integrated

Framework. Geneva, Switzerland: World Trade Organization. June 29, 2000. 6 Capra‐TFOC Consortium. 2003. “Evaluation of the Revamped Integrated Framework For Trade‐related

Technical Assistance to the Least‐Developed.” For the Summary Report see: Capra International Inc. – Trade Facilitation Office Canada. 7 Agarwal, Manmohan and Jozefina Cutura. 2004. “Integrated Framework for Trade-Related Technical

Assistance - Addressing Challenges of Globalization: An Independent Evaluation of the World Bank’s approach to Global Programs Case Study”. World Bank. 8 WTO. June 29 2006. “Report of the Chairman of the Task Force on an Enhanced Integrated

Framework, Including Recommendations.” WTO/IFSC/W/15.


3

Building upon these principles, the purpose and procedures of the EIF programme are intended to provide for:

Increased capacity building support to LDCs through the EIF process; and

Stronger governance of the EIF, including collective decision-making through the EIF Board, the Executive Secretariat (ES) and the Trust Fund Manager (TFM), as well as through clearly defined accountability and rigorous monitoring and evaluation (M&E).

The goal of the EIF is to support the LDCs’ integration into the global trading system with a view to contributing to poverty reduction and sustainable development. The EIF Strategic Action Plan until 2013 specified the three core objectives of the programme:

Mainstreaming trade into national development strategies;

Coordinating the delivery of trade-related technical assistance; and

Building capacity to trade, which includes addressing critical supply-side constraints. To implement this, a wide range of partners are involved.

50 EIF countries have been engaged with the EIF including three countries that have graduated—Cabo Verde, Maldives and Samoa. Of these, 45 countries have approved EIF projects as of August 2014, with one additional country in the pipeline.9

The six EIF Core and Partner Agencies are: IMF; ITC; UNCTAD; UNDP; WB; and WTO.

A total of 23 EIF donors contribute to the Trust Fund.10

Two observer agencies have been added: United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO); and World Tourism Organization (UNWTO).

Other development partners are also engaged by EIF such as the African Development Bank and Least Developed Countries Group.

Annex 4 provides an overview of the governance framework. EIF governance at the global level includes the EIF Steering Committee (EIFSC), which provides strategic advice and guidance to the EIF stakeholders on the implementation of the programme and its overall goals as well as acts as a forum for transparency, information and experience exchanges. The EIF Board is the senior policy decision maker for the EIF and provides operational and financial oversight and policy direction. The Executive Secretariat and the position of Executive Director (ED) were created with managerial and budgetary responsibilities and accountabilities within the WTO structure. The United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) acts as the Trust Fund Manager and has full fiduciary responsibility for the multi-donor EIF Trust Fund.

9 It should be noted that many of these countries started their participation under the IF. Also, three

countries have graduated from LDC status and therefore are graduated from the EIF. For these graduated countries, the EIF Board has agreed to a phase out of programming over a 3-5 year period. 10

Australia, European Commission, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, Norway, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States of America.


4

EIF governance structures at the country level are aimed at promoting and mainstreaming international trade within country development plans and facilitating the creation of country ownership of the priorities, plans, and implementation of EIF and Aid for Trade projects in general. The roles of the national EIF Focal Point (FP) and National Implementation Unit (NIU) are central to the EIF along with the EIF National Steering Committee (NSC) and the EIF Donor Facilitator (DF). This team, if operating effectively, can play a key role at the local level in not only the governance of the EIF process but in mobilizing support for the development and implementation of trade priorities. Figure 1 provides an overview of the EIF programming. Details of the steps and processes are outlined in the EIF Compendium of EIF Documents: A User’s Guide to the EIF. A number of stages of funding are available. After approval for entry into the EIF, the Pre-DTIS phase defines the key elements that should be in place for the process including the overall governance and implementation structure. An important requirement is the mobilization of national stakeholders including government, private sector and, where feasible, non-governmental organizations.

Figure 1 – Overview of EIF Stages

With this starting point, the Diagnostic Trade Integration Study and the DTIS Action Matrix (AM) are developed as a core part of Tier 1 activities. The DTIS provides a detailed understanding of the trade-related constraints facing the country and pragmatic remedies and trade policy reforms that can be included in the AM. This requires a high level of commitment by the government and engagement of stakeholders to ensure that there is appropriate buy-in to both the DTIS analysis and the Action Matrix. This work acts as a foundation for integrating trade-related issues into other strategies such as the national development plan (NDP) and focuses on the trade dimensions of key sectors. Tier 1 also includes the provision of assistance to the National Implementation Arrangements (NIA). These are aimed at supporting a range of

Pre-DTIS

DTIS/DTIS Updates

Technical Review

Support to NIAs’ projects

Tier 2 projects

Tier

1Ti

er 2

Brief description of economic and political situation and commitment to incorporating trade into national development strategy. Presented to Board for approval and participation in EIF.

Aims at sensitizing national stakeholders (FP, potential NSC members), key government, private sector and civil society representatives about the importance of mainstreaming trade, roles and functions within the EIF process, role of the DTIS and how to best ensure full country ownership and participation in the DTIS process. Funding up to USD 50,000.

DTIS is the cornerstone for integrating trade into development plans. It identifies the constraints blockages access to the multilateral trading system. Includes an action matrix. Aggregate funding up to USD 400,000 for DTIS and USD 400,000 for updates.

NIA projects provides support to increasing the institutional capacity for trade mainstreaming, donor coordination and implementation of the matrix. They can be up to five years and USD 300,000 per year.

EIF Countries that have finalized the DTIS and Action Matrix can apply for Tier 2 funding. Tier 2 projects support the implementation of the Action Plan and small projects to overcome supply-side bottlenecks. Funding is between USD 1.5 to 3 million.


5

activities including increasing the institutional capacity for trade mainstreaming, assisting in prioritizing areas of the AM and assisting in the preparation of Tier 2 projects. Tier 2 projects assist with the implementation of priorities identified in the Action Matrix and build trade-related and supply side capacities. The intent is that they complement existing projects, fill gaps and be catalytic. The level of funding of Tier 2 projects—up to a maximum of USD 3.0 million—means that the bulk of the resources required to support the Action Matrix priorities will come from bilateral and multilateral development partners. Table 1 provides an overview of the projects approved under the EIF for each stage.11 From October 2008 to August 2014, the EIF Board has approved 120 projects in 45 countries. Of these, 90 have been Tier 1 projects and 30 Tier 2 projects. A wide range of Main Implementing Entities (MIEs) are seen for both Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects. Table 1 – Summary of EIF Project Approvals

Category Number

Active Countries

Total Active Countries 4512

Total Countries with Tier 1 funding 45

Total Countries with Tier 2 funding 22

Projects Approved

Pre-DTIS 10

DTIS 8

DTIS Updates 31

NIA Support 37

NIA Support with International Trade Advisor 4

Tier 2 Projects 3013

Total Projects 120

Main Implementing Entity of Approved Projects

Projects Implemented by: Tier 1 Tier 2 Total

Governments 46 18 64

Agencies 42 13 55

Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) 0 3 3

Other organizations14 1 2 3

DTIS Updates where MIEs are to be determined 2 0 2

Total MIEs 91 36 127

Source: EIF Knowledge Hub as of August 25, 2014 The EIF’s monitoring and evaluation system is in place and acts as a central element in the effectiveness, efficiency and accountability chain. The M&E program links country level

11

Annex 5 provides a complete listing of the approved projects by country and phase. 12

One additional country (Kiribati) is at the formulation stage with a draft proposal for NIA support submitted in June 2014. 13

For Cambodia, the Tier 2 projects are counted as two projects even though they have seven sub-projects being implemented by different groups. 14

For example, United States Agency for International Development.


6

activities with stated global outcomes, providing a consistent, defined structure for ongoing project and programme monitoring and evaluation as shown on the following figure.

Figure 2 – Overview of Programme Level Logframe

The MTR noted that while the EIF officially began in 2008, its effective start date was April 2010 when the EIF Board was constituted, some ES staff were in place and agreements with partners were finalized. It recommended that the five year term of the EIF should be concluded in 2015. Based on this recommendation, the EIF Steering Committee extended the mandate of the EIF to December 31 2015, with project implementation continuing until December 31 2017.

LDC’s Integration into the global trading system with a view to contributing to poverty reduction and sustainable development

Enable EIF Countries to become fully integrated and active players in, and beneficiaries of, the global trading system through mainstreaming trade

Sufficient institutional and management capacity built in EIF Countries to formulate and implement trade-related strategies and implementation plans

EIF Countries mainstream trade into their national development strategies and plans

Coordinated delivery of trade-related resources by donors and implementing agencies to implement country priorities following the adoption of the DTIS Matrix

EIF Countries secure resources in support of initiatives that address DTIS Action Matrix priorities

EIF Countries Level Indicators

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n b

y EI

FEI

F O

utc

om

es


7

2.0 Objectives and Methodology of the Evaluation

2.1 Objectives of the Evaluation As outlined in the Terms of Reference, the specific objectives of the evaluation were:

To analyze results achieved so far against the programme's goal, purpose and outcomes including sustainability of results and potential impacts of programme objectives;

To assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impacts and sustainability of the EIF programme at the global (programme) level, country (project) level and the intersection between project and programme levels, including taking into account the recently completed Trust Fund Manager review of operating tools and procedures and how the Mid-Term Review recommendations from 2012 for tailored support have been taken forward;

To consider the EIF governance structure, in particular the ES structure, adequacy of staff resources and support provided to EIF countries, and national structures, embedding of trade in national development strategies, impact and private sector engagement; and

To analyze the continued validity of the programme objectives and the consistency of its interventions and strategy, noting the strengths, weaknesses and potential for another phase, in the evolving development and Aid for Trade context, in contributing to the general goal of inclusive growth, poverty reduction and sustainable development.

2.2 Review Questions The ToR suggested some evaluation questions as a starting point. These were revised slightly in the Inception Report to more precisely define the focus for the evaluation. The overview of the evaluation questions is shown on Table 2. A detailed evaluation design matrix was developed and included in the Inception Report. The evaluation design matrix clearly laid out the detailed questions that guided the evaluation. Table 2 – Overview of Evaluation Issues

A. Relevance

To what extent do the EIF interventions correspond to the trade needs of LDCs?

How relevant is the EIF to the contemporary context of the AfT initiative in LDCs?

Have new multilateral, regional and bilateral trade initiatives impacted the relevance of the EIF to LDCs?

B. Effectiveness

Have the EIF objectives been achieved?

What role have internal and external factors played in the achievement of results?


8

How adequate are the outcomes and indicators in responding to the EIF strategic priorities and achieving programme objectives?

How effective is the EIF M&E system in measuring progress towards achieving EIF objectives?

C. Efficiency

Has the implementation of the EIF made effective use of time and resources toward achieving results at policy development (i.e. mainstreaming in development strategy), programmatic and fiduciary levels?

What factors, at programme and project levels, influence delivery and implementation of the EIF?

How responsive has the management of the EIF (through the EIF Governance structure) been to the changing needs of the LDCs?

D. Sustainability

How effective have LDCs been in establishing national ownership?

How have in‐country stakeholders been involved in project implementation?

Are project results likely to be sustainable?

Is there an exit strategy for the actions and resources of the EIF to be followed up with appropriate government actions/strategies after the project ends?

Are the government and partners likely to maintain the human, financial and institutional resources of the project once external support ends?

E. Impact

Is the EIF making contributions to the overall national goal of inclusive economic growth, sustainable development and poverty reduction through global trade integration of LDCs?

Is the EIF making contributions to the purpose level result of enabling EIF Countries to become more fully integrated and active players in in global trading system?

Can observed changes in capacities (human, institutional, etc.) at country level be linked to the contribution of the EIF?

Can any unintended positive or negative effects be observed as a consequence of the EIF?

2.3 Methodology The evaluation has been conducted according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee’s Quality Standards for Development Evaluation. The Inception Report outlined in detail the methodology, which was a mixed methods approach that combined quantitative and qualitative sources and techniques. It involved document reviews, portfolio review, interviews, fieldwork and a survey. Annex 2 provides an overview of the evaluation methodology outlined in the Inception Report and implemented by the Team. In brief, a wide range of documents were reviewed covering the categories listed in the ToR. Specific emphasis was placed on more recent information that had become available since the MTR. The EIF Knowledge Hub was accessed to undertake a


9

review of the portfolio since 2008. The focus was on the patterns and trends in the funding, use and distribution of Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects and the average time required to move through different stages under the programme. In addition, the EIF M&E system was reviewed along with the logframes at both the programme and country levels.

Annex 3 contains a list of over 450 individuals that were consulted through the three approaches implemented for the evaluation—key informant interviews, survey and country visits. Key informant interviews were held with a range of individuals from: Core and Partner Agencies and Observers; Donor Agencies; EIF Board and Steering Committee; ES and TFM staff; country level implementers; and partners. In addition, a survey was administered to: Donors; Donor Facilitators; Focal Points; NIU staff; NSC members; ES and TFM staff; Board and Steering Members; and other partners and organizations.15 A total of 88 individuals finished the survey, which resulted in a response rate of 41%. Fifteen countries, out of 45 active EIF countries, were visited.16 The selection was based on a series of variables to ensure the countries represented a cross-section of experiences with the EIF. The factors taken into consideration included: stage of implementation of projects (Tier 1 and 2 projects); geographic and regional distribution; language; development factors such as whether the country was a small island or landlocked; economic prospects; transition country; and rating in the human development index. The country visits covered a range of EIF key stakeholders including members of the EIF governance structure, government officials, private sector, civil society, donors and project implementers. This multi-prong approach provided a range of evidence that was triangulated to reach the findings and conclusions contained in this report. The consistency of data was examined across data sources to verify findings and identify outlier information. Care was taken to ensure that the information was analyzed, synthesized and interpreted in a manner which provided insights into the evaluation questions as well as lessons and recommendations. Special emphasis was placed on understanding not only the global and country level performance, but the intersection between the two and the insights this can provide to better defining these relationships. A draft of the evaluation went through a peer review process that included all evaluation team members as well as outside trade experts familiar with LDCs and the global trading regime. A second draft was then produced and forwarded to the EIF Board. A total of eleven donors, four core agencies, the LDC Group, five individual LDCs, the ES and the TFM provided feedback on the report. This feedback was further discussed at an EIF Board meeting on October 30, 2014. The comments received were reviewed at the meeting and changes have been made to the draft report to reflect questions and issues raised by the reviewers. This final report reflects these adjustments.

2.4 Limitations The primary limitation faced by the evaluation team was the shortness of the time available for the review and for the NIUs in the countries visited to confirm the arrangements for the visits.

15

It should be noted that while some survey questions were asked across the categories of respondents, others were only asked of specific groups. In the evaluation, it is noted which groups are responding to the questions. 16

Burkina Faso, Burundi, The Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Malawi, Mozambique, Senegal, Uganda, Nepal, Maldives, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Haiti, Solomon Islands, and Yemen.


10

The contract was signed on 3 July 2014 and the first draft evaluation was to be produced for 1 October 2014. The complexity of the EIF programme meant that this timeframe was short, particularly given the extent and number of the country visits to be made. Administering the survey during August was difficult since many individuals were away from their offices. Similar problems were seen with the country visits where some individuals were on leave during the missions. The design of the methodology took these factors into account, however, and the Team was able to implement it in an efficient manner, ensuring a cross-section of opinions were covered. The wide variation of experiences across EIF countries had to be factored into the analysis. The conditions within countries and their progress under the EIF varied extensively. This variation meant that the evaluation needed to identify how the various experiences fit into the programme and what they said about the EIF model, the conditions that influence its implementation and the ways to tailor the programme to local needs.


11

3.0 Evaluation Findings

3.1 Relevance

Finding #1 - The EIF remains relevant to and supports the trade needs of LDCs.

The overall relevance of the EIF was reaffirmed through all the evidence streams under this evaluation. When asked the extent to which the EIF strategic approach was relevant to the trade needs of LDCs, 95% of the 88 survey respondents indicated to a great extent or fair extent. In addition, 90% felt that results aligned with LDC trade priorities. The country visits and stakeholder interviews reiterated the relevance in terms of supporting LDCs’ ability to mainstream trade and highlighted a number of areas where the contribution was considered strong. International experience indicates that the first step required to improve trade is to understand the role trade can play in the economy, identify the constraints to trade and set priorities to tackle them.17 The DTIS and DTIS Updates were seen to be capable of serving this purpose well and being the basis for setting priorities and developing an approach that links into other national development plans, strategies and institutions. A range of countries, including The Gambia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR) and Mali, indicated that they felt the DTIS and DTIS Updates helped focus on key priorities and provided a basis for moving forward with trade mainstreaming. The process of the DTIS, the operation of the NIU and National Steering Committee brought people together and acted as a common platform for interaction and coordination of efforts. This built a common understanding of issues and a basis for moving forward on trade. Tier 2 projects are seen to be particularly critical at the country level since they are tackling concrete constraints and will have visible results emerging that can demonstrate the potential of trade. The 2013 monitoring of AfT report identified key issues that were blocking LDC supplier firms from access to global value chains and possible areas of support.18 Among those mentioned were trade facilitation measures, better market access and better public private dialogues with national authorities. The Tier 1 and 2 projects approved to date target these areas and provide support to overcoming the barriers to participation. Overall 82% of FPs, NIU staff and DFs responding to the survey (n=60) indicated that the Tier 1 and 2 windows reflect the conditions and needs of the LDCs, with the Donor Facilitators being slightly more positive than the average. Overall, the EIF windows were seen to have flexibility to adapt to local conditions. Approximately 86% of the FPs and NIU staff surveyed thought there was flexibility. The country visits and interviews emphasized the fact that while the DTIS is a generic tool, it is one that is easily adapted at the country level and to the specific needs and priorities identified at a country level assuming it is locally driven. The Tier 2 projects are based on the country priorities and reflect what has been agreed within the AM. The designs are generated locally.

17

OECD. 2012. Succeeding with Trade Reforms: The Role of Aid for Trade. 18

OECD/WTO. 2013. Aid for Trade: Connecting Least-Developed Countries to Value Chains.


12

Finding #2 - A shifting trade context is impacting LDCs and their requirements for AfT. The EIF needs to ensure that its approaches build on these trends and are flexible enough to accommodate a range of options for LDCs to pursue.

Numerous reports have analyzed the shifts being seen in trade patterns and paradigms in recent years. Increasing globalization has begun to change how trade operates and is viewed. One key trend is to focus more on joining the right value chain.19 The growth of global value chains has increased the extent to which economies are interconnected. This has led to increased specialization within value chains on certain stages, not the whole industry. Trade integration in many cases is becoming more inward looking with changes to the local business climate becoming more critical to facilitate trade linkages. In addition, the barriers to trade have shifted with non-tariff barriers replacing tariffs as a key constraint. These trends call for greater cooperation between the public and private sectors in trade capacity building. The shifts have implications for LDCs, their potential growth and how AfT needs to be approached. For example, while productive capacity remains important, other areas are proving bigger obstacles. The costs of trading matter more now in terms of linking to global value chains, placing a greater emphasis on changes to logistics infrastructure. The area of trade facilitation is increasing in importance with the rise of non-tariff barriers. It is important that EIF plays its role in leveraging AfT to meet these broader set of needs. Currently some EIF countries see AfT from a very narrow perspective, basically productive capacity and trade policy. This was clear from the country visits where the understanding of the concept of AfT was not clear with many stakeholders. The intention is not to predetermine how LDCs should be approaching their trade policies and implementation but to ensure that the EIF is flexible enough to accommodate a range of approaches by countries. Some may focus on exports; others on global value chains; others on a combination of strategies. These decisions should be driven by the country, with the EIF being able to facilitate which ever route is chosen and help mobilize resources to support it.

Finding #3 - With these shifts in the trade regimes, it becomes more critical for the EIF to effectively integrate the private sector. Currently, the role of the private sector is unclear and as a consequence opportunities are being missed.

The role of the private sector in the EIF programme needs to be better defined and looked at more strategically. The private sector is active currently in advising on the DTIS and sectoral plans, participating in the NSC and assisting to operationalize the Tier 2 projects. For example, the private sector is involved in the implementation of Tier 1 projects in Vanuatu and Samoa and a Tier 2 project in Nepal. Public private dialogues are an important mechanism in ensuring that governments address key constraints facing the private sector and these are included under the EIF model.20 The involvement of the private sector on this level is considered strong. In the survey, 86% of respondents (n=50) thought the private sector was involved to a great or fair extent in the EIF processes. Similar feedback was received during the country visits.

19

OECD. 2013. Managing Aid to Achieve Trade and development Results: An Analysis of Trade-related Targets. 20

OECD/WTO. Page 13.


13

While the private sector has been active in supporting efforts such as the DTIS or participating on NSCs, their role needs to be further clarified in terms of both Tier 2 projects and overall approach to supporting trade. The confusion starts with the lack of clarity in the EIF Compendium. The private sector is at the core of achieving objectives of many of the Tier 2 projects and exporters in particular already are partners. However, how the projects can engage the private sector has not been clear within the EIF. Issues began emerging in 2013 as countries were applying for Tier 2 projects. Several proposals had been developed that included some form of support for firms. For example, Burundi had worked with a range of stakeholders including donors to develop a matching fund for innovative private sector projects including identifying candidates through a competitive process.21 The fund fit closely with the DTIS analysis and AM and would have leveraged substantial funding from private sector partners. While never formally submitted to the Board for approval, this project and another in Zambia were discussed at a July 2013 EIF Board meeting. At the meeting, the Board decided that firms could not receive any direct funding under the EIF and the overall concepts of the two projects were disallowed. To deal with the lack of clarity, the EIF Board set up a Private Sector Group to further identify the role of the private sector in the EIF.22 In the ToR for the group, a number of options were outlined to investigate for further engagement. This included considering the private sector as a potential donor of the EIF and identifying ways to engage the firms that are currently marginalized from trade discussions such as informal firms and women-owned enterprises. Donors and the ES questioned this narrow definition and requested clarifications to the ToR to more clearly define whether the EIF Board would agree to exploring other roles for the private sector as well as unbundling various groups that make up the private sector ranging from international corporations to business chambers. The role of the private sector is a very important one for both EIF and the LDCs. The analysis that EIF plans to take around the role needs to include broader concepts of private sector involvement if the EIF is to remain relevant. To meet the trade agenda of an LDC, the private sector, both domestic and international, needs to play an important role and this role needs to be facilitated through the EIF. This is especially true given the broad range of experiences with the private sector across EIF countries. In many LDCs, businesses remain small and the commercial sector relatively undeveloped. The availability of short or longer term financing is a major constraint to their growth, especially in the absence of public or private financial institutions targeting small and medium sized businesses. Some countries have very weak private sector firms, with a limited base to work from. Others are coming from socialist experiences where the private sector had a minor role and were not viewed in a positive light. These countries are starting to build confidence between public and private interests and learning the difference between the government being a facilitator and an implementer and producer. A number of other countries have more dynamic private sectors and are looking at methods to facilitate linkages including arms-length institutions to promote trade through a one stop shop approach.

21

Similar challenge funds have been used successfully in Burundi by groups such as TradeMark East Africa. Challenge funds are now used by a wide range of donors as a method to promote innovation in the private sector. 22

The group consists of EIF Representatives from Uganda, the World Bank, the United Kingdom, ITC, UNIDO, The Gambia and the EIF Executive Director.


14

The diversity of situations at the country level demands a more holistic view on integrating the private sector into EIF work. It is not enough to simply have the private sector at the table for consultations as EIF does. New approaches need to be developed that encourage a range of involvement in the trade agenda. Donors are now testing new models globally on collaboration between the public and private sectors.23 The dialogues are shifting from simply helping developing country businesses expand exports to identifying methods to encourage inward investments to link to the local private sector. The private sector is playing a key role in areas such as policy and legal reforms. They are partnering on projects and bringing resources including technical and financial. The private sector needs to be considered in the resource equation as well—not as an EIF funder but as part of aid, trade and investment resource equation. As will be discussed later, the levels of AfT funds to LDCs have not been keeping pace with overall flows. While AfT is a critical short-term need of LDCs, longer term strategies are needed to develop linkages to other financial resources such as foreign direct investment (FDI). The 2013 AfT report highlighted the differences in perception on this point. Donors believed that official development assistance (ODA) would be the most important source of funding to help LDC firms connect to value chains, while LDC governments believed it would be direct foreign investment and domestic private investment. 24 The ability of LDC firms to link to global value chains requires practical knowledge of trade opportunities that goes beyond theories and also financing that goes beyond ODA. The foreign private sector may see opportunities to add a given LDC to their world network of global suppliers and, hence, become interested in FDI within the specific context of a Tier 2 project. For this to happen, domestic and foreign private firms would have to be intimately involved with the project from inception onward, i.e., from formulation to implementation. For instance, a Florida garment manufacturer interested to add Haitian SMEs to its global value chains may see a Tier 2 project as an opportunity to fulfill its own interests by having the small and medium enterprises receive training or other support through the EIF project. Likewise, an international railway car manufacturer may see Tanzania as an interesting assembly point for delivery to its East African customers. These are trade, technical and financial issues that need to be factored into the resource leveraging equation and creative approaches supported by EIF.

Finding #4 - The growing emphasis by LDCs on regional and bilateral trade agreements means that the EIF needs to develop methods to support new opportunities that are emerging at the regional level.

The lack of progress in concluding the Doha Round has meant greater emphasis is now being placed on regional and bilateral trade agreements. Throughout the interviews and country visits, the importance of taking into account the regional perspective and arrangements was raised. LDCs are looking more towards regional opportunities presented by the agreements. The EIF, however, is country focused, which makes regional efforts more complex to undertake since cross-country implementation is not allowed. Some Tier 1 projects are building national capacities to participate in the regional trade regimes. For example, both The Gambia and

23

See for example, European Commission. September 2013. Communication on “Strengthening the Role of the Private Sector in Achieving Inclusive and Sustainable Growth in Developing Countries”. 24

OECD/WTO. 2013. Aid for Trade: Connecting Least-Developed Countries to Value Chains.


15

Guinea Bissau's Tier 1 projects have included activities to train border officers on how to apply national obligations under the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). However, the overall opportunity for supporting regional initiatives within EIF’s current guidelines is limited. The amount of global AfT that is going to regional initiatives increased in 2012 reaching USD $7 billion.25 Regional AfT has potential for improving LDC prospects by allowing them to link to regional production networks. The interviews at the country level clearly outlined the priority that many countries are placing on developing these stronger networks and linkages particularly ECOWAS. A recent OECD report indicated that mainstreaming multi-country and regional AfT was essential for boosting regional economic integration and development.26 The wide range of regional agreements could provide easier access to markets for some countries. However, to take advantage of the opportunities requires reforms since many agreements include trade facilitation provisions. Rising participation in regional arrangements has meant that trade facilitation has become more important in AfT. At the December 2013 meeting in Bali, the WTO members concluded negotiations on a Trade Facilitation Agreement.27 The Agreement specifically requested that member countries provide support targeted to developing the capacity of LDCs and specified the principles for assistance including ensuring that: ongoing trade facilitation reform activities of the private sector are factored into assistance activities; and the EIF is part of the coordination process in participating LDCs.28 If this agreement is eventually adopted, the funding that is generated could complement the work of the EIF, with the EIF playing a role in facilitating funding for LDCs.29 The continuing lack of programming for regional frameworks and relationships will decrease the relevance of the EIF going forward. New ideas need to be generated on how EIF can support the regional opportunities and requirements of the LDCs. The EIF Annual Progress Report 2013 indicated that consideration was being given to a pilot project that would support at least one regional economic cooperation framework. This would be an important first step.

3.2 Effectiveness

3.2.1 Progress Against Outcomes

Finding #5 - Progress continues to be made on three of the four EIF outcomes—strengthening capacity, mainstreaming trade and coordinating delivery of trade-related resources. Securing resources, the fourth outcome, has more mixed results.

All the lines of evidence confirm that progress continues to be made in terms of EIF outcomes in many countries. The yearly results tracking in the EIF Knowledge Hub shows steady

25

OECD. April 11 2014. 26

OECD. 2014. Regional Perspectives on Aid for Trade. 27

Note that at the time of writing the evaluation, the protocol had been adopted but not the adoption of the Protocol of Amendment to annex it to the Marrakesh Agreement as per the Bali Ministerial decision on the Trade Facilitation Agreement. 28

WTO. 2013. Agreement on Trade Facilitation: Ministerial Decision of 7 December 2013. WT/MIN(13)/36 29

The Bali outcome decisions also included a decision on cotton and LDCs Services Waivers which are important for LDCs.


16

improvements over the last few years since the MTR.30 A review of the Mid-Term Evaluations done of Tier 1 projects indicates the projects are at least satisfactory in terms of initial results. The survey, interviews and country visits confirm that results are being achieved, although there remains wide variation across countries. Part of the variation is explained by the length of time a country has taken part in the EIF and its progress to date on various projects. Other factors that affect progress on results include security issues or changes in government. The following provides a summary of some of the results drawn from different evidence streams. It identifies where progress has been made in recent years and where issues are still evident in fully meeting the results anticipated.

Outcome 1: Sufficient institutional and management capacity built in EIF Countries to formulate and implement trade-related strategies and implementation plans

The DTIS and DTIS Update are considered the cornerstone of the EIF programme. As of August 2014, a total of 44 participating countries had validated DTIS.31 However, many of these were completed under the IF. Under the EIF, eight countries have received approval for developing a DTIS, with five countries completing the process—Haiti, Afghanistan, Bhutan, Togo and Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). In addition, 31 countries have received funding to update an existing DTIS. Thirteen of these have been completed to date—Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Chad, Lao PDR, Lesotho, Malawi, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Uganda and Zambia. The DTIS and DTIS upgrade process has raised the profiles of trade and helped build momentum for trade agendas in country. Lao PDR assumed leadership on its DTIS Update and built broader support for trade issues. The DTIS Update Action Matrix was integrated into the Roadmap for Trade and Private Sector Development for Lao PDR which was directly linked to the National Development Plan. The Government used the Update process to build local ownership in the trade agenda and ensured it reflected the needs of the country. Feedback in Burundi indicated that the DTIS Update process raised awareness within country of both the opportunities and challenges in increasing trade and built broader based support for trade as priority. In Haiti, the DTIS process assisted in helping to identify a way forward on trade in a situation with many priorities that often conflict. The question now will be the extent to which those AM priorities will be implemented. For Haiti, at this point, it is not clear. Institutional and management capacity to formulate trade related strategies has clearly been built in a number of countries that have received Tier 1 funding. Fifteen countries (50% of the countries reporting) now have up to date trade strategies. Some example are shown on Table 3. A number of other countries such as Chad and Lesotho are currently developing trade strategies. The Solomon Islands is preparing a trade policy framework to address trade constraints and build linkages between existing sectoral plans, trade negotiation strategies and trade policies.

30

A summary of the results from the EIF M&E system at the time of the evaluation is contained in Annex 7. 31

This includes the three countries that have graduated.


17

Table 3 – Examples of Countries that have Formulated Trade Strategies

Malawi launched a National Export Strategy in 2012 aimed at improving national competitiveness and increasing exports in priority sectors such as oil seeds, sugar and manufacturing.

In 2013, Maldives developed its Economic Diversification Strategy which targets the expansion of the number of export sectors from three to eight and setting up of a single window for trade facilitation.

Liberia launched the National Trade Policy and the National Export Strategy in 2014. Both documents are intended to increase the capacity of the private sector and connect the country to regional and global markets.

Rwanda revised its National Export Strategy in 2012 to take into account the results of the DTIS Update and the priorities identified in the process.

A new Trade Strategy was developed by Comoros that focuses on international and regional trade integration.

Nepal’s Trade Integration Strategy focuses on the development of the country’s export sector and the needs for capacity development.

The ability to implement the trade plans and strategies has been strong in some countries such as Burkina Faso and Lao PDR. In these countries, there is broad support for the trade agenda and commitment to its implementation. In other countries, the ability to implement is weaker. For example, while Maldives has a sound Strategy, its implementation is facing a wide range of challenges from the capacity of the government to undertake some reforms to the state of the private sector. The availability of donor funding for implementation also influences the extent to which the strategies are being implemented. This is the case in The Gambia where there has been more limited success in generating bilateral funding for key trade initiatives and as a consequence less implementation of the trade strategy. The distinction between formulating trade strategies and implementing them was seen in the survey responses as well. The survey asked the extent of the institutional and management capacity to formulate and implement trade-related strategies at the country level. Overall 89% of the respondents (n=69) indicated that the capacity to formulate strategies was strong or fair. Only 70% thought the same for implementation, however. Table 4 shows the variation in responses between the FPs, DFs and NIU staff. All three groups indicated the capacity to implement was lower than to formulate, although variations in perception are recorded across the groups.


18

Table 4 – Change in Institutional and Management Capacity

Level of capacity FPs

(n=19) DFs

(n=12) NIUs

(n=29)

To Formulate Trade-related Strategies?

Strong 32% 42% 45%

Fair 68% 33% 48%

Marginal 0% 25% 0%

Non-existent 0% 0% 3%

Don’t Know 0% 0% 0%

To Implement Trade-related Strategies?

Strong 26% 17% 31%

Fair 44% 25% 52%

Marginal 22% 50% 10%

Non-existent 3% 8% 3%

Don’t Know 4% 0% 3%

Source: EIF Evaluation Survey The ability to continue to build capacity will be enhanced by the EIF decision to extend some of the Tier 1 funding to a second phase, which would allow for a full five years of support. The DTIS Updates, both underway and completed, are also critical since they will identify the priorities for alignment to other plans. These should contribute to continuing progress.

Outcome 2: EIF Countries mainstream trade into their national development strategies and plans

Mainstreaming trade into other plans and strategies remains an important issue for LDCs and the EIF has contributed to this in many Tier 1 countries. Modules have been developed and rolled out to build capacity to mainstream. New approaches are being developed and funded to have more customized support for trade mainstreaming based on needs assessments, strengthening advocacy for mainstreaming and enhancing inter-ministerial coordination mechanisms on trade and development. According to the EIF M&E information, 28 of the countries with Tier 1 support to NIA projects (78%) have trade mainstreamed satisfactorily into national development plans. Some examples are included on Table 5. The extent to which trade is integrated into the national development plans is considered by many of the donors interviewed an important consideration when reviewing their programs within a country. Donor country strategies are often based on the NDPs and the more trade is integrated the better the chances that there can be trade programming pursued.


19

Table 5 – Examples of Countries Mainstreaming Trade into National Development Plans

The trade priorities identified in the DTIS Update process in Burundi were integrated into the Cadre stratégique de croissance et de lutte contre la pauvreté finalized in 2012.

Burkina Faso successfully integrated trade into its Strategy for Accelerated Growth and Sustainable Development 2011-2015, focusing on economic integration and the promotion of foreign trade.

The DTIS Update in Cambodia supported the development of the National Strategic Development Plan 2014-2018 which includes priorities such as enhancing trade facilitation and investments.

In the Central African Republic, the 2nd Document de Stratégie pour la Réduction de la Pauvreté 2011-2015 included sections on: improving the investment climate; promotion of growth sectors; basic infrastructure development; and regional integration.

Using the priorities identified in the DTIS Update, Chad’s National Development Plan 2013-2015 includes areas such as: developing an investment policy; establishment of the National Agency for Standardization and Metrology; and development of processing industries to increase domestic value addition and jobs.

Benin's Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy 2011-2015 includes trade priorities around transport and logistics as well as trade in agriculture, tourism, handicraft, services and industry. The DTIS Update that is underway will identify methods to operationalize these economic development priorities.

DRC’s Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy for 2011-2015 includes the promotion of trade. The priorities from the DTIS AM have been integrated including agriculture, customs reforms, trade facilitation and improving the business environment.

The Gambia’s Programme for Accelerated Growth and Employment 2012-2015 includes two pillars related to trade—one aimed at accelerating and sustaining economic growth and the second improving competitiveness. Priorities are improvements in trade facilitation, investment climate and quality control systems.

In Guinea, trade has been mainstreamed in the Poverty Reduction Strategy III 2013-2015 and is seen as an engine of economic growth, including growth in agriculture, extractive, manufacturing and services. The Strategy also calls for greater regional integration.

Lao PDR’s 7th National Social Economic Development Plan 2011-2015 has trade as one of its pillars.

Liberia’s Agenda for Transformation (2012-2017) has a pillar on economic transformation which includes a trade agenda.

Mali’s Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy 2012–17 has a section on trade and


20

focuses on methods to improve integration in regional and international markets and trade facilitation.

Niger’s Plan de Développement Economique et Social 2012-2015 places an emphasis on the enabling environment, the development of external trade and the enhancement of the competitiveness of the main economic sectors.

Rwanda’s Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy 2013-2018 includes a priority area focused on increasing the external connectivity of Rwanda's economy and boosting exports.

In Sierra Leone, the Agenda for Prosperity: Road to Middle Income Status 2013-2018 incorporates trade under the diversified economic growth and international competitiveness pillar. While the DTIS Update was not validated at the time of the NDP being finalized, they align.

In addition, 20 of the countries with Tier 2 projects (91%) have trade incorporated into other relevant strategies. For example, DRC’s sector strategies now include the trade dimension for agriculture, rural development, industry, energy, tourism and transport. Lao PDR has a range of sector strategies as well as a Trade Facilitation Action Plan. Rwanda has launched the Private Sector Development Strategy (2013-2018) and the National Cross Border Trade Strategy (2013-2018). Gains have been seen in terms of building public private consultation mechanisms. A total of 28 countries have some form of consultation in place rated at least good. In some cases, these mechanisms are broader based than simply trade. For example, Benin uses a Consultative Permanent Committee between the Minister of Industry, Commerce and Small and Medium Enterprises and the private sector that meets regularly. In Liberia, public private dialogue takes place through the Liberia Better Business Forum. In Comoros, the National Development Trade Policy Forum acts as the platform for consultations between public sector, private sector and civil society. In Solomon Islands, the National Trade Development Council includes private sector representatives, including as Vice-Chair, and aims at tackling trade issues. Where the issues are seen at the country level is in embedding trade on a more comprehensive basis within countries and enhancing the understanding of its importance with a wide range of stakeholders. The country visits, in particular, highlighted a number of gaps with the progress on mainstreaming. Perceptions about trade revealed that the understanding may be shallow at this point in some countries. For example, the awareness and understanding of the benefits and role of trade in improving the economy was negligible in some countries on the part of key stakeholders that are responsible for its promotion. Trade was often seen as a “sector”, much the same as agriculture, not as cross cutting to all economic sectors. Trade was something that was seen as the responsibility of the Trade Ministry, not other Ministries. To address some of these issues, EIF developed a trade mainstreaming module in 2011 that was piloted in four countries in 2012-13—Burkina Faso, Vanuatu, Cambodia and Zambia. These pilots were highly successful in terms of facilitating practical methods to mainstream. For example, Zambia developed a roadmap to mainstream trade that was adopted at cabinet level and now serves as a guide for the EIF related national processes. In Burkina Faso, the roadmap included priorities such as strengthening the capacity of the Ministry of Industry, Trade


21

and Handicrafts to lead the implementation of the sectoral policy and establishing a network of trade focal points in critical departments. The trade mainstreaming module will be further rolled out including through an online platform. In addition, communications training has been provided through three monitoring, evaluation and communication workshops and piloting of the stakeholder mobilization workshop. While these efforts are making inroads, there is a need for further rollout and other communications support to tackle issues on the perception of trade and its potential. A number of countries expressed a need to have more training and communication tools to convince key stakeholders of the importance of trade and the economic and institutional obstacles blocking trade and, as a consequence, growth. Even the understanding of the concept of AfT and how it could assist in overcoming bottlenecks to growth was limited with some stakeholders, limiting the dialogues with donors around key methods to address the DTIS AM. Some countries have begun to tackle these issues around mainstreaming on a more systematic basis. Nepal is an example where the mainstreaming has been more effective. The EIF has assisted in integrating trade into official documents of the government, supporting a range of activities to build awareness and helping to convince donors with bilateral projects to focus on trade or have trade components within projects. In the Solomon Islands, EIF succeeded in elevating the level of awareness of trade within both the public and private sector, which resulted in the NSC becoming a Council and elevating the level of the participation on that Council to Ministerial. The group meets on a regular basis and has active follow-up and broad representation of the private sector. Each EIF country faces a slightly different set of issues to mainstreaming including political challenges. The planned customization of the trade mainstreaming support within Tier 1 projects should assist here since having a more comprehensive approach at the country level requires resources and new ideas—something EIF can contribute.

Outcome 3: Coordinated delivery of trade-related resources (funding, technical assistance, etc.) by donors and implementing agencies to implement country priorities following the adoption of the DTIS Action Matrix

International evidence has shown that AfT is most effective when there is coordination between donors and partners around the design, implementation and monitoring of the Aid for Trade programmes.32 There needs to be coordination among donors, within donor agencies between country offices and headquarters, between different ministries within a recipient country government and between recipient governments and their regional trading partners. The recent evaluation of the ITC highlighted the difficulty in collaborating around AfT, however.33 EIF has an important role to play in fostering these types of linkage. With the DTIS and AM, the EIF provides a common basis on which to coordinate aid for trade efforts and foster a synergy among the various funding sources to maximize results. Commitment by partners and a common vision for moving forward are particularly critical. Since the EIF is a framework for coordination and integration of efforts, focused on trade-related issues, it requires that a range

32

Basnett, Yurendra, Jakob Engel, Jane Kennan, Christian Kingombe, Isabella Massa and Dirk Willem te Velde. 2012. “Increasing the effectiveness of Aid for Trade: the circumstances under which it works best.” Overseas Development Institute Working Paper 353. 33

Saana Consulting. May 29 2014. Independent Evaluation of the International Trade Centre: Final Report.


22

of donors and other agencies align their programming with the AM. The intent is to have the AM identify priorities that can be funded by other donors or through the Tier 2 projects. One of the mechanisms to improve alignment is government and donor consultations on trade-related matters. Progress has been made within EIF countries in putting in place consultation mechanisms to foster greater alignment. The EIF M&E system indicates that 24 countries, of the 30 reporting, with Tier 1 projects had a rating of at least satisfactory for its consultation mechanisms and 10 had very good. The routes for the consultations vary by country. In some cases they specifically focus on aid for trade. This is seen for example in The Gambia where a National Ministerial Committee on AfT was established as a platform for donor consultations. In Lao PDR, the Trade and Private Sector Development Sub-Group was established within the Round Table Mechanism as a key donor, Government and private sector forum to discuss issues on trade and development. In other cases, the consultation mechanisms are based on platforms that already exist for donor coordination. In Malawi, the Trade, Industry and Private Sector Development Sector-wide Approach Programme is being implemented that includes trade. This acts as a platform for donor consultation and coordination including support for the implementation of the National Export Strategy. Not all EIF countries have successfully put in place government donor consultation mechanisms of any form, however. For example, Cabo Verde has only ad hoc meetings with donors. Other countries such as Guinea-Bissau have faced challenges in mobilizing donors due to political instability. In the Solomon Islands, while donor government consultations take place, they do not focus on trade issues per se. A series of questions were asked in the survey about the mechanisms, alignment and influence of countries on donor priorities over the last five years. Overall 69% felt these mechanisms have been put in place to a great or fair extent. When asked whether there was then increasing alignment of donors to the AM, 54% thought there was to a great or fair extent. Increasing influence brought the greatest positive response at 70% overall. However, wide variations across the respondents were seen indicating differing perspectives on the progress made. Table 6 – Change in Mechanisms for Consultations, Alignment and Influence

Change? Overall (n=77)

Donors (n=17)

Donor Facilitators

(n=12)

NIU Staff (n=29)

FPs (n=19)

To what extent have mechanisms between government and donors been put in place in the last five years to consult on trade-related issues?

Not at all 4% 6% 17% 0% 0%

Marginally 19% 12% 25% 17% 26%

Fair extent 30% 41% 8% 28% 37%

Great extent 39% 12% 50% 52% 37%

Don’t know 5% 18% 0% 4% 0%

No answer 2% 12% 0% 0% 0%

To what extent are donors increasingly aligning their trade-related assistance to the priorities in the DTIS AM?

Not at all 5% 6% 8% 3% 5%

Marginally 27% 29% 17% 28% 37%


23

Change? Overall (n=77)

Donors (n=17)

Donor Facilitators

(n=12)

NIU Staff (n=29)

FPs (n=19)

Fair extent 29% 18% 42% 21% 37%

Great extent 25% 12% 17% 45% 11%

Don’t know 8% 18% 17% 0% 5%

No answer 6% 18% 0% 3% 5%

To what extent are the government and local stakeholders able to influence how priorities are implemented by donors and implementing agencies?

Not at all 4% 6% 0% 3% 5%

Marginally 22% 29% 42% 14% 21%

Fair extent 48% 41% 17% 48% 68%

Great extent 22% 18% 25% 34% 5%

Don’t know 2% 0% 8% 0% 0%

No answer 2% 5% 8% 0% 0%

Source: EIF Evaluation Survey This highlights an issue identified during the country visits and interviews. Variations were seen among countries with some countries having extensive consultations and alignment while others had more minimal progress. One of the key factors in many cases was the specific DF. Under the EIF model, the Donor Facilitator and the Focal Point work together to facilitate donor coordination and the donor–government dialogue on trade issues and AfT. The DF plays a key role in the alignment and mobilization process. The effectiveness of this arrangement has been mixed, however. The system of using DFs has not worked in all countries. Some DFs were strong, but a few countries did not even have one in the country. In some cases, the DFs did not understand their role or the responsibility to assist in mobilizing the donors. This is also reflected in the responses of the FPs and NIU staff to a question in the survey on the extent that the DFs were working to leverage AfT resources—34% said not at all or marginally. The current situation within the fifteen countries visited illustrates the wide variations in terms of the DFs. In Mozambique, the GIZ has been very active and provides technical support to the government in the process. At the other extreme, Maldives does not have a DF. Burundi is looking for a replacement DF. Mali and Solomon Islands have new DFs who are now becoming familiar with the role, however, a recent DF replacement in Guinea-Bissau was not even aware that they held the position. In Yemen, the DF is out of the country for security reasons. In the other countries the DFs were playing their role, although with variations of effectiveness. In other locations such as Lao PDR, the government has taken leadership and pressured donors to align, resulting in more progress. However, these patterns are more isolated, meaning that a range of countries have more limited coordination, with donors’ own policies setting the priorities. The interviews and country visits confirmed that difficulties continue in some cases in terms of having donors align their programs around the Action Matrix. A wide range of suggestions for methods to improve the coordination and alignment were made. Some mentioned that giving a clear leadership mandate to the country in areas of alignment with the DTIS AM, in coordination with partner agencies and donors, could strengthen the local ownership. This meant not necessarily relying on the DF to play the role but having more


24

flexibility to try other approaches. Others suggested that partner agencies and donors needed to recommit to the alignment and support the process of priority setting. This included ensuring that the DFs understood their responsibilities and were prepared to act on them. A DTIS AM is not enough—there must be commitment to the process and agreed methods to drive the implementation. One of the other EIF measures for this outcome is the extent of joint donor initiatives in the trade area. The EIF M&E system indicates that 23 countries (77%) have joint donor initiatives in trade. The survey asked three groups for their impressions of whether joint donor initiatives in AfT had been increasing in the last five years. Overall 55% felt that there had been an increase, showing that some progress is being made. Again variations were seen. Only 35% of the donors felt that there was progress, 50% of the DFs and 72% of the NIU staff. Table 7 – Extent of Increase in Joint Donor Initiatives Last Five Years

Increased? Overall (n=61)

Donors (n=17)

Donor Facilitators

(n=12)

NIU Staff (n=29)

Not at all 5% 6% 17% 0%

Marginally 18% 12% 33% 17%

Fair extent 39% 29% 17% 55%

Great extent 16% 6% 33% 17%

Don’t know 16% 35% 0% 7%

No answer 5% 12% 0% 3%

Source: EIF Evaluation Survey The country visits and interviews showed that donors’ interest in coordination and alignment fluctuated depending on a series of factors. Interest changes with shifts in government leadership, regardless of whether there were agreed priorities and an existing plan. Internal policy shifts of donors influenced the extent to which they were interested in coordination and alignment. Differences were seen between the donor headquarters and the country offices with headquarters dictating priorities regardless of the local plans. These variations by donor and country need to be taken into account and discussed with partners to see if adjustments are needed to the EIF model to ensure that all EIF countries have some effective mechanism for coordination and alignment.

Outcome 4: EIF Countries secure resources in support of initiatives that address DTIS Action Matrix priorities

The EIF is intended to act as a catalyst to bring donors and LDCs together. The LDCs receive support to coordinate donors and leverage funding. The donors use the DTIS AM as a vehicle for determining priorities for their AfT and provide support in a coordinated way to ensure that the key bottlenecks are targeted. The importance of this role is seen with the current overall trends in AfT and other forms of financial flows to LDCs. LDCs remain more reliant on AfT as a key source of financing and have far less access to foreign direct investment than lower middle-income and upper middle-income countries. However, while overall AfT flows have continued to increase, in 2012, the AfT commitments to LDCs declined by 2% to USD 13 billion and the LDCs’ share fell from 30%


25

overall to 24%.34 With this, it becomes more difficult to leverage funding and more critical for the projects that are funded to align with the national priorities and specifically the DTIS AM. 35 Some progress has been made since 2008 in terms of projects being developed that align and provide new resources. The EIF M&E system indicates that 22 countries have had some success in receiving funding to support priorities, but in many cases the funding is small. In addition the reporting across countries is inconsistent so it is difficult to determine the exact resources mobilized.36 The 2013 EIF Annual Progress Report acknowledged that the LDCs continue to face constraints in leveraging funding and the expected momentum has not been achieved. Those involved with the EIF operations at the national and country level were asked about the extent that the EIF has made a contribution to securing additional resources over the last five years. A total of 27% of the 53 survey respondents said not at all, or marginally. Another 40% said fair and only 25% said great. Some of the countries that were able to mobilize the most resources have been taking a more sector wide approach. Two countries, in particular, have been able to use the EIF mechanism to bring donors and government together in a more coordinated fashion. Lao PDR has 18 donor projects totalling USD 77.1 million aligning with the DTIS AM. The interviews in Lao PDR revealed that the key to success appears to be a supportive government, strong EIF leadership by the responsible ministry and an agency representative that was active and dedicated to mentoring. Donors are increasingly cooperating with and contributing to a program of trade-related support through the Trade Development Facility. Cambodia has seen similar success, having in place a sector wide approach including a multi-donor trust fund that is supporting 23 projects with USD 11 million. A range of other projects support the DTIS. Other countries have tried different strategies. Despite limited donor presence within the country, The Gambia has been able to mobilize some funds from regional institutions and multilateral development partners through their AfT donor platform. Comoros developed a Medium-term programme (MTP) based on the DTIS and Action Plan that indicated financing needs for implementation. Funds were then raised for individual initiatives from donors to meet these needs. Nepal has been able to mobilize funding for four projects supporting the DTIS priorities. Government funding is also a critical part of the resource equation. The EIF is intended to be a vehicle for mobilizing more resources from governments toward their trade agendas. Here some progress has been made in terms of government budgets for the implementation of the trade strategy. According to the EIF M&E information, 18 of 30 countries (60%) reporting indicated that a government budget existed for the trade agenda. This included Mali, Burundi and Lesotho. Burundi in particular has been providing significant budget allocations, totalling USD 11.7 million in 2013. However, the financial position overall of the countries means it is often difficult to leverage funding from the national budgets specifically for trade. In some cases, funding that was in place has be reallocated to other priorities due to budget restraints.

34

OECD. April 11 2014. “Aid for Trade in 2012: Increasing Flows, Hardening Terms.” 35

The pattern across the EIF countries in terms of the level of AfT was mixed as seen in Annex 8. 36

The ES is developing a guidance note that will provide more information on leveraging and what types of projects and funding can be attributed to the EIF. This will allow a better assessment of the actual leverage taking place. The inconsistency across countries in reporting does not allow verification of the actual amounts leveraged by the EIF at this point so no figures are included here.


26

The survey asked whether the government funding was sufficient to implement the trade strategy. Of the 54 respondents, 15% replied to a great extent, 54% to a fair extent but 30% said marginally or not at all. The overall availability of resources at the country level was raised repeatedly in the interviews and country visits as an issue that is limiting the ability to effectively implement the trade strategies in place. The lack of donor funding and the constraints on government finances are causing the Tier 2 projects to become more important at the country level. The MTR flagged this as a potential issue when it indicated: “the EIF’s more complex mission has not been strong enough to withstand the normal expectations of LDCs, donors and some of the agencies that it will perform and disburse like a ‘normal’ assistance programme. There is now a danger of EIF trying unsuccessfully to be both a framework and programme especially as Tier 2 projects multiply”.37 The Tier 2 projects are now being viewed as regular programme support—basically another donor funded project. A number of countries felt that the Tier 2 projects were essential to demonstrate results and the effectiveness of the EIF. They could show that trade can be used to tackle issues such as employment and poverty. If EIF is intended to leverage resources, then the approach to do this needs to be made more effective. Lack of progress will mean that one of the main roles of the EIF is not being achieved. Tackling trade-related issues requires more Aid for Trade support which is not emerging currently but will be critical for substantial gains to be made in integrating LDCs in the global trading system. It also calls for a better understanding and acceptance of the private sector’s legitimate interests and enough imagination and understanding to put them to work for LDCs’ economic development. A few examples are starting to be seen on how the private sector can be leveraged. For example, in Samoa, the Tier 2 project is aimed at the enabling environment and the private sector through the Chamber of Commerce is providing 11% of the funding. The expectations of the Tier 2 projects at the country level may be beyond what can be achieved with ODA only. This militates in favour of involving the private sector as investors.

3.2.2 Monitoring and Evaluation

Finding #6 - The M&E system is now operational at the programme level and in all EIF Countries with Tier 1 projects. The training provided was well received and assisted in building capacity. Some issues still remain with the implementation, however, which may require some adjustments.

One of the key areas of the EIF Strategic Plan Until 2013 was the operationalization of the M&E framework. The monitoring and evaluation framework was agreed in 2011 and began to be operationalized after this. The framework is based on a logframe that links the project level results to the overall programme. Indicators are seen at three levels—4 outcomes covered above, purpose and goal levels. Evaluations are being undertaken at both the programme and country level. The M&E system is intended to provide a clear picture of progress at the programme level and a method for regular, timely reporting on good practice, lessons learned and blockages to be addressed. Tier 1 NIA Support projects are all expected to include indicators for the four outcome areas with the EIF Compendium outlining which indicators are mandatory. The Tier 1 project

37

MTR, page vii.


27

logframes include other variables by country that are deemed important for tracking progress. Each Tier 2 project has a logframe that relates to the specific type of project, such as value chain, and the priorities identified at the country level. The Tier 2 indicators vary by country depending on the areas of focus of the projects but still are expected to be related and contribute to the four EIF outcomes. To assist countries to understand and implement the system during 2013, a series of tailored capacity development programmes were rolled out covering M&E, results, reporting and communications and gender mainstreaming. The Focal Points and NIU staff were asked how worthwhile the training was, with 45% saying to a great extent and 33% to a fair extent. The NIU staff in particular found it useful in their reporting functions. Feedback from the country visits mirrored this but added that there was also a need for more mentoring in the implementation of the M&E system to ensure that the system would be applied correctly. All the EIF Countries implementing Tier 1 projects have operationalized the framework, although the quality of systems appears to vary by country. The Tier 2 monitoring is being put in place as the projects are coming on stream. Here the links to the programme logframe are less clear. Overall, a few issues are emerging that may require further thinking and refinement. First, the current indicators on the programme logframe are geared more toward Tier 1 outcomes. As more Tier 2 projects come on stream, both the reporting and the tracking of results will become more complex at the programme level. It is unclear at this point how those results will be captured in a meaningful way. Second, the country visits identified the fact that where the MIE is not the government, an agency often puts in place a separate monitoring system. In some cases, these separate monitoring systems make it more difficult for the NIU to track progress of the overall EIF programme in country and understand if corrective actions are needed. With these arrangements the link between the project logframes and the programme is unclear. A number of frameworks for Tier 2 being implemented by agencies were reviewed. While they were good for tracking the results emerging from the project, their link to the EIF programme logframe was not apparent or even explicit in some cases. Third, while coverage is across the board, the ability to implement the systems at the country level varies widely. Some countries expressed concern about their ability to actually operationalize the system and do effective reporting. One of the other issues is the extent the NIU is linked with the existing country monitoring expertise and systems. Many countries have M&E systems and expertise, with the EIF often operating outside these frameworks. Two examples where the systems were effectively integrated were Burkina Faso and Mali. Here, the EIF is fully integrated into the governments’ national planning and budgeting systems, and the governments’ related monitoring and evaluation systems. This provides a structure through which all government programmes, including the EIF, are monitored and evaluated through a review hierarchy that includes the most senior levels of government. Fourth, some of the indicators need to be fine-tuned. For example, Indicator O1.2 says “Number (and per cent) of active EIF Countries with complete, up-to-date (less than three years old) validated DTIS Action Matrices”. It is critical to have 100% of the active EIF countries having recent AMs and, ideally, if there could be a method for them to be continually updated. However, it is likely unrealistic that they will be less than “three years old” as the current indicator targets. While this would be ideal in terms of the changing nature of the global trading


28

regimes, the timeframes described below to complete DTIS updates would mean that a new round of updating would have to start shortly after the current update is completed. In addition, some indicators have a base number of countries that will change over time as more countries come on stream. This will make it difficult to compare progress from year to year. For example, some percentages may go down simply because the pool has suddenly increased. A recent publication by the OECD may be helpful in refining some of the indicators at both the outcome and purpose levels.38

3.3 Efficiency

3.3.1 Portfolio Review

Finding #7 – While the number of approvals has accelerated since the MTR, the approval times for Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects have not significantly improved. The time required for the implementation of the DTIS and DTIS Updates has not improved which means up-to-date documents remain unavailable for a majority of countries. These delays are causing frustration with the EIF.

The MTR undertook an analysis of the average time that was required to achieve different stages under the EIF Programme. Using the same methodology, this evaluation has updated this information and focused on the overall average times since 2008 and the trends in the last two years since the MTR. Pre-DTIS Approvals A total of ten countries have received Pre-DTIS funding under the EIF, with seven of those completing the Pre-DTIS phase.39 The first seven countries had entered originally under the IF and transitioned to the EIF. The approvals for this group took place during the transition period, with some of the original proposals coming in before the Pre-DTIS guidelines were in place. This meant that the overall time required for the first seven from proposal submission to first disbursement was over 12 months. The three Pre-DTIS approved more recently—Myanmar, South Sudan and Madagascar—had much quicker approval times. The overall time from proposal to first disbursement was slightly less than six months. Gains were seen in both the time from proposal to approval, which went from 8.5 months to 3 months, and approval to first disbursement which went from 3.9 months for the first seven to 2.9 for the last three countries. It should be noted that since the level of funding is up to USD 50,000, the approval is delegated to the ED which helps to shorten the process. DTIS and DTIS Updates Implemented Funding for eight DTIS has been approved under the EIF. Of those eight approvals, only five DTIS have been completed to date. This small sample does not allow conclusions regarding implementation timeframes required from pre-mission to validation given the wide diversity

38

OECD. 2013. Aid for Trade and Development Results: A Management Framework. 39

Note that the MTR did not cover the timelines for Pre-DTIS projects.


29

among the five countries ranging from eight months to over 47 months. For example, the countries with the two longest timeframes faced unusual circumstances. For Haiti, the earthquake occurred once the DTIS process was underway, requiring a delay in its implementation. In Afghanistan, the on-going conflict contributed to the delays. The three countries still with DTIS underway represent a range of experiences. Bangladesh started the DTIS process in 2011 but has seen a series of delays due to different factors including disagreements on the content of the draft. A more recent EIF entrant in 2012—South Sudan—is moving quickly through the DTIS process and may complete the validation process shortly. Myanmar entered the EIF in 2013 and started the DTIS process in mid-2014. The fact that the vast majority of countries had DTIS prior to the EIF, and the global crisis, highlights the need for DTIS updates. A total of 31 countries have received funding for DTIS Updates from the EIF, with 13 of these being completed and validated to date as noted above. Overall, since the start of the EIF, updates that have been completed have taken an average of 15.5 months from approval to validation. However, a majority of the updates remain in progress with some of these more than several years underway. The average time to date for the group still outstanding from approval to present is over 19 months, showing that timelines for completing the DTIS Updates will not be improving.40 The implementing modalities have shifted over time. While the World Bank undertook almost three-quarters of the initial DTIS under the IF, the Bank is now handling approximately 40% of the DTIS Updates. Other groups are becoming more active including governments. As more DTIS Updates are completed, it may be possible to begin to compare the various modalities in terms of timeframes for completion. At this point, the pool of completed Updates is not large enough to reach conclusions about the implementing modalities and the effect they could have on the time required for the process. Feedback during the evaluation highlighted the issue of the timelines for completion of the DTIS Updates, which were seen as a critical part of the EIF process. The delays in the DTIS Updates impact the EIF programme implementation including resource mobilization efforts and development of Tier 2 projects. The time required for the updates was noted in the LDC Trade Minister’s Ministerial Declaration in Bali where they underlined the need for speedy implementation of the EIF including time bound completion of DTIS/DTIS Updates.41 Striking a balance between a participatory process and one that can see a quicker product appears not to be the issue. The processes are considered overall to be participatory and locally driven. The delays instead were attributed to two causes. The first was that the MIEs may not have this as a priority and are therefore not moving it forward quickly. This was also an issue highlighted in the MTR. The second was the actual process itself which some felt was cumbersome and resulted in a document that contained a myriad of issues to tackle without categorizing or prioritizing the issues critical to improving trade performance or the business climate.

40

Two of the approved updates do not have the responsible agency confirmed and are pending. 41

LDC Trade Ministers’ Meeting, Bali Indonesia, 2 December 2013, Ministerial Declaration. WT/MIN(13)/10.


30

In response to the LDC Ministerial criticism, the ES and TFM drafted a guidance note for Board consideration on good practices in the delivery of the studies.42 However, it did not change or streamline the process; it just provided guidance on steps, responsibilities and sequences. The timeline for the preparation of the DTIS and DTIS Updates remains a concern for the effectiveness of the EIF. These are the key documents and most countries are operating on the basis of outdated analysis from prior to 2008. Tier 1 – Support to NIA Approvals As of August 2014, Tier 1 NIA projects have been approved for 37 countries under EIF. From the time the first draft project proposal is submitted to the first disbursement has taken an average of 16.9 months. There has been little change between the timeframe cited at the MTR and the seven approvals since the MTR. 43 The longest time continues to be taken in the project formulation stage with the time from project proposal to Board submission being 14.8 months. From project proposal to the Tier 1 Appraisal Committee (TAC 1) takes 10.9 months and from then to Board submission an addition 3.9 months. Disbursements after the Board approval are taking place more quickly in recent years, dropping from 2.3 months to 1.9 months. Tier 2 Approvals The number of approvals of Tier 2 projects has accelerated over the last two years. At the time of the MTR only seven countries had Tier 2 projects. Now there are 30 projects in 22 countries. Six countries have more than one Tier 2 project—Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, The Gambia, Cambodia and Nepal. A vast majority of the Tier 2 projects are in agribusiness which accounts for over 65% of the Tier 2 funds approved. The other areas are trade facilitation with 14% of the funds, standards (12%), tourism (7%), textiles (4%) and feasibility studies (1%). Half of the Tier 2 Main Implementing Entities are the country government. Another 34% are agencies such as ITC, UNIDO, UNDP and Food and Agriculture Organization. The remainder are non-governmental organizations or other groups such as GIZ.44 Up to the MTR, the average time from the first draft proposal submitted to first disbursement was 15.2 months. Since then, an additional 24 projects have been approved, 20 of which have had their first disbursement. The average time to approval of these 24 was approximately 11 months and for those with a first disbursement the whole process took 15.3 months—the same average seen at the time of the MTR. Overall, from 2008, it took 15.3 months, with 6.3 months to move from project proposal to Tier 2 Appraisal Committee (TAC 2) and another 4.5 months to submission to the Board. However, the approvals in the last two years have included two feasibility studies which were approved by the ED, not the Board. If these two Tier 2 projects are removed, the time required

42

“Enabling EIF Countries to ensure timeliness of the Diagnostic Trade Integration Study (DTIS) and DTIS Update (DTISU) processes”. February 26, 2014. 43

Note that the MTR had the establishment of the NIU as the end point not the first disbursement. The EIF currently uses the first disbursement as the start-up not the NIU operational. Therefore, the MTR results have been recalculated based on their data to have the first disbursement as the end point in alignment with current practices. 44

GIZ is Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH (German Federal Enterprise for International Cooperation). It operates as a company, implementing international projects, but is owned by the German government.


31

in the last two years from proposal submission to first disbursement actually is slightly higher than seen at the time of the MTR—at 16.2 months. Again, there does not appear to be any pattern by type of MIE. There is a drop, however, in time to first disbursement for countries that are applying for second and third Tier 2 projects. The feedback from the country visits and interviews highlighted the complexity and slowness of the process to develop and receive approval for Tier 2 projects. Some noted that by the time the projects were approved, the conditions had begun to change and possibly change the necessary solutions. With the projects being locked into line budgeting, not achievement of results, this has begun to cause difficulty. When opportunities emerge, the approvals for changes for line items are not rapid. Streamlining processes remains an issue that needs to be addressed.

3.3.2 Organization and Delivery

Finding #8 - Some of the organizational and governance issues identified in the MTR remain. The issues are decreasing overall efficiency and effectiveness of the EIF and alienating some partners and countries.

To understand the current structure of the EIF requires understanding the transition process from the IF to the EIF. The original IF governance and management structure at the programme level consisted of four groups: the IF Steering Committee that provided policy direction; the IF Working Group in charge of overall management, monitoring implementation and overseeing the Trust Fund; the IF Secretariat that did the day to day management; and the IF Trust Fund managed by UNDP. The IF Task Force on an Enhanced Integrated Framework recommended a restructuring to improve the governance moving into the new phase of the EIF.45 The Task Force recommended that the Steering Committee remain in place as the overall policy body. The IF Working Group was to be transformed into an EIF Board with greater recipient and donor participation that would provide oversight and policy direction, moving it from the management role. The ES was created with a Director reporting to the EIF Board. The Task Force called for an investigation of the most cost effective method to manage the Trust Fund. The transition period to implement these changes between the IF and EIF proved lengthy and difficult. While the EIF technically started in October 2008, an interim Board functioned and provided management support until April 2010 when the EIF Board was fully constituted. The EIF ES was not fully staffed until after this date. UNOPS was selected as the EIF TFM in 2008, with the ToR being finalized in 2009. Between 2008 and 2010, USD 4.8 million was disbursed for projects, primarily Tier 1.46 Starting in 2007, drafts of the Compendium were being developed and adjusted as the governance and management pieces were being put in place and requirements were developed. The MTR in 2012 indicated that the resulting governance structure was complex and raised some issues regarding its efficiency. It stated that issues during the transition period had led to a tendency for micro-management and loss of a strategic focus by the EIF Board. Board and

45

WTO. June 29 2006. “An Enhanced Integrated Framework: Report of the Chairman of the Task Force on an Enhanced Integrated Framework including Recommendations” WT/IFSC/W/15. 46

Dalberg. April 2 2004. Page 13.


32

management relations needed to be clarified and confidence built in the relationship. Specifically, it said:

“the Board has selected a complex, elaborate and expensive system of governance and management for the programme, with a hands-on Board, staffing and accommodation through the WTO, and separate arrangements for programme and financial management. It is the assessment of the Team that efficiency (and effectiveness) could now be significantly improved through streamlining of overly-prescriptive procedures and steps, some decentralizing of ES coordination staff, better preparing for the transition to “Tier 2” projects and better engaging partner agencies and active donors in the work of the programme.”47

The MTR made several key recommendations including:

Recommendation #2 - Gear up, through a serious re-examination by all EIF partners – especially donors and agencies, from the top to the field level - to re-commit to full implementation of their responsibilities as EIF partners in the crucial second half of this term.

Recommendation #4 - In the interest of efficiency as well as the effectiveness of the EIF, start afresh at this turning point with clarified and revamped relationships between the Steering Committee, Board, Executive Secretariat and Trust Fund Manager, with reciprocal confidence-building steps.

The issues that triggered the MTR analysis and recommendations appear to continue to plague the EIF. The interviews, survey, country visits and documents all reiterated similar problems. While EIF has tried to respond to the concerns, progress has not been made in finding solutions in all areas. The issue of re-commitment by the EIF partners is important given the key role that they play at both the programme and country level. The discussion above under the outcome results showed that not all the donor partners are aligning to the DTIS and AM. Interviews highlighted the fact that roles such as the DF, which are critical to the EIF model, were not always clearly understood or being taken seriously. Systems are not being aligned to try to ensure efficiency at either the programme or country level and mobilize resources at the country level. The EIF targeted three actions to attempt to gain recommitment of the partners: developing a paper to show how the role of the DF and other stakeholders are being put to life; mapping the flow of information from donors and agencies to LDCs and the Board; and providing more information to the Board on the context for in-country activities. While these actions were important to do, the ability of the EIF to bring stakeholders together at the programme level and mobilize them to act around the EIF principles appears unchanged. The degree of alignment of donor programs to DTIS is still an issue as is the role being played by some of the DFs. Resource mobilization at the country level lags. Methods to build a consensus and mobilize action are needed by the ES. In addition, while some donors remain committed to the EIF programme, other are starting to become disenfranchised with the EIF. This split will have implications for any subsequent phase.

47

MTR, Executive Summary page viii.


33

The MTR raised the issue of micromanagement by the EIF Board. In response to the MTR recommendation, EIF began to look at how to make the Board more strategic and the conditions that might be needed for delegation of approvals. They also called for the work plans of the ES and TFM to allow for performance evaluation quarterly. While progress was made on these items, they do not seem to have fully addressed the basic issue. According to the EIF Compendium, the EIF Board is the “key decision making body for the EIF programme for operational and financial oversight and policy direction”.48 The extent of involvement of the EIF Board in management, however, goes well beyond oversight and policy direction and was mentioned in a range of interviews as problematic. Three examples of Board involvement in management issues are identified here as illustrations. First, it is unclear why the preparation of the DTIS and DTIS Update (after they are approved) involves reviews by the EIF Board—one of the concept paper and one of the draft DTIS Update before it goes for validation. This review function by the EIF Board is part of a process that is supposed to be country driven. Second, countries indicated that some administrative decisions must go to the Board and cannot be handled by the ES which delays the implementation process. This includes some budgets changes and no-cost extensions. In addition, policies are not established and are dealt with on a case by case basis after countries have begun the planning and approval process. Sometimes these are handled across a number of Board meetings, leaving a vacuum at the country level in terms of how to proceed. Third, the Board reviews and approves guidance notes that are clarifications on the administrative processes in the Compendium, complicating the process in an area that should be a management decision. The extent of involvement by the Board in decisions not only delays the processes but also places constraints on the ES in terms of the support they can provide at the country level. The mandate of the ES is to: facilitate EIF Countries’ participation in the EIF programme and process; provide support to the EIF Board and EIFSC including monitoring of the programme; and undertake communications and outreach. The amount of time required to serve the needs of the EIF Board and EIF Steering Committee makes it difficult to facilitate at the country level. This was raised as an issue in terms of the extent of support that the ES could provide. The desire at the country level was to have the ES have greater contact to develop a deeper understanding of the factors that support and detract from making progress. This is not possible currently. The method for programme and financial management has proven more costly than anticipated. The EIF Compendium indicates that the Board is responsible to ensure the EIF administrative fees and costs are no more than 13 per cent of the total contributions to the EIFTF.49 As of October 27, 2014, however, the administrative cost had already reached 12.61% of the USD 250 million funding target and 15.68% of the funds received into the EIFTF. It is anticipated that if the full USD 250 million is disbursed by the end of 2017, the administration costs could reach 19%. However, given the yearly pace of disbursements to projects it is highly unlikely that the full USD 250 million will be made available and disbursed. This means the administrative costs could rise above 20%. The level of standardization of procedures continues to be an issue raised across all stakeholders. The strictness of the application of procedures and processes and the rigidity of

48

Page 11. 49

Compendium Page 21.


34

the approaches means that it is sometimes difficult for countries to move forward in formulating or implementing projects. The Compendium has extensive guidelines on the processes for developing projects but in some countries it is very difficult to follow. For example, key players in the project development process such as DFs or members of the NSC may not be available or interested in actively participating in the design of a Tier 2 project. In some cases, the FPs are very passive and yet their role is to initiate projects. Under the procedures developed, if these key players are not effectively undertaking their responsibilities, substantial delays result. In some countries the NSC acts as a barrier to progress during implementation, substantially delaying decisions. In other cases, the state of the private sector makes establishing consultation mechanisms difficult. In addition, changes in the implementation model to use existing structures need to be reviewed against the specifications in the Compendium before acceptance. In the interviews, country visits and the survey a consistent complaint was that the reviews for certain stages of approval were lengthy including extensive email exchanges and multiple proposal drafts before they can move forward. Overall, it was felt that the approval times for both Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects were too long and complicated, with some Tier 2 projects becoming less relevant due to the delays and changing circumstances within the country. The extent of the reviews required during the approval process is illustrated by the number of potential drafts required to meet the fiduciary requirements in a proposal. The TFM Regional Portfolio Manager (RPM) reviews and comments on the proposals, often requiring a number of drafts to be produced. The RPM then sends it to the TFM Project Review Committee (PRC). The PRC reviews the proposal which may require up to three drafts before it meets the TFM guidelines.50 In addition ES also reviews the proposals. In some cases, clarifications or changes are also called for by the Board review. Similar patterns of multiple reviews were noted in the EIF Annual Report 2013. It indicated there was a minimum of two exchanges of comments on project proposals between the ES/TFM and the LDC, with a majority requiring three or four, each taking one to three months.51 It also noted that this approach was working since Tier 1 projects now go through Board approval without objections. Some problems were still being encountered on Tier 2 projects with the Board asking for revisions. The issues encountered with the Tier 1 Phase 2 approvals illustrate the complexity of the requirements for approval. The guidance note issued in 2012 indicated four steps were required for approval: completion of a mid-term evaluation of Phase 1; extension request proposal including a Tier 1 mid-term implementation report and a Phase 2 proposal prepared by the NIU, appraised by the TAC 1, validated by the NSC and submitted to the ES, copied to the TFM; the ES and TFM to undertake an assessment of the project implementation and progress in the country, resulting in an ES Memo and TFM Capacity Assessment Report; and review and approval by the EIF Board of the extension request proposal and Assessment report. As the procedures for the Tier 1 Phase 2 projects were rolled out in the first four countries, problems were encountered in the process developed. For example, none of the four DFs were in a position to provide a DF report to support the proposal since they were either not well acquainted with the EIF or were new. The NIUs faced challenges in producing the Tier 1 implementation report, annual/semi-annual technical report and the phase 2 proposal all within

50

Dalberg. 2014. Page 21-23. 51

Page 44.


35

a short timeframe. Having to fully complete the Mid-Term Evaluation at the same time proved challenging. The guidelines for the Tier 1 Phase 2 have now been streamlined somewhat to allow a bit more flexibility. However, some countries that have been through the process have questioned why the process needs to be so elaborate to begin with. The NIUs are already operational and being assessed on their performance on an on-going basis by the TFM and ES. Reports and capacity assessments are already being done and the ES and TFM are aware of their performance. The mid-term evaluations would verify progress. The countries are suggesting a simpler approach could be developed based on the key information needed to make a decision on a Phase 2 and develop an approved plan. These complex approval processes are frustration with the system. The detailed processes delay approvals and projects without any apparent gain in terms of accountability. The interviews and country visits indicated that transaction costs can be high when dealing with the EIF since the processes are bureaucratic and at times inflexible. Sixty percent of the FPs, NIU staff and NSC members felt that there were substantial delays and high costs of time and effort in the different stages of EIF preparation and implementation. Similar sentiments were heard across the country visits and many interviews. This processes and procedures have caused confusion about the extent of decisions that can take place at the country level. A common understanding does not exist in some countries about what local ownership means in terms of EIF actions and responsibilities, including where they can exert leadership. For example, in at least one case, the decision of the Board to not accept the concept of a Tier 2 project has negatively affected the country’s views concerning the flexibility of the EIF process in meeting countries’ priorities, as well as the country’s sense of national ownership of its EIF process. In other cases, countries with non-functioning DFs feel they have limited control of the situation. A common understanding does not exist in some countries about what local ownership means in terms of EIF actions and responsibilities, including where they can exert leadership. In terms of project implementation, the use of agencies as MIEs was raised in the context of both the DTIS Updates and the Tier 2 projects. The MIEs control the pace of implementation, and countries sometimes feel that the projects are not the top priority of the agency MIE. With the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the MIE and the TFM, limited leverage is available at the country level to not only ensure rapid implementation but the results. It was felt that this lessens ownership. A new model of the NIU subcontracting the agencies instead of having the agency and TFM enter into an agreement is being tested. This alternative implementation modality has potential to address some of the issues currently seen. An area that has improved is in providing more tailored support. Here some important changes have taken place in terms of tailoring the programme to LDCs’ needs. Specifically, several new funding windows have been opened to improve flexibility of support to LDCs. This includes the Feasibility Study funding window under Tier 2, Trade Mainstreaming and International Trade Advisors under Tier 1 NIA Support. The feedback on these changes was very positive.


36

3.3.3 Disbursements, Pace of Implementation and Pipeline

Finding #9: The level of disbursements has been slowly increasing but the overall pace of implementation of projects continues to lag. The funds available currently under the EIFTF are almost fully committed. This means there is a gap to cover pipeline projects. How the decisions for funding pipeline projects are made needs to be reviewed.

The level of disbursements under the EIF has been slowly increasing since 2008. The disbursements to Tier 1 and 2 projects between 2008 and 2010 were USD 4.9 million. By 2013, this had increased to USD 18.7 million for the year for Tier 1 and 2 projects. As of June 30, 2014, a total of USD 95.058 had been disbursed from the EIFTF since 2008 or 60% of the approved budget to date. The amount disbursed, however, is only 47% of the funds received into the EIFTF. Approximately 72% of the Tier 1 project funding has been disbursed. Only 31% of the Tier 2 projects have been disbursed at that point, since many of the projects have been approved in the last two years. Figure 3 – Summary of Approvals and Disbursements

Source: EIF June 30 2014 Financial Report The TFM Review of Operating Tools and Procedures confirmed that disbursements are made quickly once the required financial reporting is submitted to the TFM. However, the pace of implementation of the EIF projects remains slow. This was raised by a range of stakeholders as a problem for three reasons. First, countries were concerned that momentum was being lost when the visible results of the Tier 1 and 2 projects were slow to develop. Long timeframes to develop DTIS and DTIS Updates and slowness of the approval and implementation of the Tier 1 and 2 projects was raising concerns about the extent to which gains would be solidified before EIF ended or stakeholders lost interest. Second, some donors and countries raised the issue in

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Approved Budgets Actual Disbursements

Situation as of June 30, 2014

Tier 1 Projects Tier 2 Projects Global Activities EIF & TFM inc. fees


37

terms of whether there was a need to re-examine and simplify some of the procedures and processes in order to achieve results more quickly. Third, some donors and countries raised the issue of whether there was sufficient pressure from management on MIEs to implement according to the agreed schedule.52 The lag appears to relate to a series of issues depending on the individual country. The reasons include: slowness of approvals within country structures; slowness of MIEs to undertake the work; lack of commitment by the MIEs to meet agreed timetables; difficulties in meeting all the EIF requirements; difficulties between country systems for procurement and agency procurement requirements; three layers of procedures in some cases where there is government, an agency and EIF; limited inter-ministerial coordination; the degree to which there is effective coordination among the stakeholders; and sudden changes within the country such as political shifts or security issues. The external factors cannot be addressed by EIF but more attention needs to be paid to minimizing the internal issues which continue to plague the efficiency of the EIF. The issue of the pace of disbursements is important since it is closely connected to another issue—how to handle the current pipeline of EIF. The original EIF funding target set for 2008-2013 was USD 250 million. In August 2014, USD 36.61 million was still available for allocation. However, the pipeline totalled USD 82.07 million. This leaves a funding gap of USD 45.46 million. A vast majority of the pipeline is for Tier 2 funding.53 Table 8 – EIF Financial Status and Pipeline

Million USD

Funds Target 2008-2013 250.0

Financial Status

Donor Pledges 251.52

Funds Secured 248.44

Funds Received 200.98

Allocations/Commitments 164.37

Available for Allocation based on Funds Received 36.61

Projects in the Pipeline at Formulation and Submission Phase including TFM and ES Support made up of:

82.07

Tier 1 projects 10.20

Tier 2 projects 64.28

Global activities including ES and TFM54 7.59

Funding gap between Pipeline and available for Allocation 45.46

Source: EIF Knowledge Hub as of August 25, 2014

52

It should be noted that EIF management is not empowered to remove approved budgets from slow or non-performing projects. 53

The breakdown of the projects in the pipeline is contained in Annex 5. 54

This figure for the ES and TFM only covers 2015. Continuing at the current staffing levels to 2017 when all activities are finished under EIF would require an additional USD 16 million.


38

The funding gap could be covered by the approximately USD 50 million that has been agreed to by the donors in the original pledges but has not been disbursed to the EIFTF yet. However, currently this does not appear to be a short term solution. One donor cannot release funds until there is a need for the funds, meaning the large balance that remains undisbursed of the existing funds needs to be diminished before a transfer can be made.55 With over USD 100 million sitting as a cash balance, further advances into the EIFTF cannot be approved. On the other hand, when projects are approved, the TFM enters into a multi-year agreement with the MIE. UNOPS regulations will not allow the TFM to sign agreements for which they do not have the funds in the EIFTF account. This means that once the funds received are fully allocated and agreements signed, no further agreements can be entered into. The situation remains at an impasse. This issue will not be resolved in the short term and therefore a method to manage the pipeline and decide on the allocation of funds available needs to be put in place. At the request of the Board, the ES developed a paper on the possible criteria to manage the EIF pipeline which was discussed at the EIF Board in June 2014. The proposal was a combination of “first come first served” and criteria for prioritization. The list in priority order was: new Tier 1 NIAs projects; second phase of Tier 1 NIA projects; Tier 2 projects in countries that do not have any Tier 2 projects; and Tier 2 projects in countries that already have other Tier 2 projects. The priority order is exercised when proposals are submitted at the same time. The Board approved the approach. The decision of which projects to approve with the funds that are available needs to be made strategically and a first come first served approach may not be the best. A better approach might be to use a different set of criteria in the short term as the filter—replacing the first come, first served. The approach should be one of how to consolidate gains made to date in individual countries and continue the momentum built. Based on this, Phase 2 NIAs may be important to solidify the work to date. The funding of trade mainstreaming is important given the conclusions of the evaluation that this area is still lagging in some countries. The Tier 2 projects are seen as vital to demonstrate the potential of mainstreaming trade and begin to produce results in areas such as trade facilitation and exporting. Only a portion of these Tier 2 projects would be able to be funded and they should likely be selected from the pool of countries without previous Tier 2 projects based on the commitment and performance of the country to date.

3.4 Sustainability

Finding #10 - EIF has fostered local ownership of the trade agenda and engagement of a range of stakeholders in its implementation. In some areas, the prospects for sustainability are good.

Overall, the interviews, country visits and survey confirmed that the levels of local ownership of the trade agenda had improved significantly with the EIF support. Bringing trade forward and integrating it not only into plans but approaches has helped to improve the understanding of its importance and to solidify support. Eighty percent of the survey respondents (n=50) indicated that EIF had fostered local ownership in the trade agenda to a great or fair extent. Many of the countries visited had a clear sense of ownership of the trade agenda including The Gambia, Burundi and Lao PDR.

55

This has also been cited by other donors as a potential issue as well.


39

The greatest levels of ownership were seen when several approaches were implemented within the EIF support. First, the process of the DTIS and DTIS Updates needed to be owned and managed by the country. The documents cannot be consultant- or agency–driven, but driven by stakeholders, perhaps with mentoring assistance from outside. If they are not locally driven, there is limited buy-in to the results and priorities. They become something that is required to access further support from EIF not the mechanism to mobilize stakeholders and resources around key priorities. Second, the EIF structures need to be effectively integrated into existing mechanisms, ministries and groups. Some countries already had effective public-private consultation mechanisms that were used. The integration of the NIUs into existing ministry structures has been important for success and sustainability in some locations such as Lao PDR. In other cases, the NIU has generated limited ownership at the country level by operating outside the existing structures and basically being another donor implementation unit. Third, obtaining buy-in from other ministries outside of trade was important to ensure that trade was mainstreamed. This included the Ministry of Finance that is often tasked with donor coordination and sector ministries such as agriculture which are key parts of the trade agenda. Fourth, the more willing the government was to engage with a wide range of stakeholders including the private sector, the broader the support and stronger the prospects for sustainability. Building this support across groups, however, is complex and often requires long timeframes. The survey asked how broad based the support within the country was for trade-related issues with various groups. The results are shown on Table 9. Table 9 – Support within Country for Trade-Related Issues

Groups Great extent Fair extent Marginally Not at all

How broad based is the support within the country for trade-related issues with:

Government officials not in the trade department

29% 39% 19% 3%

Politicians 16% 37% 29% 8%

Private sector 39% 34% 15% 3%

NGOs 13% 38% 32% 5%

Donors 33% 34% 20% 3%

Source: EIF Evaluation Survey The more limited support by politicians is a real risk given changes in government. A number of those interviewed believe that stronger advocacy programs are needed to ensure that the potential benefits from trade are fully understood and appreciated. More broad-based support to integration is needed to ensure that changes in leadership will not disrupt the focus on priorities. In addition, there was seen to be a need to build confidence between government and donors so that the relationship of trust could be developed and more donors would come on board to support the country priorities. When asked what factors would strengthen the level of ownership a number of items were consistently mentioned during the country visits and survey:

Better integration of the private sector into EIF;


40

Ensuring that the implementation processes by MIEs are not simply “doing” activities but mentoring and involving key stakeholders in the processes and implementation process;

Having stability in terms of the mobilization of funds to the priorities of the country;

Having procedures and processes that allowed flexibility to implement and take advantage of opportunities that emerged to reach results;

Having the sustained commitment of the government, key domestic stakeholders and donors to the trade agenda; and

Demonstrating results and the potential for trade. The issue of exit strategies was reviewed briefly on two levels. The first was with countries that graduate from LDC status. Three countries that were participating in the EIF have graduated and therefore are being transitioned out of the EIF programme. Support is now being made on a case-by-case basis. However, the transition process does not appear smooth and graduation does not mean the capacity has been built to the extent that the gains are sustainable. More thought needs to go into how to graduate countries to ensure some chances of sustainability of the work completed. The second is around the extent to which the EIF programming integrates exit strategies in both Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects. In the Tier 1 and Tier 2 proposals, the proponent is required to outline what the exit strategy will be in terms of assets and other areas. How well these are being implemented, however, seems to vary across countries. For example, the expectation that the NIU will be integrated into a Ministry and continue will only happen in a small number of cases. In some cases, the level of salaries within the NIU could prevent the staff from continuing under the government umbrella. Trade ministries typically have limited access to budgets and having a unit is likely not a priority. Another area that needs to be considered is the extent to which the capacity of individuals is being built versus the capacity of institutions. With staff turnover and NIUs separated from some key ministries, the ability to sustain the capacity may be threatened in some countries after funding ends. For Tier 2 projects, questions are already emerging about how to reach a critical point where the efforts will become sustainable. For example, the value chain work requires extensive time and effort and will not necessarily be at a point where the linkages are able to be maintained without more outside support. This will mean that additional funding will need to be mobilized before the end of the Tier 2 funding. In other cases, services are being provided to firms to enhance their productivity but there is no way to make the services sustainable so they are still available after the Tier 2 funding. More attention needs to be focused upfront on the potential sustainability of the Tier 2 projects including in the selection of sectors and design of initiatives. The survey asked the prospects for sustainability of various elements as shown on Table 10. Overall there is optimism on many areas across stakeholders. The common issue is the resources to sustain the gains. This came through clearly in the country visits and the interviews in terms of the biggest risk to sustainability. Resources from government and donors are needed and these are difficult for some countries to mobilize.


41

Table 10 – Prospects of Sustainability

Question Strong/Great Fair Marginal Not at all

Likelihood capacity gains will be sustained? (n=69)

33% 46% 14% 0%

Likelihood coordination efforts will be sustained? (n=69)

38% 42% 12% 2%

Likelihood public/private consultation mechanisms will continue? (n=86)

28% 40% 22% 1%

Likelihood that donor coordination mechanisms will continue? (n=29)56

21% 38% 24% 4%

Level of commitment of partners to continue the work? (n=82)

26% 35% 17% 3%

Extent plans are in place for a clear transition? (n=66)

18% 44% 21% 8%

Extent the current levels of government funding are sufficient to maintain the results? (n=54)

17% 33% 35% 9%

Extent human resources sufficient to maintain the results? (n=54)

13% 56% 26% 0%

Extent there is institutional commitment to maintaining support for trade by government? (n=50)

38% 48% 6% 2%

Extent there is institutional commitment to maintaining support for trade by donors? (n=82)

21% 42% 20% 3%

Source: EIF Evaluation Survey Some of the questions were asked to the donors and donor facilitators. 57 Their responses were slightly more pessimistic than the overall results. On public/private mechanisms, 41% felt the chances of sustaining these were marginal or non-existent. On the prospects for continuing donor coordination mechanism, only 21% felt there was a strong chance of continuing and 28% a fair chance. However, 27% said there was marginal or no chance. This raises a question regarding the commitment to the donor coordination mechanisms under the EIF. The EIF is currently looking at the issue of sustainability around the four outcomes. Each pose issues in terms of how to maintain the gains made. A more critical look at how the issues are best handled needs to be made to improve the sustainability prospects.

56

This question was only asked to donors and donor facilitators. 57

In all cases, n=29.


42

3.5 Potential Impact

Finding #11 - EIF is starting to make progress on the purpose level result of assisting LDCs to become more fully integrated into the trading system through mainstreaming trade. However, the extent of the contribution to achieving this result will depend on a series of conditions being met—some are within EIF’s control, others outside. The contribution of the EIF, at this point, to the goal level results of poverty reduction and sustainable development is unclear.

At the purpose level both direct and indirect contributions by the EIF programme can begin to be identified. The EIF logframe targets improvements in exports, time for trading across borders and employment growth. Some of the Tier 2 projects are already showing signs that they are making progress in these areas, although the gains remain small on a relative scale. Employment and/or export gains are starting to emerge from projects in mango and the gum Arabic in Mali, sesame in Burkina Faso, cashews in The Gambia, mushrooms in Lesotho, honey in Zambia and Yemen, and the coffee in Burundi. As shown on Table 11, these projects are tackling key constraints within the sectors and are beginning to provide increased income to small producers. While it is too early to tell the exact extent of the export, employment or income gains that will be generated, the signs at this point are positive. Table 11 – Examples of Potential Impact in Tier 2 Agricultural Projects

In The Gambia, the National Cashew Farmers Association is assisting producers to improve their competitiveness in cashew production. The efforts are already resulting in increases in producers’ incomes through more efficient production and greater demand for the products.

In Burundi, the coffee value chain is developing market niches for its premium coffee through a variety of initiatives working with producers. This has resulted in higher quality coffee, an expansion of export markets and higher value per kilogram, translating into improved incomes for the producers.

Yemen honey producers are targeting improvements in their productivity and quality standards in order to expand their export markets into Europe. Production cooperatives are being formed that allow the honey to be packaged and sold into these higher value markets, generating profits for the producers as well as the cooperatives.

Burkina Faso is bringing together a wide range of stakeholders to improve the sesame sector value chain including government agencies, a non-governmental organization, local producers, processors and exporters. Support has been extended to a broad range of small producers. Exporting companies are being linked to international markets. Both production and exports are increasing.

Zambia has put in place new marketing channels for its honey products including assisting producers with expanding their product lines to include more value added.

In Mali mango producers, transporters and exporters have been working together to


43

strengthen the value chain and expand the value added of products. Gains are being made by increasing the value added of products. Mango jams and dried mangoes are now being certified for export.

The business environment has begun to be improved in a number of countries.58 Liberia automated its national business registry, reducing the time to register a business to 4.5 days. Zambia has gone from 18 days in 2011 to 6.5 days to register a business. Burundi has established an agency for investment promotion that has improved a number of its Doing Business indicators going from an overall ranking of 169 in 2012 to 152 in 2014. Cambodia and Lao PDR have improved their customs and import export procedures through the implementation of one-stop shops. The survey showed optimism about achieving further results, particularly in the trade facilitation area and export capacity. All the respondents (n=88) were asked “based on the record to date and current trends, to what extent will EIF make significant contributions to” a series of areas as shown on Table 12. The potential of the contribution to trade facilitation and export capacity mirrors where countries believe they need to make the most gains. Table 12 – Extent of EIF Possible Contribution

Area of Impact Great Fair Marginal Not at all

Trade facilitation 40% 40% 10% 5%

Enabling environment 26% 39% 24% 2%

Employment 19% 48% 18% 5%

Participation of small and medium enterprises

27% 48% 15% 5%

Export capacity for potential exporters

40% 38% 14% 3%

Source: EIF Evaluation Survey It was clear from the various evidence streams, however, that the ability to reach these results was dependent on a number of conditions as shown on Figure 4. The top portion of the graph is the conceptual framework from the 2013 EIF Annual Report showing how EIF views its links to trade integration and ultimately poverty reduction. Below this are the conditions necessary for EIF to directly or indirectly contribute to the outcomes and trade integration. These conditions are based on the evaluation evidence.

58

The Doing Business indicators cited here are from the World Bank’s Doing Business 2012 and Doing Business 2015 reports.


44

Figure 4 – Conditions for Results

The extent of the contribution will be initially determined by how well the Tier 1 and 2 projects are implemented. A series of conditions were identified here such as flexibility of the EIF procedures to meet country needs, alignment of donors to the AM, methods to build ownership and systems supporting the achievement of results. As identified elsewhere in the evaluation, some of these conditions are not currently in place within EIF to allow a maximization of the potential contribution of the project to the outcomes. For the outcomes and trade integration, a series of other conditions are required which are possible from EIF but only if the programme is implemented efficiently and effectively. A critical mass of results will not emerge unless donors provide resources to fund other aspects of the DTIS AM. The Tier 2 projects can be demonstrations but they are too small to have broad based results. Trade needs to be further embedded into the approaches at the country level, making the mainstreaming activities particularly important. The outcomes need to be translated into greater competitiveness of the private sector, an improved business climate and improved trade environment. The more these conditions are met, the greater the contribution of the EIF will be to the outcomes and to trade integration. EIF’s overall goal is “LDCs’ integration into the global trading system with a view to contributing to poverty reduction and sustainable development”. The programme logframe has a series of indicators to assess progress including: number of LDC Members of WTO who have completed the accession process; percentage share of international non-oil trade from LDCs; and poverty headcount. A few of these have been able to be tracked by the EIF in terms of availability of secondary information. The EIF Annual Progress Report for 2013 provides examples of the status of specific countries.

EIF Principles

• Ownership• Partnership• Trade as tool of

development

EIF Strategies

Tier 2 Project

Tier 1 Project

Capacity development

Tier 1 outcomes

Supply side constraints Tier

2 outcomes

Trade Integration

Poverty reduction

Sustainable development

Conditions

• EIF maintains flexibility to meet Country needs• Donors & agencies align their programmes with

the AM• Local level is given ability to direct projects and

build ownership• Systems &processes support the achievement of

outcomes not compliance with prescribed activities

• Projects are implemented efficiently, effectively and demonstrate results can be attained

• Political commitment to reforms continues• Donors and agencies mobilize resources to fund

AM and coordinate activities• Broad based understanding and support of role of

trade in the economy is developed• Trade environment is enhanced • Competitiveness of the private sector is increased


45

The current indicators used in the EIF logframe, however, tell little about the results emerging from the EIF at this point. It is difficult from the evidence gathered in this evaluation to determine the potential extent of the direct and indirect contributions of EIF to these higher level results such as poverty reduction. The length of time of implementation of many of the projects and the extent of funding limit it to date. While in the longer term poverty reduction may be reduced through the contribution of EIF, the path from the outcomes that are being achieved to poverty reduction and sustainable development needs to be further analyzed and assessed as the purpose level results emerge. These paths may be clearer with the Tier 2 projects. For example, some of the current Tier 2 projects are resulting in increases to income and profits of small producers such as seen with the coffee sector in Burundi and mango sector in Mali. For the Tier 1 NIA Support, the paths are far less clear. This is not an issue that is unique to the EIF, however. Differences in opinion exist in the current literature on the extent to which trade actually contributes to poverty reduction and even economic growth. The complexity of the issue was seen in a recent study that noted the effect of trade openness on poverty in Africa was not automatic but dependent on a series of complementary reforms.59 Trade tended to reduce poverty where financial sectors were deep, education levels high and governance strong. All these areas are far beyond the EIF work and influence and often not apparent in LDCs. Over the medium term, the linkages to the impact level may become clearer as the NDPs and trade strategies have greater implementation, resources are mobilized and Tier 2 projects begin to have spinoff effects in the economy. At that point, it may be possible to begin to assess EIF’s contribution to poverty reduction and sustainable development in a more concrete manner. While many interviewed felt confident that these results would emerge, they also indicated this was a long term process.

59

Le Goff, M. and R. J. Singh. 2013. “Does Trade Reduce Poverty? A View from Africa.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 6327.


46

4.0 Options for Future Programming The ToR indicated that the evaluation “should also examine implications for any future programming and the extent to which changes in programme strategy and delivery will be required in order to maximize the global trade integration of EIF beneficiary countries and meet other development objectives at the country level.”60 A design of any subsequent phase, however, was beyond the scope of the evaluation. Some comments are being provided here, based on the evaluation findings, on the options for future programming. The EIF is at an interesting crossroads. The EIF has been extended to December 2015, with implementation finishing at the end of 2017. The question then becomes what happens next? There are basically three options: allow the EIF to complete its work until 2017 and then end with no follow-up programme (phase out); extend the EIF maintaining the status quo with limited changes; or streamline the EIF with some rethinking and reshaping of governance, procedures, approaches and strategies. Each of these options has pros and cons and must be assessed seriously by the EIFSC before a decision is made. Option #1 – Wind down the EIF in 2017 The first option is simply ending the EIF at the end of 2017. Limited support was seen for this option during the evaluation from stakeholders. LDCs, in particular, were concerned that the EIF was the key vehicle to have access to both trade capacity development and overcoming supply side constraints. The relevance to LDCs was clear and there was a consensus that additional support was needed to further embed the approaches and increase results. The uncertainly about other support programmes, such as the one for trade facilitation, made having a replacement even more critical. For these reasons, the evaluation is not recommending this option. Having no EIF programme to serve the LDC countries should be ruled out. Option #2 – Status Quo The second option is to continue the EIF as it is currently structured and being implemented, basically extending the current mandate. The advantage of this option is that there would be an easier transition into the next phase with solicitation for funding starting quickly. LDCs have familiarity now with the EIF and some elements could continue with less potential loss of momentum. The disadvantage with this approach, however, is the risk that the fundamental elements of the EIF that are currently undermining its effectiveness and efficiency would not be adequately addressed. In particular, the governance structure, the approval and implementation processes and the relationships among the partners would not be reformed to the extent needed to allow more rapid decision making, quicker results and greater chances of sustainability. It was clear during the current evaluation if fundamental changes to the model were not made, the relevance of the EIF would decline over time, with LDC partners and donors looking for other solutions.

60

See paragraph 24.


47

Option #3 – Streamlining EIF The third option is to make changes that allow the EIF to better support LDCs’ integration into the global trading system. The key changes that would be required are as follows.

EIF Board should become a policy body and no longer be involved in management decisions. The programme and financial functions should be reassessed given the cost of management of the overall arrangement. The roles and responsibilities of other EIF players such as the DFs would need to be reassessed to ensure that the methods being used at the country level are effective.

The approval and implementation processes and procedures would have to be re-examined with an eye to making them faster and more effective. Many of the procedures are far more complex than needed to ensure checks and balances and a more nimble model needs to be developed. As part of this, methods to maximize LDCs’ ownership of the process need to be identified and a common understanding developed across partners on roles and responsibilities.

The relationships among the key players (EIF, donors, agencies and LDCs) needs to be rethought and strengthened in order to have a common vision for moving forward and a commitment to that vision. This includes the ability to effectively mobilize donors to support country priorities and ensure the efficient and effective implementation of initiatives by the MIEs.

Methods to embed flexibility to adapt to changing situations and the variety of country setting should be considered. This includes better integration of the shifting global environment into programming and designing methods to accommodate a range of interests and opportunities by different countries in areas such as global value chains, regional initiatives and the integration of the private sector (domestic and international).

The focus on results should be strengthened with clear benchmarks for judging progress. This should include having a policy on when to withdraw funding from initiatives that are not moving forward and how to reward success. The objective should be to leverage the funds available to maximize the results.

The advantage of making these changes is that they would improve the future relevance and effectiveness of the support to the LDCs. Many of the EIF countries have been participating since the Integrated Framework. Almost twenty years later the focus now needs to shift to how to get them into the trading mainstream quickly before they are left behind. The focus in the future should be on more quickly achieving results, testing new approaches and building new partnerships with donors, agencies and stakeholders including the private sector. The primary disadvantage of this approach is the need to work quickly to determine the changes to be made, put them in place and mobilize the funding to be in place prior to the end of the EIF implementation phase. This could prove challenging.


48

5.0 Conclusions and Lessons

5.1 Conclusions The overall conclusion of the evaluation is that the EIF remains highly relevant and important for LDCs’ trade needs. The EIF is supporting LDCs in mainstreaming trade, clearly defining priorities and bringing stakeholders together to support the trade agenda. The Tier 1 and 2 projects generally have enough flexibility to adapt to local conditions and to be driven by local needs. Several new funding windows have been opened to improve flexibility of support to LDCs including for feasibility study under Tier 2, trade mainstreaming and International Trade Advisors under Tier 1 NIA Support. The agreement on the EIF relevance was seen across all stakeholders from government to donors. Gains are already being seen in achieving some of the targeted results. The institutional and management capacity of many LDCs to formulate and, to a lesser extent, implement trade strategies has clearly been enhanced. Many LDCs have been able to mainstream trade into their national development plans and in some cases have increased the understanding of a wide range of local stakeholders about the role trade can play and hence the importance of trade to the country and its economy. Consultation mechanisms have been successfully established with the private sector and donors within several countries. Some countries have seen increasing alignment of donors and agencies around the DTIS Action Matrix, including provision of resources for key priorities. Wide variations are seen, however, across countries. Using the countries visited for the evaluation, four categories emerge which also seem to reflect the broader EIF portfolio. The first group is countries where substantial results have been evident. Included in this category are Lao PDR, Nepal, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Malawi, Mali, The Gambia and Uganda. Similar factors have been present in terms of a consistent focus on trade, strong country leadership, broader buy-in within the country and ability to mobilize donors. The second group includes countries where important gains have been made but one piece of the equation is not consistently present. Maldives has put in place sound strategies and but has limited access to donor resources to assist in implementing them. The Solomon Islands is developing a trade strategy but does not have it in place yet. Senegal has been struggling with trade implementation, partially due to shifting priorities. The third group is countries that have faced internal or external issues which have disrupted EIF implementation. Yemen was making good progress before the political crisis from 2011 to 2012 that resulted in a change in government and disruption in EIF implementation. Guinea-Bissau has faced a political crisis that stalled progress on trade and the EIF implementation. Haiti’s earthquake placed priority on other issues besides trade for the government and donor agendas. The final group is countries that are still in a start-up process. Mozambique falls into this category with delays in the DTIS Update process and the fielding of the International Trade Advisor. What this spectrum of experiences shows is the need to take into account the specific setting of each country and its unique combination of priorities, politics, culture and access to funding. Tailoring approaches to the local circumstances is particularly important to ensure that progress is being made across the countries. It reaffirms the fact that continuous and predictable support to trade mainstreaming is required both within the country and from donors in order to make gains.


49

Initial indications show that many of the results have good prospects for sustainability. EIF has been successful in fostering some degree of local ownership that has resulted in a commitment by stakeholders to consolidating the gains made. The ownership was greatest when: the process of development of the DTIS and DTIS Updates was driven by the country stakeholders; EIF structures were integrated into existing mechanisms and ministries; buy-in was built beyond the trade or economic development ministries; and governments engaged a wide range of stakeholders to build consensus. Signs are emerging that the purpose level result of trade integration is starting to be achieved. Tier 2 projects are especially important in this area since they show the way and often begin to tackle key critical constraints—something that can produce visible improvements. Stakeholders were particularly positive about the potential to create a trading nation mindset, improve trade facilitation and the export capacity of potential exporters. However, the EIF faces challenges in three areas that are undermining its effectiveness, efficiency and potential to maximize its impact. All three of these areas are ones that were raised repeatedly in interviews, the survey and country visits. They were evident in the review of documents and data. All are areas that were identified in the MTR as being issues and have not been adequately tackled. The first issue is the governance structure which is complex, heavy and time consuming, with a Steering Committee, a Board, an ES that handles programme and process management and the TFM that controls financial and Trust Fund management. The Board remains involved in a wide range of management decisions and processes, going beyond its oversight and policy direction role. This has implications for the extent to which the ES can serve the needs of LDCs and has made the processes more cumbersome and time consuming for all participants. The second issue is the over-perspective and slow nature of the approval and implementation processes. The approval times for all stages have not improved significantly since the MTR, with some becoming worse. Approval processes remain complex. The DTIS and DTIS Updates are the cornerstone of the approach to building capacity, setting priorities and encouraging alignment. However, since the start of EIF only 18 countries have completed a DTIS or DTIS Updates. The other EIF countries still have DTIS developed under the IF—before the financial crisis and shifts in trading approaches. Issues are seen with implementation where complex and prescriptive processes and approaches are hindering progress. The procedures and processes not only increase the time required but the transactions costs to countries and implementers without apparent benefit. A more business-like and flexible approach is needed if the pace of implementation is to increase. The third issue is one of leveraging resources and accepting the fact that substantial results are only possible in the long run if funding is available to countries. The EIF model is based on the idea of EIF acting as a catalyst to bring donors and LDCs together. The LDCs receive support to coordinate donors and leverage funding. The donors use the DTIS AM as a vehicle for determining priorities for their AfT and provide support in a coordinated way to ensure that the key bottlenecks are targeted. While elements of the model are in place, the extent to which it is leveraging resources is more limited. The mechanisms for coordination and leveraging are not always functional at the country level, including in some cases the Donor Facilitator role. This lack of resource generation directly impacts the magnitude of any results that can emerge from the work since EIF funding per country is small.


50

In addition, changes in the global environment are having an effect on the EIF and its ability to remain relevant. Some fundamental shifts have taken place globally since 2008 that require a rethinking of some of the elements of the EIF. Trade patterns and paradigms are shifting with increasing globalization. The focus is moving from exports to joining the right value chains, with trade integration becoming more inward looking. Non-tariff barriers are increasing as a key constraint. LDCs need to be able to look at the options and decide their direction based on a full understanding of the global environment. With the lack of progress on the Doha round, regional agreements are expanding in importance with many LDCs seeing regional opportunities as their best prospects. While EIF has allowed some small initiatives that cover regional issues within Tier 1 and 2 projects, the programming remains at the country level or country focused. This does not optimize the participation of the LDCs in the regional arrangements nor help to define the positions LDC should be taking in negotiating bilateral agreements with industrialized countries. The role of the private sector has not been fully understood, explored, exploited or integrated into the EIF model. The EIF has been focused on government institutions and building capacity which is critical for LDCs to mainstream trade. However, its engagement with the private sector has been narrowly defined. Consulting with the private sector is not sufficient. The private sector has to be genuinely involved in the design and implementation of projects and programs. This is where its drive and creativity can make a difference. New and dynamic models of public-private partnerships are being developed globally that could provide some ideas of how to better capitalize on both domestic private sector and international firms. LDCs are increasingly looking to the private sector for investment. The EIF’s current treatment of the private sector will not allow the LDCs to capitalize on opportunities for linkages and investments.

5.2 Lessons A number of lessons have been identified during the evaluation that will be important to integrate into any future programme. These were raised by stakeholders in terms of ideas for the future and how to make the approach more effective.

Catalytic role - The original view of the EIF was to act as a catalyst and promote cooperation and country-driven approaches. This vision remains valid. To play this role, however, requires a streamlined programme that can respond quickly to changes and seek opportunities. Partnerships must be built around a common vision and partners must commit to cooperation around that vision. There is a need to have a solid understanding of the issues facing LDCs and their complexity. The countries are very poor, with underdeveloped structures, face particular difficulties in being landlocked or island states, and have often suffered natural calamities, and great instability, including civil war. This diversity must be integrated into the model and understood. This does not mean the EIF has to become more complicated—in fact it needs to be more nimble. Communications is key at every level and among all stakeholders.

Fostering ownership – In the context of the EIF, it is important to ensure that all participants understand what is meant by ownership. One of the three principles of the EIF is: “country ownership ensuring that the LDCs identify and manage trade development activities with national, regional and international bodies and donors”. This is key, however, ownership has to be more clearly defined in the future. Countries have


51

to take the lead in defining their needs and implementing their programming. An increased focus on mentoring would contribute. Currently, there is not a common understanding of ownership within the EIF in terms of actions, responsibilities and limits. This lack of clarity is critical to address.

Importance of success - All participants, including donors, need to see success to build momentum in the various countries. While the Tier 1 projects can set the stage, the Tier 2 projects were seen to be the method to consolidate the gains and demonstrate that trade mainstreaming can actually make a difference. The EIF is not just talk but action that can produce real results on the ground. In some cases, such as the sesame sector in Burkina Faso and mango sector in Mali, the local stakeholders saw an opportunity and were committed to realizing real gains. This type of commitment is important for achieving results. The need for tangible results within a short period of time was mentioned by donors as well in terms of showing the effectiveness of the EIF model.

Entitlement versus competition – Currently the EIF is undertaking programming with a wide range of LDCs. With some countries, limited progress has been seen since 2008. In others, the countries have embraced the opportunities presented and worked to capitalize on them. Given the limited pool of funds, rewarding success and instilling competition among the countries may be a better approach than spreading the funds thinly to maximize country coverage.

Coordination at the country level – It is not enough to simply have a strong NIU at the country level. Each of the groups must be working together to support and nurture the EIF—the ES/TFM, the NIU and the Donor Facilitator. If one group is not performing or contributing to progress, the EIF faces difficulties in meeting its mandate and achieving results.

NIUs role at the country level – Many of the NIUs are doing a good job and those units should be given responsibility and leeway to implement the programming to maximize results. They are the most sensitive to local priorities and how to build capacity from, sometimes, very thin bases. They are in the best position to facilitate support from a wide range of country stakeholders from government to the private sector. Some of the more experienced heads of NIU's have a great deal to offer in terms of cross-fertilization with other countries. This should be encouraged through visits and workshops or even a web based forum to exchange ideas and best practices. Evidence of success will motivate others.


52

6.0 Recommendations

6.1 Recommendations for EIF Recommendation #1 – Develop additional tools to assist the LDCs to better mainstream trade. Finding #5 – Outcome 2 and Finding #10: While countries have made substantial gains in terms of integrating trade into strategies and plans, challenges still remain in terms of mainstreaming. EIF has recognized this and has developed capacity development modules and a funding envelope to provide further support to country level efforts. During the country visits, two additional modules were identified by staff as being important to strengthen the understanding of trade. One is aimed at building a broader based knowledge of trade and its importance. This reflects the fact that the understanding varies across stakeholders and needs to be strengthened. The second focuses on specific skills for policy analysis. The importance of the business environment and its impact on the private sector and trade is now better understood at the country level. Understanding how policies can be developed, and what is required to make them effective, is less clear. Potential Actions: EIF ES:

Create a capacity development module to increase awareness and develop a common understanding by government, senior officials, politicians, donors, the agencies and the private sector of the role trade should and can play within the economy. This could include the development of a presentation (PowerPoint or audio visual) that can be adapted at the local level. The presentation could highlight the basics of trade and its role within the economy in generating increased economic activity with a focus on “becoming a trading nation”.

Create a capacity development module focused on generic policy development to encourage the development of the range of policies required to establish a trade oriented business climate. The module should focus on increasing the understanding of how policies can be developed and be practical and action oriented.

Recommendation #2 – Work with agencies, donors and LDCs to determine how to better promote donor alignment and resource generation at the country level. Finding #5 – Outcomes 3 and 4 Two of the targeted outcomes of the EIF are the coordinated delivery of trade-related resources by donors and implementing agencies and the mobilization of resources in support of initiatives that address DTIS Action Matrix priorities. While progress is being made in some countries, others have seen limited results. One of the key explanations is that the current reliance on Donor Facilitators and the FP to promote alignment of donors and resource mobilization is not always effective. In some cases this works well with countries having effective consultation


53

mechanisms and strong mobilization of funds. In other cases this arrangement is not working at all. Some countries have no active DF. Others have DFs that do not understand their role or feel it is not their responsibility. Some solution needs to be developed to ensure that progress is being made over the next several years in those countries where the mobilization model has been less effective. Potential Actions: EIF ES and EIF TFM:

Identify the countries where the DF model of coordination and resource mobilization is not working (i.e., where none exists or where the DF is ineffective). Work with the countries and donors to develop individual action plans to resolve the issue. The solutions will likely vary by country. In some cases it will require simply a recommitment to make the current DF arrangement work. In other cases, new arrangements besides the DF model should be considered. Working more closely with the Ministry of Finance and its donor coordination approaches may work in some countries. Others may have donor roundtables, Sector Working Groups on Trade and/or Private Sector Development or other mechanisms that could be used. A Local EIF champion could be identified to act as a spokesperson. This could include private sector umbrella groups to help influence greater resources for trade. The bottom-line should be to ensure that a method is available at the country level to coordinate and mobilize funds.

Work with the FPs to ensure they understand their responsibilities. Provide tools to more effectively play this role. This should include strengthening methods to improve collaboration between the FP and DF and ensure they are working toward the same goals. Areas that could be considered include more on-going communications between the FP and DF on the Ministry’s actions and priorities, participation of the DF in Ministry activities such as seminars or participation of the FP in donor coordination meetings.

Provide a forum where lessons can be shared among countries on effective and innovative techniques. Countries such as Lao PDR, Cambodia, The Gambia and Comoros have developed different systems for coordination and resource mobilization. Countries with successful strategies could share lessons and techniques with others facing more challenges and discuss how different models could be made to work in differing contexts.

Recommendation #3 – Work with MIEs to find methods to increase the pace of implementation of key projects, particularly the DTIS and DTIS Updates. Findings #7, #8 and #9 The time lags for implementation of current projects, particularly DTIS and DTIS Updates, need to be addressed. While some issues are seen with the actual processes, other factors are also at play including priorities of the implementation agencies and co-operation by counterparts. The reasons for the delays need to be better understood and actions developed to deal with them. These actions could include making procedures and processes less onerous or having the MIEs commit to more efficient and effective implementation.


54

Potential Actions: EIF ES, EIF TFM and MIEs:

Convene a meeting of the agencies and governments that have in the past implemented, or currently are implementing, DTIS and DTIS Updates to discuss the process and how these can be done more efficiently and effectively. Pinpoint any obstacles in the process that cause unnecessary delays. Identify areas for streamlining the process and making these documents more focused and concise. Strategize on how Updates can be done on a more rapid and frequent basis to identify priority issues to be addressed as conditions change within a country.

From this meeting, develop a consultation paper on potential options for changes and undertake consultations with stakeholders to obtain feedback on both the issues identified and the solutions suggested. Identify strategies for implementing changes.

Work with the MIEs to begin to make changes that are agreed through this process. EIF ES, EIF TFM and MIEs:

Identify Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects being implemented through all types of MIEs that are substantially behind their original schedule and convene a meeting to discuss the delays and patterns of issues across countries, identifying common problems and causes.

Develop an action plan on how to better facilitate the resolution of issues in implementation with various types of MIE. Clearly assign responsibility for how this action plan will be implemented.

Recommendation #4 – In the short term, select pipeline projects for funding from the available resources in the EIFTF by a criterion other than first come first served. Finding #9 A funding gap currently exists between the funds held within the EIFTF that are unallocated and the pipeline of projects in the formulation and submission stages. With the current funding gap, only a portion of the projects in the pipeline will be able to be approved in the short term until new funds are released into the EIFTF. To deal with the short term funding gap, the EIF Board approved a strategy for handling the pipeline based on a first come first served basis, unless projects were submitted at the same time, in which case they would be handled in a priority sequence. The top priority would be to countries just receiving Tier 1 Support to NIA projects. It would be better to focus the funds available in the short term on consolidating gains and continuing the momentum built to date with the existing projects to ensure that results are maximized as quickly as possible.


55

Potential Actions: EIF Board: Consider a different approach in the short term to allocating the funds currently held in the EIFTF. The top priorities would be: Tier 1 Support to NIA – Phase 2; Trade mainstreaming; and Tier 2 project in countries without an existing Tier 2. As additional funds are placed into the EIFTF, the priority sequence could revert back to the first come, first served or other criteria chosen by the EIF Board.

6.2 Recommendations for more streamlined and dynamic approaches of the EIF Recommendation #5 – The EIF Board establishes a process to build on the work and achievements of the EIF but develop more streamlined and dynamic approaches for the future. Findings: Section 4.0 outlines three options for the future of the EIF—phasing it out, continuing with the status quo or streamlining the EIF. We are recommending the third option—that the EIF continue beyond its current mandate but with changes. As discussed in this evaluation, the EIF has accomplishments, but it also has shortcomings. Beyond the current mandate of the EIF, a more dynamic, flexible and enhanced partnership is needed. The evaluation has identified some areas that need to be rethought as the EIF moves beyond its current mandate.

The governance structure needs to be improved so that it establishes clear lines between policy and oversight to be handled by the Board and management handled by the ES and TFM. This includes revising levels of delegated authority to the ED. The structure should be simple, cost effective and conducive to building trust among all the partners. (Finding #8)

Processes and procedures need to be reviewed and restructured to allow more flexibility, rapid decision making and implementation based on results. Some of the issues cited here that need to be addressed include, but are not limited to, the following. Complex project approval processes that require up to six reviews of proposals by ES and TFM and over a year before they go to the Board. Key participants required in the prescribed project development process not being willing or able to play their roles, stopping the progress on project formulation. Line item budgeting that requires lengthy approvals to shift funds and prevents opportunities that arise from being pursued on a timely basis. The limited ability by countries to leverage faster implementation from projects by agencies. There also needs to be better methods to maximize LDCs’ ownership of the process and a common understanding developed across partners on roles and responsibilities. (Finding #8)

Funding approaches beyond the single country level should be explored, particularly as this concerns regional programs or projects. (Finding #3)


56

The role of the private sector should be rethought, with the private sector (domestic and international) becoming more effective, strategic and participatory, at the levels of both project design and implementation. (Finding #3)

Methods for integrating new trends in trade and the global environment into the programme need to be identified and structured in a way that allows constant learning and adaptation and flexibility for LDCs. (Finding #2)

Agreements need to be reached with donors and agencies on their commitment to new approaches and their willingness to actively support the EIF objectives beyond the current mandate. Moving forward, the EIF needs to be based on a common commitment to success. (Finding #5)

Potential Actions: A three step approach is being recommended for the design of improvements to the EIF. The desire is to have as smooth a transition as possible as the EIF moves beyond its current mandate, while ensuring that the required changes are done in a systematic and effective manner. The work should be finalized as quickly as possible to allow a full rollout by January 2016. Step 1 – Establish a Task Force A small high level Task Force should be established as soon as possible to set the overall parameters that will guide improvements of the EIF. The Task Force should have two representatives from each stakeholder group—the LDCs, core agencies and donors. Over a three month period, the Task Force should develop recommendations on the following areas:

Timeframe to be covered after the current mandate ends;

Funding targets based on anticipated requirements over the timeframe;

Strategy for engagement with donors and agencies on recommitting to participation in the EIF and supporting the objectives as well as the replenishment process;

EIF programme governance structure, including the role of the EIF Board and delegated authority to the ES or other appropriate bodies;

The proportion of the future contributions to the EIFTF that will go to administration, fees and management and a recommended delivery model for meeting this target;

Parameters for accessing funds and graduation from the EIF programme;

Any changes to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 modalities including the parameters for possible regional programming;

The range of approaches for integration of the private sector into the EIF based on country circumstances; and


57

Milestones for programming after the current mandate ends. Step 2 - Approval by the EIF Board and Endorsement by the EIF SC

The Task Force should present recommendations to the EIF Board for review within three months. The recommendations should clearly provide parameters for programming after the current mandate of the EIF ends. The EIF Board should then present recommendations to the EIF SC for endorsement.

After review and approval, the EIF Board should designate the membership in the Working Groups to design the changes required for moving forward.

Step 3 –Establish Working Groups Once the EIF Board has approved the Task Force recommendations, more work will be needed to develop the details for implementation and undertake specific actions. It is anticipated that five Working Groups will be needed. The representation on these should include: LDCs, core agencies; and donors. Governance and Management Structures Working Group This Working Group would focus on the recommendations that have been approved regarding governance and management. Some of the areas of focus would be the following:

Drafting new terms of reference for the Board including delegated authorities;

Identifying the changes required to the current management delivery system to meet the parameters established including how to make the system more cost effectiveness, and which tools and processes are needed to balance accountability and efficiency;

Developing a work plan and timetable to put these changes into place; and

Maintaining communications with stakeholders on the new arrangements. Local Ownership and Management Working Group This Working Group would specifically look at methods to enhance local ownership and allow greater flexibility and decision making at the country level. Some of the areas of focus would be the following:

Areas of the EIF implementation model that could be adapted to increase local ownership;

Additional measures needed to support the local governance and implementation units including the need to have a range of implementation models to adapt to local conditions;

Identifying models for resource mobilization including the Donor Facilitator and methods to make them more effective;

Clarifying the roles of the different agencies and other stakeholders; and

Assessing areas where greater decision making could be done at the country level.


58

Programming Working Group The focus of this Working Group would be on designing the new approaches being recommended for Tier 1 and Tier 2 modalities including the further integration of the private sector and approaches to regional programming. In addition, the criteria for accessing and graduation from the EIF would be established. Approvals and Implementation Processes Working Group The focus of this Working Group would be on streamlining the approval and implementation processes, while maintaining optimal provisions to ensure accountability. The EIF Compendium along with other guidelines that have been put in place need to be reviewed to increase their flexibility and efficiency of processes and procedures. This should focus on questions such as: How can approvals be streamlined to allow more rapid approval processes? How can the processes and procedures become more flexible to overcome difficulties currently seen in the approval or implementation process—particularly given the wide variation among country contexts? Where can more decisions be devolved to the country level? Re-Engagement and Replenishment Process Working Group This Working Group would be tasked with building support among the agencies and donors beyond the current mandate of the EIF, as well as planning the pledging conference. This would focus on:

Implementation of the strategy for engagement with the donors and agencies on recommitting to participation in the EIF and supporting the objectives of the EIF;

Discussions on the role of the agencies and donors in the implementation process and how to improve their effectiveness and coordination;

Developing and implementing a strategy for mobilizing resources beyond the end of the current mandate of the EIF; and

Implementing the mobilization strategy.


59

Annex 1 – Terms of Reference

RFP‐2014‐083‐EIF‐EVAL Annex I

TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR) FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE ENHANCED INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK (EIF)

I. OVERVIEW

1. Least Developed Countries (LDCs) face supply‐side constraints that severely limit their ability to benefit from trading opportunities. They face trade integration obstacles in technical and hard infrastructure capacity, human resources, as well as managing adjustment and transition costs. To overcome these constraints and realize the benefits from trade, LDCs must build awareness of such opportunities and create an enabling environment for international trade.

2. In recognition of these challenges, the Integrated Framework (IF) was established in 1997 as an

international initiative to promote trade in LDCs by mainstreaming trade into their national development plans and to coordinate delivery of aid to them. Following a series of evaluations,61

a Task Force recommended strengthening the delivery process of the IF by linking the activities and results at programme and project levels. This led to a revamping of the IF in 2007 into the present EIF, with the goal to support the LDCs' integration into the global trading system, and with a view to contributing to poverty reduction and sustainable development. The purpose is to enable EIF Countries to become fully integrated and active players in, and beneficiaries of, the global trading system through mainstreaming trade. The EIF process aims to strengthen donors' support to a country's trade agenda. LDCs can use the EIF as a vehicle to assist in coordinating donor support and to leverage more Aid for Trade (AfT) resources, whereas donors can sign up to the EIF as one of the vehicles to deliver on their AfT commitments.

3. The EIF programme became operational in October 2008, with the aim of creating a strong and

effective results‐oriented partnership among all EIF stakeholders. This involves close cooperation amongst the LDCs, the current 23 Donors to the EIF Trust Fund, 6 Core Agencies, 1 Observer Agency, the Executive Secretariat for the EIF (ES), the EIF Trust Fund Manager (TFM) and other Development Partners who are supporting the LDCs' integration into the global trading system with a view to contributing to poverty reduction and sustainable development through the EIF objectives of:

1. Mainstreaming trade into national development strategies; 2. Setting up structures needed to coordinate the delivery of trade‐related technical

assistance; and 3. Building capacity to trade, which also includes addressing critical supply‐side constraints.

61 Evaluation of the Revamped Integrated Framework For Trade‐related Technical Assistance to the Least‐Developed Countries. Capra‐TFOC Consortium, November 2003 and Integrated Framework for Trade‐Related Technical Assistance, Addressing Challenges of Globalization: An Independent Evaluation of the World Bank's Approach to Global Programs, Case Study Manmohan Agarwal and Jozefina Cutura, 2004.


60

4. The EIF's operating principles are: (1) The effective use of trade as a development tool by LDCs;

(2) LDC ownership of the in‐country programme and projects funded by the EIF, including the responsibility to identify their trade development priorities and manage their trade development activities with the support of the relevant national, regional and international bodies and donors; and (3) A partnership approach in accordance with the principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, whereby donors and international agencies coordinate their response to the needs of LDCs, manage for results, ensure LDC leadership and accept mutual accountability. Furthermore, the EIF programme provides for increased capacity‐building support to LDCs and stronger governance of the EIF.

5. Based on the above principles and objectives, the EIF funds projects through two modalities: the first modality, known as Tier 1, involves the preparation of a Diagnostic Trade Integration Study (DTIS), which assesses the competitiveness of the country's economy and identifies barriers to effective integration into the global economy; an Action Matrix developed with a view to feeding trade‐related priorities into a country's Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) and donors' financing fora; and establishing EIF National Implementation Arrangements (NIAs), including capacity building. The second modality, referred to as Tier 2, comprises trade‐related projects identified in the DTIS Action Matrix that are of priority to beneficiary countries.62

6. For Tier 1 projects, 'Support to NIAs', an EIF programme logframe has been elaborated, which identifies the programme's goal, purpose and four outcomes including associated indicators with set targets. Progress against the targets are being monitored at the EIF country level and aggregated at the programme level. For Tier 2 projects, logframes are specific to the type of project and the needs of the country as prioritized in the DTIS Action Matrix.

7. Currently, the EIF covers 47 LDCs and 2 recently graduated countries. From 2008 to now,

approved projects include 37 Tier 1 'Support to NIAs' projects plus 4 International Trade Advisors, 7 pre‐DTIS, 7 DTIS, 30 DTIS Update (DTISU) and 18 Tier 2 projects. In addition, over 40 projects (both Tier 1 and Tier 2) are in the pipeline.

8. In 2013, as required by the EIF Compendium and in line with the results‐based management

nature of the programme, the EIF undertook a Mid‐Term Evaluation (MTR) that had broad‐based participation and engagement by a wide range of global and national EIF stakeholders. The MTR found that the objective and strategic approach of the EIF remains "highly relevant to the current trade and economic priorities of the LDCs" and stressed the need for partners to continue supporting the EIF Countries. Following the MTR recommendations, the EIF Board proposed to the EIF Steering Committee that the EIF programme be extended to December 2015, with an additional implementation period up to 2017. In addition, the EIF will be undertaking in 2014 a Review of the EIF TFM Operating Tools and Procedures, whose findings can feed into the present evaluation.

9. As a follow‐up to the MTR, an EIF Board retreat was held in February 2013 on how to take

forward the eight recommendations of the MTR report in order to improve operations of the EIF

62 More information on the EIF can be found by visiting the programme website at: http://www.enhancedif.org/ as well as consulting the EIF Compendium found at: http://www.enhancedif.org/en/document/new-compendium-eif-documents


61

and make its mechanisms sustainable. At the end of the retreat, an outcome document with a Table of Actions was drafted that laid out the groundwork in carrying forth some of the MTR recommendations in the fields of governance at global and national levels, programme implementation, partnership, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and communications. The document was formally acknowledged by the EIF Board during its EIF Board Meeting on 22 February 2013.

10. Steps have been taken in implementing the outcomes of the retreat, including a Heads of

Agency meeting, to strengthen the EIF partnership; more effective trade mainstreaming by engaging the UN partners in support of Tier 1 projects to lay the foundation for more efficient and effective policy direction of AfT; participation in the 4th Global Review of Aid for Trade at the WTO and showcasing EIF Countries' implementation of the EIF, outreach activities in the form of trading stories, a photo exhibition and a photo competition, as well as a new version of the EIF website.

11. In addition, the EIF participated in the recent 9th WTO Ministerial Conference in Bali, Indonesia

where the LDC Group, in line with the Declaration issued by LDC Trade Ministers' Meeting on 2 December 2013, emphasized the continuity of EIF beyond its current mandate of 2015 with scaled up support by its relevant partners and adequate fund for its smooth functioning beyond 2015. At the same time, the Bali Ministerial Declaration and Decision has made explicit reference to the EIF on three areas of post‐Bali work, namely, Trade Facilitation, Services Waiver and Cotton.

12. These TOR are for undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of the EIF. The evaluation will focus

on assessing the results and impact achieved by the EIF programme, providing feedback, sharing lessons learned and promoting accountability in programme delivery, implementation and management through a global assessment of the EIF processes and operations.

II. RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

A. Rationale

13. Evaluation is an integral part of EIF programme implementation and management and an

important phase in the programme cycle. Moreover, the results‐based management nature of the programme requires that it is evaluated after five years to take stock of the results achieved and identify lessons learned. Accordingly, the evaluation is requested by the EIF Donors and endorsed by the EIF Board.

B. Objectives

14. The main purpose of the evaluation is to undertake an independent, systematic and objective

assessment of the programme’s implementation with a particular focus on the results and impact achieved by the EIF programme over its five‐year implementation span and to identify lessons learned, which would inform the design of the second phase, if a second phase is to be pursued. The evaluation will assess progress made against project (i.e., country‐level) outcomes and how these are contributing to the achievement of the overall programme objectives. The evaluation will also aim to identify lessons learned, challenges and opportunities and capture


62

success stories from implementing the EIF for future strategic programming. The evaluation will build on, and not replicate, the analysis done by the Mid‐term Review (MTR).

15. The specific objectives of the evaluation are:

a. To analyze results achieved so far against the programme's goal, purpose and outcomes

including sustainability of results and potential impacts of programme objectives;

b. To assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impacts and sustainability of the EIF programme at the global (programme) level, country (project) level and the intersection between project and programme levels, including a full evaluation of the EIF's operation systems and structures and how the MTR recommendation for tailored support have been taken forward, as well as project and financial management processes;

c. To consider the EIF governance structure, in particular the ES structure, adequacy of

staff resources and support provided to EIF countries; and national structures, embedding of trade in national development strategies, impact and private sector engagement; and

d. To analyze the continued validity of the programme objectives and the consistency of its

interventions and strategy, noting the strengths, weaknesses and potential for another phase, in the evolving development and AfT context, in contributing to the general goal of inclusive growth, poverty reduction and sustainable development.

III. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

A. Scope

16. The evaluation will assess all elements of the programme design, implementation, management

and administration at each of the levels of the EIF – global programme level, country project level and alignment/intersection between the two. The evaluation will cover the processes and operations of the EIF programme. The evaluation of processes will assess the effectiveness of the management and governance of the EIF. In so doing, it will situate the EIF in the context of the wider AfT initiative. The evaluation will involve an assessment of administrative processes related to programme delivery, the project approval process and timeline in the project cycle, while considering roles, responsibilities and decision‐making processes. The evaluation of operations will look at the overall contribution of the EIF to the performance of LDCs and assess the extent to which results have been achieved. In addition, the broader role of the EIF in supporting the identification of trade priorities and mobilization of resources for AfT will be analyzed. It is worth noting that through trade mainstreaming, the EIF is intended to be catalytic and to stimulate investment by the country, development partners, and the private sector, and therefore lead to an improvement in the enabling climate for trade and private sector development.

17. The evaluation is expected to lead to detailed recommendations and lessons learned for future

programming. It will cover the period from the beginning of the operations in 2008 to the


63

present. It should build on and add value to the recently concluded mid‐term review, without unnecessary duplication. The evaluation will start in May 2014 and is projected to end in November 2014, with a draft report to be presented to the EIF Board and EIF stakeholders in October 2014.

B. Methodology

18. The evaluation will be conducted following the OECD‐Development Assistance Committee (DAC)

criteria for development effectiveness (relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability). The evaluation will do a detailed analysis of a representative group of EIF operations at country level to assess results and the impact of support received. The information will be both quantitative and qualitative in nature.

19. The evaluation will be guided by these TOR and an Inception Report, which will specify the

detailed evaluation questions and methodology. The Inception Report should aim to validate the quality of evidence available at country level i.e. test whether the country level logframes are good to use for contribution analysis; bidders should plan on the assumption that in the majority of countries strong logframes and well‐established and operational monitoring systems might not be in place. The proposed methodology should set out how it would address any weaknesses in quality of evidence or monitoring systems at country level. The Inception Report will be approved by the EIF Board or a committee designated by the EIF Board for the purpose.

20. In considering the Inception Report, the EIF Board will assess the quality of the methodology

proposed by the bidders in line with the following criteria:

1) Suggested approach to assess the linkages between the global and country levels. 2) Development and refinement of the evaluation questions. 3) The sampling approach to select country case studies. 4) Proposed generalization from country level case study evidence. 5) The overall analytical approach and the basis that will be used for judging performance under the individual evaluation questions. 6) The evaluation quality standards that will be used internally. 7) An assessment of data quality, especially at country level, and an outline of how any limitations in data will be addressed. 8) The limitations of the methodology proposed and how bidders would propose to manage any risks.

21. The evaluation will consist of a mix of desk‐based evaluation and fieldwork. It should include,

but not be limited to the following:

a) Document review

Familiarization with key documents (published and unpublished in English and French) including documents evaluating the IF and establishing the EIF; the MTR report; the 2014 Review of EIF TFM Operating Tools and Procedures; the ES/TFM progress reports; the Compendium of EIF Documents, which includes guidelines on the Tier 1 and Tier 2 project preparation and the programme‐level M&E logframes; internal ES/TFM operational documents; processes and templates; and other relevant EIF documents (capacity‐building modules, outreach and counsel


64

materials, proceedings of EIF meetings, workshops, conferences and policy documents). A list of the documents and copies will be made available to the winning bidder.

b) Portfolio review

This will involve an analysis of Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects that are being implemented since the first rollout of projects in July 2009. The analysis will involve a study of the project proposals and corresponding ES/TFM appraisals, ES/TFM recommendations to the EIF Board, project progress reports and ES/TFM mission reports. c) Stakeholder interviews and consultations

It will involve consultations and interviews with members of the EIF governance structure at both the global level (including, but not limited to the EIF Donor constituency and Donor EIF Board Members, the LDC Constituency and LDC EIF Board members, EIF Core and Partner Agencies (IMF, ITC, UNCTAD, UNDP, the World Bank and WTO), those with observer status at the EIF Board (UNIDO) and close collaborators (UNWTO), other agencies working on similar issues (e.g., regional development banks, regional economic commissions, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat), think tanks working on LDC as well as AfT issues, the Chairman of the EIF Board, the Chairperson of the EIF Steering Committee, the Executive Secretariat for the EIF (ES) and the EIF Trust Fund Manager (TFM) and the country‐level stakeholders. d) Country‐level evaluation

The evaluation will include the assessment of EIF activities in selected countries, guided by the same criteria as the overall evaluation (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact) and looking at coordination with and/or links to other trade‐related assistance (TRA) in the countries. This will entail consultation and interviews with selected members of the EIF governance structure at the country level, including EIF Donor Facilitators and relevant ES/TFM staff in order to provide an in‐depth analysis of project activities and results obtained in the selected EIF beneficiary countries. The validated logical framework at the programme and country levels, including agreed outcomes and indicators, and the baseline data will be used as essential building blocks.

e) Criteria for the selection of countries

The selection of countries will be based on desk evaluations and influenced by the stage of implementation of the projects, geographic/regional distribution and language and different development factors, such as land‐locked economies or small island developing states.

22. The proposed selection of countries for the country case studies will be included in the Inception Report by the winning bidder, clearly documenting through theory the criteria for the proposed sample selection.


65

IV. EVALUATION QUESTIONS

23. The evaluation questions must focus the scope of the evaluation on a number of key points that allow more targeted data collection, more in‐depth analysis and a more useful report. It is important to ensure that the answers to the questions are useful and the questions pertain to the evaluation and are linked to the intervention logic and the evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact of the EIF. Although the consultants will define the precise questions in the Inception Report, indicative areas that the evaluation team should use as a starting point are as follows:

A. Relevance 1) Do the EIF interventions correspond to the trade needs of LDCs? 2) How relevant is the EIF to the contemporary context of the AfT initiative in LDCs? 3) Have new multilateral, regional and bilateral trade initiatives impacted the relevance of the EIF to LDCs? B. Effectiveness 1) Have the EIF objectives been achieved? What role have external factors played? 2) How adequate are the outcomes and indicators in responding to the EIF strategic priorities and achieving programme objectives? 3) How effective is the EIF M&E system in measuring progress towards achieving EIF objectives? C. Efficiency 1) Has the implementation of the EIF made effective use of time and resources toward achieving results at policy development (i.e. mainstreaming in development strategy), programmatic and fiduciary levels? 2) What factors, at programme and project levels, influence delivery and implementation of the EIF? 3) How responsive has the management of the EIF (through the EIF Governance structure) been to the changing needs of the LDCs? D. Sustainability 1) How effective have LDCs been in establishing national ownership? How have in‐country stakeholders been involved in project implementation? 2) Are project results likely to be sustainable? Is there an exit strategy for the actions and resources of the EIF to be followed up with appropriate government actions/strategies after the project ends? 3) Are the government and partners likely to maintain the human, financial and institutional resources of the project once external support ends? E. Impact


66

1) Is the EIF making contributions to the overall national goal of inclusive economic growth, sustainable development and poverty reduction through global trade integration of LDCs? 2) Can observed changes in capacities (human, institutional, etc.) at country level be linked to the contribution of the EIF? 3) Can any unintended positive or negative effects be observed as a consequence of the EIF?

24. The consultants are encouraged to adopt the scope and flexibility necessary for developing

thematic areas and questions to be presented in the Inception Report. The questions should also examine implications for any future programming and the extent to which changes in programme strategy and delivery will be required in order to maximize the global trade integration of EIF beneficiary countries and meet other development objectives at the country level. The global logframe (attached at Annex 2) should be the basis for the evaluators to articulate the intervention logic of the EIF. This should be part of the Inception Report and it should be clear that the detailed evaluation questions have been elaborated from the intervention logic. The consultants are expected to produce an evaluation matrix as a component of the Inception Report.

V. OVERVIEW OF TASKS

A. Develop and present an Inception Report that would include the following elements:

a. Objectives and scope of the evaluation; b. Description and justification of proposed methodology; c. Key stakeholders to be consulted/interviewed in the evaluation process; d. Evaluation questions in the form of an evaluation matrix; e. Issues to be studied at the three levels (global (programme), country level and the intersection between the two) and proposed structure of the final Evaluation Report; f. Potential risks and challenges for the evaluation identified. g. Plan of work including timelines; and h. Annexes.

B. Review published and unpublished EIF materials, including the EIF MTR, the 2014 Review of EIF TFM Operating Tools and Procedures, proceedings of EIF meetings, workshops, conferences, capacity‐development modules and reports (see Annex 1 for a list of documents);

C. Review the programme M&E framework and assess its suitability for achieving the programme objectives;

D. Conduct a desk review of the portfolio of all EIF projects (including pre‐DTIS, DTIS, and DTISU Tier 1 and Tier 2);

E. Undertake field visits to countries for case studies and an in‐depth analysis of project delivery and management as well as to conduct consultation meetings and interviews with selected members of the EIF governance structure, partner agencies, and other in‐country stakeholders, including the private sector, academia and think tanks;


67

F. Undertake field visits and/or conduct telephone interviews with other agencies and organizations that are not directly inside the institutional ambit of the EIF; G. Submit an evaluation progress report to the EIF Board so progress and quality of the evaluation are discussed;

I. Conduct overall analytical work of the evaluation to develop and write a draft final report covering programme management and delivery, best practice, lessons learned and recommendations for delivering EIF activities in a results‐based management approach; J. Present the draft final report to the EIF Board and stakeholders for comments; and K. Revise and finalize the Evaluation Report after incorporating comments and feedback from the EIF Board and other stakeholders.

25. These tasks are indicative for understanding the evaluation. They will be adjusted and

elaborated in the consultants' Inception Report and as agreed upon by the EIF Board.

VI. MANAGING THE EVALUATION A. Role of the EIF Board

26. As the decision‐making body for operation and financial oversight and policy direction, the EIF

Board has overall responsibility for the evaluation. The consultants will report directly to the EIF Board for overall guidance on the substance and content of the evaluation. The EIF Board will advise on the context and content of the evaluation and oversee the work of the consultants. Oversight will take place through: EIF Board approval of the Inception Report, including the evaluation questions; commenting on the Evaluation Report in order to assess progress against the assignment; receipt of the final draft Evaluation Report; and submission of comments to the consultants on the final draft Evaluation Report.

B. Role of the ES and the TFM

27. The evaluation will be task‐managed by the ES in collaboration with the TFM. This role includes

managing the administrative aspects of the evaluation process: ensuring that the consultants deliver agreed outputs by the given timelines; following up with consultants to ensure that the EIF Board's instructions/views/comments are acted upon; acting as the main point of contact for the consultants for providing background information, documents, contacts and if necessary, coordinating trips, setting up meetings as required and other logistical support. The ES will also prepare for EIF Board discussions of the evaluation process.

VII. TIMEFRAME AND EVALUATION DELIVERABLES A. Timeframe

28. The evaluation is projected for a period of seven months starting in May 2014 and ending in

November 2014.


68

B. Evaluation deliverables63

29. The evaluation deliverables should include:

1) Inception Report (16 May 2014); 2) Evaluation progress update (30 July 2014); 3) Draft final Evaluation Report for discussion (1 October 2014); 4) Final Evaluation Report (28 November 2014);

30. In order to ensure that the final report considers the views of the parties concerned and is

properly understood, it is required that:

a) An evaluation progress update to verify progress and quality of the evaluation is submitted to the EIF Board through the ES by the end of July 2014. b) The draft Evaluation Report, especially the main conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned of the evaluation are presented to, and discussed with, the EIF Board and EIF stakeholders through the ES in October 2014; c) Comments made by all parties during the presentation and discussion are duly considered for incorporation into the final Evaluation Report; d) The consultants keep track of the comments during the reporting period and prepare a matrix of all comments and solutions applied as an annex to the final Evaluation Report; e) It is essential that the final Evaluation Report is succinct and focuses on analysis rather than lengthy descriptions. It should provide clear, justified conclusions and recommendations and be written in a clear and understandable manner; f) The final Evaluation Report should be submitted electronically to the EIF Board through the ES within four weeks after the presentation and receipt of all comments.

VIII. EVALUATION CONSULTANCY TEAM AND COMPETENCIES A. The team

31. The evaluation will require the services of a team of consultants, led by a distinguished and experienced team leader. The team shall have the following experience and skills:

Extensive M&E experience of trade and development issues and programmes in the area of AfT programming;

In‐depth knowledge of programme formulation, delivery and coordination processes and issues;

Proven experience with, and institutional knowledge of, multi‐donor and multi‐country programming;

In‐depth understanding of the situations of LDCs in relation to AfT and in relation to programme implementation in key sectors, such as agriculture, tourism, etc.;

In‐depth knowledge of inter‐agency mechanisms at field level;

Experience in participatory approaches to data collection, including consultation, in‐depth interviews and focus group discussion involving a wide range of organizations and participants;

Proven experience in high‐level data and information analysis techniques; and

63

All deliverables so produced to be submitted in English and French.


69

Excellent writing and communication skills in English and at working level in French for field visits and interviews are essential; Portuguese is an advantage.

B. The Team Leader

32. In accordance with these TOR and the Inception Report (to be produced by the winning bidder), the Team Leader, will be responsible for the overall conduct of the evaluation, including representing the evaluation team in meetings and submitting/presenting all evaluation deliverables in a timely manner. He/she shall have the following skills:

Demonstrable skills (at least 15 years) in managing evaluation teams to deliver quality evaluation products within tight timescales;

Strong skills in applying both qualitative and quantitative techniques to the evaluation of global programmes.

Evaluation experience in AfT contexts and familiarity with AfT programme issues;

Extensive experience working with and in LDCs, whether in M&E or programme management/implementation;

Knowledge of institutional issues related to development programming (including funding and administration and the role of the donors, UN agencies and partnerships);

Experience working with multi‐donor/partner/beneficiary initiatives, including understanding of the political and diplomatic dimensions, and managing a complex evaluation process in that context;

Proficiency in the English or French language and a good command of the other;

Team leadership and management, interpersonal/communication skills; and

Post‐graduate degree in trade, development, M&E or related field. C. The Team Member(s)

33. Noting that the team composition should adequately reflect the constituencies of the EIF, the

key qualifications for team member(s) are as follows:

Knowledge in trade and development issues of LDCs, including different programmes of support to LDC trade and development agendas at global, regional and country levels;

Strong data collection skills with focus on trade issues;

Demonstrated skills in conducting evaluations of AfT and/or development programmes in sectors such as agriculture and tourism in LDCs;

Considerable and demonstrated experience working with and in LDCs in programme management and implementation;

English and French language skills essential; Portuguese is an advantage;

Team work and interpersonal communication skills and strong commitment to undertake the evaluation; and

Post‐graduate degree in trade, development, M&E or related field.

IX. SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL – SELECTION PROCESS

34. Please refer to the letter of invitation for further details on the administrative procedure – Submissions of proposals.


70

35. Technical proposals should contain the following elements:

a) Introduction (which must demonstrate a clear understanding of the EIF and the general expectations of the evaluation); b) Interpretation and understanding of the detailed requirements of the evaluation (which must demonstrate a clear understanding of the TOR); c) Proposed approach and methodology for the evaluation, focusing on all identified objectives, including the "non‐tangible" objective of promoting accountability, lesson‐learning, feedback and knowledge‐sharing among EIF stakeholders (taking into account that details will only be worked out during the inception stage for documentation in the Inception Report) ; d) Proposed work plan for the evaluation (start and end dates; proposed dates for important meetings, processes and deliverables; division of days per task and consultant); e) Detailed profile of the service provider, highlighting expertise and experience relevant to the evaluation of the EIF (statement of capability); f) Details of the proposed team for the evaluation and the division of roles, responsibilities (short profiles highlighting relevant qualifications, expertise and experience – full CVs should be attached as annexes).

36. The Technical proposals will be evaluated on the basis of criteria which are listed in Annex II of

the letter of Invitation.

37. The Financial proposals will follow the matrix provided in Annex III of the letter of Invitation.

X. PROTOCOL-INCEPTION REPORT

38. After the selection of the consultants, they will be briefed and asked to provide an Inception Report within four weeks of signing a protocol (see Annex 3 Protocol template)

39. The Protocol will set forth the conditions under which the inception report shall be prepared

and submitted.

40. The final number of countries to be selected for the evaluation will be set at inception phase.

41. The Inception Report should provide information on the precise objectives of the evaluation, the scope, key stakeholders and methodology. The Inception Report will then be evaluated by the ES/TFM and submitted for approval by the EIF Board. Once an agreement has been reached on the Inception Report, the final contract will be signed and the evaluation team will be asked to begin its implementation.

XI. MILESTONE PAYMENT SCHEDULE

Milestone payable Payment (excl VAT)

Upon contract signature- Inception Report accepted

15%

Upon acceptance of Evaluation progress 35%


71

update

Draft final report 35% Upon acceptance of Final Report 15%

XII. CONFLICT OF INTEREST

42. The consultants leading the evaluation shall be independent and shall respect ethical standards with respect to conflict of interest, confidentiality and transparency. Consultants having worked with the EIF programme are kindly requested not to submit a proposal. This is applicable regardless of whether the work was on M&E, project development or other strategic activities. Any potential conflict of interest (actual or perceived) should be disclosed in the submission documents.

XIII. ANNEXES TO THE TOR

A. Annex 1

List of Documents for the evaluation 1 UNOPS bid 2 ES and TFM annual progress reports to the EIF Board 3 TFM Capacity Assessment Reports (as submitted to the EIF Board) 4 Samples of TFM Mission Reports (start‐up facilitation phase, supervision) 5 EIF TFM financial reports, pledges 6 Sample of reports received from LDCs (financial, narrative, audit reports) 7 Template of a legal agreement with LDCs and sample agreement and annexes 8 Partnership agreements with EIF Agencies 9 Template of contribution agreement and standard provisions with EIF Donors 10 EIF Compendium and new EIF policies (i.e., on M&E, Tier 1 extension, feasibility studies 12 EIF Board meeting minutes 13 EIF Steering Committee meeting minutes 14 ES Recommendations Memoranda 16 Other evaluation reports (i.e., Norad, 2003 Evaluation, UNDP IF Reports – overall and

country‐specific) 17 Approved EIF project documents (Pre‐DTIS, Tier 1, Tier 2, DTIS and DTISU) 18 DTIS/DTISU‐related documentation 19 EIF Workshop reports 20 ES mission reports/back‐to‐office reports 21 ES communications documents (EIF press releases, external press releases and articles,

brochures, Country Profiles, ES statements and ES presentations, etc.) 22 Official statements by LDCs/Donors on the EIF as part of international meetings (i.e., LDC

meetings, Ministerial meetings, etc.) 23 Current country Tier 1 logframes and Tier 2 project logframes 24 EIF Strategic Action Plan 25 EIF Board Chairman's report to the EIF Steering Committee 26 AfT EIF case stories, evaluations from EIF regional workshops, EIF references in the Istanbul

Programme of Action and Political Declaration as well as Ministerial Decisions from MC8


72

27 EIF briefings for the Committee on Trade and Development, the LDC Sub‐Committee, WTO annual reports, donor and agency and LDC bilateral meeting briefs (2010‐2012)

28 EIF film ('Trade works' – short and long versions) and Trading Stories 29 EIF concept notes, programmes, communiqués and EIF statements of high‐level events,

including UN LDC‐IV, AfT Global Evaluation, MC8, UNCTAD XIII (and EIF gallery and LDC trade exhibition info)

30 EIF Trading Stories material under production: eight country book and film chapters –including audio‐visual interviews with key stakeholders (early versions to follow in the coming months

31 Draft EIF communications strategy; pilot EIF communications training outline and training materials, including sample responses on EIF country communications strategies

32 Sample of EIF communications strategies developed; sample of EIF country publications (newsletters, trade magazines, brochures, websites); sample of EIF communications survey responses

33 EIF country profiles, EIF global and national press releases (including samples of national media coverage of the EIF – print and audio‐visual), articles, EIF brochures and flyers

34 Consultancy reports 35 M&E Small Group reports 36 EIF website (contains overview and useful links to key documents) 37 Capacity‐building documents 38 Documents relating to partnership activities 39 Task force report 40 A Situation Report of the EIF's Second Year of Operation 41 EIF Mid‐Term Report 42 EIF Follow‐up action to the Mid‐Term Report and EIF Board retreat B. Annex 2

Enhance Integrated Framework Program level logframe http://www.enhancedif.org/en/document/new-compendium-eif-documents

C. Annex 3

Sample of Protocol for the Inception Report


73

Annex 2 – Overview of Evaluation Methodology The Terms of Reference (Annex 1) and the approved Inception Report guided the evaluation. The Inception Report outlined in detail the multi-prong approach that was taken to the evaluation. A rigorous and tested methodology was used that has worked well in complex global evaluations undertaken previously by the Consultant. This involved a mixed method approach, combining quantitative and qualitative sources and techniques, and cross-checking and triangulating findings from multiple sources. The ToR indicated that the evaluation was to build on, and not replicate, the analysis done by the Mid‐Term Review (MTR) in 2012 and the recently completed review of the Trust Fund Manager’s (TFM) operating tools and procedures. Where possible, this was done. The major steps in the evaluation are outlined below. For the complete methodology, refer to the Inception Report.64 The management of the evaluation followed strict quality assurance guidelines as outlined in the Inception Report. The Team was highly qualified and consisted of: J. Denis Belisle; Guy D. Bird; Rafael del Cid; Mary M. Lynch; Youssef Ouadi; Gunter Rochow; Alan Smith; and Ken Sunquist. The team had extensive experience in trade issues and advanced conceptual, methodological, and analytical skills required for a multi-country programme such as the EIF. Evaluability Assessment An evaluability assessment focused on whether an evaluation was justified at this time and whether it was feasible and likely to provide useful information beyond what was in the Mid-Term Review. The focus was on assessing the extent to which changes had been made since the MTR that would allow this current evaluation to provide additional insights on the added value and impact of the EIF. Over the past two years the number of Tier 1 and tier 2 projects approved has accelerated. This expanded pool allowed a more complete look at the approach to and results emerging from the EIF work. Monitoring and evaluation frameworks are now being used more extensively at the country level. The conclusion of the evaluability assessment was that the changes since the MTR warranted a new evaluation that could focus on the progress being made. The assessment assisted in guiding the development and review of the evaluation questions and the methodology needed to answer these questions. Evaluation Questions and Matrix The ToR suggested some evaluation questions as a starting point. These were revised slightly to more precisely define the focus for the evaluation. From this, a detailed evaluation design matrix was developed and included in the Inception Report. It contained detailed evaluation questions, sub-questions and data sources. The evaluation matrix clearly outlined the areas for investigation and guided the evaluation throughout the process. It showed where both quantitative and qualitative information would be gathered to address specific areas including cause and effect questions. The matrix was used as the basis for collecting, organizing and analyzing the evidence from all streams of investigation. NVivo software was the platform used to classify, sort and arrange

64

Capra International Inc. in partnership with the Trade Facilitation Office Canada. June 14, 2014. “Evaluation of the Enhanced Integrated Framework: Inception Report.” Submitted to and approved by the EIF Board.


74

information as it was collected according to the evaluation matrix. This software facilitated the examination of relationships in the data including identifying trends. The analysis and synthesis of information was done around the evaluation matrix questions. Document Review The ES and TFM forwarded over 1,300 documents as background for the evaluation. This covered the categories of documents from the ToR as well as others that were specifically requested by the Consultant. The overall content of the documents was reviewed and placed into categories. A number of filters were used to sort the documents which resulted in a selection of approximately 200 documents to be reviewed in more depth. A coding structure was developed to allow consistent and comprehensive reviews of documents. The coding grid was structured around the evaluation matrix mentioned above and categorized information. Review of Portfolio and Logframes A systematic portfolio review was undertaken that focused on two areas. First, a profile of the portfolio was developed that provided information on patterns and trends in the funding, use and distribution of Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects since 2008. Second, the range and average of time required to move through different stages under the programme was assessed. The MTR contained an analysis up to August 20, 2012. The current evaluation updated this information providing new analysis on overall average times required since 2008 and the trends in the last two years. From this information, an overview of the portfolio was developed that is contained in the evaluation along with an analysis of approval and implementation rates of the DTIS and DTIS Updates. In addition, the multi-level programme logframe was analyzed to allow a look at progress at the individual country level as well as the overall programme level. This was done through discussions at the programme and country level, review of reports and documents such as Mid-term Evaluations conducted and review of the EIF database on results at both the country and programme level. The information gathered was synthesized based on the M&E framework. Emphasis was placed on reviewing the extent to which the M&E system in place is functioning well and effectively providing a means to measure progress. This analysis provided a backdrop for analyzing the results that were emerging and was validated during the country visits and through interviews. Interviews, Survey and Country Visits A number of techniques were used to obtain feedback from key stakeholders. A total of over 450 people were consulted during the evaluation as shown in Annex 3. These covered a range of groups including: LDCs; Core and Partner Agencies and Observers; Donor Agencies; EIF Board and Steering Committee; ES and TFM Staff; and Country Level Partners. A methodology was developed to obtain feedback from the stakeholders that consisted of three approaches: one-on-one interviews in Geneva and by telephone; a survey; and 15 country visits that included both one-on-one interviews as well as focus groups. The in-person and telephone interviews were conducted with: Core and Partner agencies; Observers; Donors on the Board and Steering Committee; Board and Steering Committee members; and ES and TFM staff. An interview guide was developed to identify which questions were to be directed to each group of interviewees so feedback can be obtained on all the evaluation issues.


75

An on-line survey was administered in four languages. A total of 213 invitations to the survey were sent out, with 88 people completing the survey, resulting in a 41% response rate. The respondents were asked to self-identify by category. The following is the list of responses from various groups.

Category Number of Respondents % of Total Respondents

Focal Points 19 22%

NIU staff 29 33%

NSC 1 1%

Private Sector 1 1%

Donors 17 19%

Donor Facilitators 12 14%

Board, Steering Committee, Executive Secretariat, Trust Fund Manager (and staff)65

4 5%

Other partners such as other multilateral institutions not participating

3 3%

Others 2 2%

Total 88

The country-level visits provided a method to probe more deeply into the EIF programme and test ideas and information gained. These reviews were particularly important given the wide range of EIF Countries and their varying conditions. Information was gathered on all the evaluation issues from the country’s perspective. In order to maximize the information gathered during the visits, a range of factors were included in the sampling approach to select the 15 countries. These included the following aspects.

Stage of implementation of the projects including number of Tier projects approved, number and budget of Tier 2 projects, main implementing agencies and sectors covered by Tier 2 projects. The desire was to get a cross section of experience across these factors to review different stages and partner agencies. Countries that had not moved beyond their DTIS stage, however, were selected for receiving the survey not a site visit since little information could be obtained on projects.

Geographic and regional distribution to ensure that all regions were represented proportionally in the sample. The sampling technique resulted in geographic representation of the sample that is similar to overall EIF country pool.

Language was factored in to ensure a mix and balance across the sample. The pool had: 1 Arabic speaking country; 5 French; 4 English; 2 Portuguese; and 3 other languages (Lao, Dhivehi and Nepali).

A cross section of development factors were targeted such as whether the country was a small island or landlocked.

65

Those invited for the survey only included individuals who had not been interviewed in person or by phone.


76

Economic prospects were considered for having a balanced review to factor in the current and future economic prospects of the country. A cross-section of weaker and stronger economies was selected.

One graduated country was included to assess the transition period from EIF support. The sampling method resulted in the following countries being selected:

Asia - Lao PDR, Maldives, Nepal

Middle East -Yemen

Africa - Burkina Faso; Burundi The Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Malawi, Mozambique, Senegal and Uganda

Americas - Haiti

Pacific - Solomon Islands These fifteen countries represent 33% of the total 45 EIF countries and 41% of those that have received Tier 1 NIA Support. The country visits covered a range of EIF key stakeholders including members of the EIF governance structure, government officials, private sector, civil society and donor facilitator. Systematic Analysis, Report Writing and Finalization Reconciling the various perceptions on the EIF across evidence streams was important in order to ensure that a balanced review was done and various perspectives were taken into account. A number of techniques were used to ensure the veracity of the analysis. Using the evaluation matrix, the key findings were identified and reconfirmed in terms of the evidence found. Full triangulation and validation of findings was undertaken from all sources including the documents, portfolio analyses, interviews, survey and country visits. The different perspectives and views that emerge from these were brought together and triangulated. No conclusions were based on only one opinion or the experience of one country. The draft evaluation report went through an initial internal peer review process that included all evaluation team members as well as outside trade experts familiar with LDCs and the global trading regime. Revisions were made to the report to ensure that the findings were clear and based on sound evidence prior to the submission to the EIF Board. The revised report was then forwarded to the EIF Board, via the ES, on October 1 2014. A total of eleven donors, four core agencies, the LDC Group, five individual LDCs, the ES and the TFM provided feedback on the draft report. This feedback was further discussed at an EIF Board meeting on October 30, 2014. The comments received were reviewed at the meeting. Changes have been made to the draft report to reflect questions and issues raised by the reviewers. The final report reflects these adjustments. Risks and Limitations During the development of the Inception Report, a number of potential risks were identified and mitigation strategies were developed to deal with them. Some of the risks proved unimportant such as the need to cancel country visits due to increased security within the country (e.g., Yemen). Others posed some challenges.


77

The primary limitation faced by the evaluation team was the shortness of the time available for the review and for the NIUs in the countries visited to confirm the arrangements for the visits. The contract was signed on July 3 2014 and the first draft evaluation was to be produced for October 1 2014. The complexity of the EIF programme meant that this timeframe was short, particularly given the extent and number of the country visits to be made. A trip to Geneva and fifteen country visits needed to be coordinated between July and September. Prior to the trips the document review and preliminary analysis needed to be completed. The timing of the work also complicated the evaluation. Administering the survey during August was difficult since many individuals were away from their offices. Similar problems were seen with the country visits where some individuals were on leave during the mission. The design of the methodology took these factors into account, however, and the Team was able to implement it in an efficient manner. The wide variation of experiences across EIF countries had to be factored into the analysis. The conditions within countries and their progress under the EIF varied extensively. This variation meant that the evaluation needed to identify how the various experiences fit into the programme and what they said about the EIF model, the conditions that influence its implementation and the ways to tailor the programme to local needs. After the visits, the Team reviewed in detail the information coming from the visits and other lines of evidence and identified broader patterns that were fed into the analysis.


78

Annex 3 – List of People Consulted Donor Representatives

Donors Name

Australia Ming Toh

Australia Matthew Harding

Australia Phanthakone Champasith

Canada Ralph Osterwoldt

Denmark Christian Bundegaard

Denmark H.E. Bocar Dit Siré Ba

Denmark Birte Torp Pedersen

European Union Ursula Hoenich

European Union Cline Prud'homme Madsen

European Union Milika Kalyati

European Union Khankeo Moonvong

European Union Maria.L. Troncoso

European Union Alberto Menghini

European Union Nawal Merabet

European Union Marga Peeters

Finland H.E. Ms. Päivi Kairamo (EIF Steering Committee Chair)

Finland Katja Karppinen-Njock

Finland Antti Piispanen

Finland Kent Wilska

France Elodie Macias

France Katja Karppinen-Njock

France Bruno Deprince

Germany Annette Chammas

Germany Michael Troester

Germany Jacqueline Groth

Korea Yunseon Choi

Netherlands H.E. David Quenum

Norway Benedicte Fleischer

Norway Carlos Maie

Saudi Arabia Fahad A. Alnowaiser

Spain María Villota Vaquero

Sweden H.E. Mr. Joakim Reiter

Sweden Oscar Ekeus

Sweden Olov Atterfors

Sweden Olov Atterfors

Turkey H.E. Ergin Soner

United Kingdom Eva Corral

United Kingdom Keith Thompson

United Kingdom Adaeze Igboemeka

United Kingdom Kebur Azbaha

United States Elizabeth G. Branson

United States Mobido Traoré


79

Core Agencies, Observers and Other Multilaterals

Agency Name

Core Agencies

ITC Arancha Gonzalez

ITC Dorothy Tembo

ITC Ashish Shah (EIF Board Member)

UNDP Luisa Bernal (EIF Board Member)

UNDP Patrick Tuimalealiifano

UNDP M. Harbi Omar Chirdon

UNDP Osmar Ferro

UNDP Manuel Duarte Felipe

UNDP Abdou Salam Thiam

UNDP Younoussa Traore

UNDP Hervé Kouraogo

UNDP Bushra Al-Shirae

UNDP Caroline Lensing-Hebben

UNDP Walid Ahmed Abdu Ali

UNDP Wilson Kwamya

UNDP Cinzia Tecce

UNCTAD Stefano Inama

UNCTAD Taffere Tesfachew (EIF Board member)

World Bank Marcus Bartley Johns

World Bank Carmen Pereira

World Bank Mombert Hoppe

World Bank Priscilla F. Kandoole

World Bank Richard Record

WTO Yonov Fred Agah

WTO Annet Blank (EIF Board member)

WTO Michael Roberts

Observers

UNIDO Bernardo Calzadilla

UNIDO Jaime Comiche

UNWTO Zoritsa Urosevic

Other Partners

African Development Bank Moono Mupotola


80

ES and TFM

Name Position Agency

Bernhard Schlacter Executive Officer EIF TFM

Jean-Francois Delteil Program Officer EIF TFM

Mohammed Nasser Administrative & Finance EIF TFM

Sonia Varga Regional Portfolio Manager EIF TFM

Bonaventure Boulali Traore Senior Regional Portfolio Manager

EIF TFM

Eric-Olivier Benoliel Regional Portfolio Manager EIF TFM

Mani Ratnasabapathy Regional Portfolio Manager EIF TFM

Ratnakar Adhikari Executive Director EIF Executive Secretariat

James Edwin Coordinator, Monitoring and Evaluation

EIF Executive Secretariat

Mario Musa Head of Communications EIF Executive Secretariat

Justine Namara Communications Officer EIF Executive Secretariat

Christiane Kraus Chief Coordinator EIF Executive Secretariat

Jonathan Werner Coordinator EIF Executive Secretariat

Hang Tran Coordinator EIF Executive Secretariat

Simon Hess Coordinator EIF Executive Secretariat

Mbaye Ndiaye Coordinator EIF Executive Secretariat

LDCs

Country Name Affiliation

Geneva Based

Ethiopia H.E. Mr. Minelik Alemu Getahun

Ambassador of Ethiopia EIF Board Chair

Uganda H.E. Christopher Onyanga Aparr

Permanent Representative of Uganda to the United Nations in Geneva

Uganda Mr. Michael Wamai, First Secretary

First Secretary

Country Level

Afghanistan Naqib Ahmadzai NIU National Trade Expert

Bangladesh Amitava Chakraborty Ministry of Commerce EIF Focal Point

Benin Euloge Houngbo NIU Coordinator

Bhutan Pema Thinley NIU Coordinator

Bhutan Tshewang Choki EIF NIU Team

Burkina Faso M. Nazaire Pare Ministry of Industry, Trade and Handicrafts EIF Focal Point

Burkina Faso Sériba Ouattara NIU Coordinator

Burkina Faso Jules Djiguemde EIF NIU Team

Burkina Faso Soulemane Sodre EIF NIU Team

Burkina Faso Gueswindé Paulin Zambelongo EIF NIU Team

Burkina Faso Bernard Zougouri Ministry of Industry, Trade and Handicrafts


81


Burkina Faso Denise Bouda Ministry of Transport, Post and Digital Economy

Burkina Faso Lassané Kabore Ministry of Economy and Finance

Burkina Faso Marcel Sinka Ministry of Trade

Burkina Faso Dr. Siaka Kone GIZ

Burkina Faso Jules Some GIZ

Burkina Faso Rodolphe Djiguimde GIZ

Burkina Faso Moumini Ouedraogo Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security

Burkina Faso Djibril Boundi Export Promotion Agency

Burkina Faso Yaya Ba Export Promotion Agency

Burkina Faso Ismael T. Sawadogo House of the Company of Burkina Faso

Burkina Faso Mamadou Ouattara Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Burkina Faso Focus Group Ministry of Trade

Burkina Faso Focus Group EIF Beneficiaries

Burkina Faso Focus Group Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security

Burundi Jérémie Banigwaninzigo Ministry of Trade EIF Focal Point

Burundi Léonard Ntibagirirwa NIU Coordinator

Burundi François-Xavier Nsabimana EIF NIU Team

Burundi Léopold Bizindavyi EIF NIU Team

Burundi Marie Rose Nizigiyimana Ministry of Trade, Industry, Posts and Tourism

Burundi Amb. Edonias Niyongabo Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development

Burundi Christian Nkengurutse National Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Burundi Denise Nijimbere National Office of Tourism

Burundi Alexandre Ndayishimiye Investment Promotion Agency

Burundi Anthe Vrijland TradeMark EA

Burundi Immaculée Nsengiyumva Burundi Association of Burundi Women Entrepreneurs

Burundi Alice Nibitanga TradeMark EA

Burundi Youssouf Koné Commonwealth Secretariat Hub and Spoke Programme

Burundi Focus group with stakeholders Tier 2 coffee project

Cabo Verde Filomena Victoria Fialho Ministry of Tourism, Industry and Energy NSC Chair and Focal Point

Cambodia Kamrang Tekreh Ministry of Commerce EIF Focal Point

Cambodia Chhieng Pich EIF NIU Team

Central African Republic

Sabine Beret Ministry of Trade and Industry EIF Focal Point

Central African Edmond Mologodo NIU Coordinator


82


Republic

Chad Oumar Abderamane Ministry of Trade and Industry EIF Focal Point

Chad Mahamat T. Saleh NIU Coordinator

Comores Said Ben Ousesni Ministry of Trade EIF Focal Point

Comores Said Abdou Salime NIU Coordinator

Congo, Democratic Rep.

Charles L. Matomina NIU Coordinator

Gambia, The Mumhammadov Lamin Jaiteh NSC Member, Office of the President

Gambia, The Naffie Barry Ministry of Trade, Regional Integration and Employment EIF Focal Point

Gambia, The Bai Ibrahim Jobe NIU Coordinator

Gambia, The Modou Touray EIF NIU Team

Gambia, The Ebrima Sallah Gambia International Airlines

Gambia, The Saloum Malang Gambia International Airlines

Gambia, The Momodou Ceesay Cashew Alliance of Gambia

Gambia, The Abdoulie Khan Agribusiness Services and Producers Association

Gambia, The Njag B. Jawo National Women Farmers’ Association

Gambia, The Ebrima Njie Gambia Groundnut Corporation

Gambia, The Grabriel Gomez Gambia Groundnut Corporation

Gambia, The Buba Jawneh Jawneh & Family Enterprise

Gambia, The Abdourahman Sillah Cashew Gam

Gambia, The Benjamin Roberts Gambian Tourism Board

Gambia, The Sheriffo Bojang Ministry of Agriculture

Gambia, The Sulayman Gaye Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs

Gambia, The Abdoulie Jammeh Ministry of Trade, Regional Integration and Employment

Gambia, The Lamin Dampha Ministry of Trade, Regional Integration and Employment

Gambia, The Mana Mariane National Agriculture Research Institute

Gambia, The Ansumana Jarju National Agriculture Research Institute

Gambia, The Alieu Badou Bobb Association of Small Enterprises in Tourism

Gambia, The Zainab Jallow Food Safety and Quality Authority

Gambia, The Amadou Ceesay Gambia Competition and Consumer Protection Commission

Gambia, The Mariana Fataju Investment and Export Promotion Agency

Guinea Ansoumane Berete NIU Coordinator

Guinea-Bissau Jaimentino Có Ministry of Commerce, Industry


83


and Local Product Valuation EIF Focal Point

Guinea-Bissau Dr. Abbas Djaló NIU Coordinator

Guinea-Bissau Hadiza Djaló EIF NIU Team

Guinea-Bissau Djibi Keita EIF NIU Team

Guinea-Bissau Udédas Djaló EIF NIU Team

Guinea-Bissau Inacio José Da Silva EIF NIU Team

Guinea-Bissau Issa Jandi Ministry of Economy and Finance

Guinea-Bissau Malal Saué Ministry of Fishing

Guinea-Bissau Seco Camará Ministry of Finance

Guinea-Bissau Joao Cassamá Ministry of Economy

Guinea-Bissau Seni Camará Ministry of the Interior

Guinea-Bissau Celestino Correia Ministry of Transportation and Communications

Guinea-Bissau Mauricio Correia de Matos Ministry of Natural Resources

Guinea-Bissau Luis Antonio Có Institute of Agricultural Research

Guinea-Bissau Lassanna Camará LVIA

Guinea-Bissau Jaime Bolex Dowes National Association of Farmers of Guinea-Bissau

Guinea-Bissau Nelson Júlio Badinca Association des Intermédiaires de la GB

Guinea-Bissau Baió Queba N´Djai AIFA PALOP (Non-governmental organization)

Guinea-Bissau Djiba G. Jav DIUNTEC

Guinea-Bissau Braima Intchasso ANIN-GB

Guinea-Bissau Tumani Djatal ANAG

Guinea-Bissau Duarte Hansau AMAE

Guinea-Bissau José Da Silva INPALCOLI

Guinea-Bissau Saliu Bá Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Guinea-Bissau Jan de Barros Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Guinea-Bissau Mamadu Candé Umbrella Organization of CSO

Haiti Henri Robert Severe NIU Coordinator

Haiti Ghisler Dugas Ministry of Trade and Industry EIF Focal Point

Haiti Marc Franck Larose Ministry of Trade and Industry

Haiti Fritz Chéry Ministry of Trade and Industry

Haiti Romy Reggianai Théodat Ministry of Trade and Industry

Haiti Carole Lochard Ministry of Trade and Industry

Haiti Michèle Paultre Ministry of Trade and Industry

Haiti Ijoassin Clermont Ministry of Trade and Industry

Haiti Pascale Théodate Consultant to the Minister of Trade

Haiti Pierre Erold Étienne Ministry of Economy and Finance

Haiti Joseph Roberto Morose National Telecommunications Council

Haiti Huguens Prévilon National Telecommunications


84


Council

Haiti Bernard Craan Private Sector Economic Forum

Haiti Hugues Desgranges National Port Authority

Haiti Jean Carel Delpé National Port Authority

Haiti Pascal Pecos Lundy Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Rural Development

Haiti Chenet St. Vil Office of Coordination and Monitoring Agreements CARICOM, WTO, FTAA

Haiti Jean Hérard Bonnet Ministry of Planning and Foreign Aid

Haiti Daniel Jadotte American Chamber of Commerce in Haiti

Haiti Raymond Lafontant Jr. Private sector

Haiti Four Representatives Ministry of Tourism

Lao PDR Phouvieng Phongsa NIU Coordinator

Lao PDR Franck Caussin Ministry of Industry and Commerce

Lao PDR Sengphanomchone Inthasane EIF NIU Team

Lao PDR Viengxay Praphasiri EIF NIU Team

Lao PDR Somsanith Ninthavong EIF NIU Team

Lao PDR Lattanaphone Vongsouthi EIF NIU Team

Lao PDR S. Phetdaoheuang Ministry Planning & Investment

Lao PDR Sengxay Phousinghoa EIF NIU Team

Lao PDR Suriphaphone Meys EIF NIU Team

Lao PDR Pakou Va Ministry Industry and Commerce

Lao PDR Vilayvanh Bounleuth EIF NIU Team

Lao PDR Amphaphpone Thongsawath EIF NIU Team

Lao PDR Khemmani Pholsena Ministry Industry and Commerce

Lao PDR Viengphone Virvavong Ministry Industry and Commerce

Lao PDR Thongdam Khounouidom Ministry Industry and Commerce

Lao PDR Ms. Viengphone Ministry Industry and Handicraft

Lao PDR Mr. Thongdam Ministry Industry and Handicraft

Lao PDR Mr. Kinon Ministry Industry and Handicraft

Lao PDR Ms. Nisit Ministry of Science & Technology

Lesotho Bokang Montsi NIU Coordinator

Liberia Candace Eastman Ministry of Commerce and Industry EIF Focal Point

Liberia Scholastica N. Nimley EIF NIU Team

Madagascar Andrianina Rajaonarisoa Ministry of Commerce EIF Focal Point

Madagascar Mose Andr Randrianarimanana NIU Coordinator

Malawi Christina Chatima Ministry of Industry and Trade EIF Focal Point

Malawi Joy Hara Ministry of Industry and Trade

Malawi Bridget Chifundo Kauma Ministry of Industry and Trade


85


Malawi Nelson Nsiku Ministry of Industry and Trade

Malawi Alex Namaona Ministry of Agriculture Irrigation and Water Development

Malawi Adwell Zembele Ministry of Finance, Economic Planning and Development

Malawi George Kamba Ministry of Finance, Economic Planning and Development

Malawi Bertrand Khanyizira Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation

Malawi Dr. Regson Chaweza University of Malawi, Economics Department

Malawi Geoffrey Mkandawire National Working Group on Trade Policy

Malawi Maxwell Biwi Malawi Investment and Trade Centre

Malawi Dyborn Chibonga National small farmers association

Malawi Alexander Chikapula National small farmers association

Malawi John McGrath Imani Developments Limited

Malawi Nelson Mkandawire Economics Association of Malawi

Malawi Dalitso Kubalasa Malawi Economic Justice Network

Maldives Yusuf Riza Ministry of Economic Development EIF Focal Point

Maldives Saeeda Umar NIU Coordinator

Maldives Barret Salato Ministry of Economic Development

Maldives Mohamed Saeed Minister of Economic Development

Maldives Ahmed Mohamed Maldives Customs Service

Maldives Abdul Rasheed Ibrahim Maldives Customs Service

Maldives Hassan Zareer Inland Revenue

Maldives Ahmed Ifthikhar Ministry of Economic Development

Maldives Mohamed Riffath Ali National Center for IT

Maldives Ahmed Haleem Ministry of Economic Development

Maldives Ilyas Mohamed Maldives Ports Ltd.

Maldives Mariyam Shabeena Ahmed Food and Drug Authority

Maldives Mujthaba Latheef Maldives Airports Co. Ltd.

Maldives Muna Rasheed Ensis Fisheries Pvt. Ltd.

Maldives Nuha Mohamed Riza EIF Consultant

Maldives Fathimath Ameeza Inland Revenue

Maldives Aas Abdulla Inland Revenue

Maldives Ahemd Faris Maumoon State Minster Economic Development.

Maldives Abdulla Ameen Former State Minister Economic Development

Maldives Hussain Jaleel Civil Aviation Authority


86


Maldives Aiman Ibrahim Inland Revenue

Maldives Riyaz Mansoor Ministry of Economic. Development

Maldives Asima Ibrahim National Center for IT

Maldives Ms. Mariyam Visam Ministry of economic Development

Maldives Muaz Ali Maldives Customs

Maldives Isham Abdul Azeez Health Protection Agency

Maldives Ahmed Shifaz Min Fisheries & Agric.

Maldives Hassan Shifau Min. Foreign Affairs

Maldives Aishath Sahma EIF Consultant – Fair Trade

Maldives Mohamed Faisal Inland Revenue

Maldives Mohamed Siraj Muneer Inland Revenue

Maldives Ismail Nashid Maldives Customs Service

Maldives Abdulla Rasheed Civil Aviation Authority

Maldives Fathulla Jameel Inland Revenue -Audit

Maldives Mohamed Nasru Private Software Developer

Maldives Mohamed Shareef National Center for IT

Maldives Nahiya Mohamed Ministry of Econ. Development

Maldives Ahmed Niyaz Maldives Customs

Maldives Alam Rasheed National Center for IT

Maldives Ahmed Nashid State Trading Org.

Maldives Abdulla Naseer Min Fisheries & Agric.

Maldives Ahmed Ali Inland Revenue

Maldives Sharmeela Abdul Gafoor Inland Revenue

Maldives Sulthan Rasheed Maldives Airport Cargo Services

Maldives Ahmed Zubair Adam Live Abroad Association

Mali Mobido Keita Ministry of Trade Focal Point

Mali Mohamed Sidibé NIU Coordinator

Mali Djibril Sidibé EIF NIU Team

Mali Issoufi Halassi Maiga EIF NIU Team

Mali Dr. Sikoro Keita Consultant and participant in EIF MTR

Mali Sékouba Diarra Ministry of Economy and Finance

Mali Mamadou A. Dembele Secretariat of Aid Harmonization, Ministry of Economy and Finance

Mali Ambassadeur Traoré Safiatou Konaté

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation

Mali Sadio Koly Keita Ministry of Economy and Finance

Mali Moumouni Dembélé and his senior management team

Directorate General, Ministry of Economy and Finance

Mali 8 representatives Mango, gum Arabic and shea butter value chain organizations

Mozambique Calado da Silva Ministry of Industry and Trade EIF Focal Point and NSC Chair

Mozambique Kenn Gunn International Trade Advisor

Mozambique Samuel Zita NIU Team Leader

Mozambique Sabado Matsolo NIU Manager


87


Mozambique Igídio Jossias Ministry of Industry and Trade

Mozambique Agonias Antonio Macia Ministry of Industry and Trade

Mozambique Amilcar Arone Ministry of Planning and Development

Mozambique Ailton Ricardo Caetano Jose Ministry of Finance

Mozambique Orzendio Zimba Private Sector

Mozambique Ambrósio Sitoe Ministry of Transportation and Communications

Mozambique Carlos Immo Ministry of Transportation and Communications

Mozambique Ancieto Pedro Ministry of Transportation and Communications

Mozambique Emilia Thaibarse Ministry of Labour

Mozambique Viriato Tamele Coalition for Economic Justice

Mozambique Melza M. David Centre for Investment Promotion

Mozambique Godinho Alves Centre for Investment Promotion

Mozambique Cesarino Benjamin National Institute for Standards and Quality

Mozambique Sónia D.C.P. Faiie National Institute for Standards and Quality

Mozambique Félix Malate Office for Economic Areas with Accelerated Development

Mozambique Steffen Grammling GIZ

Mozambique Kern Isabella GIZ

Myanmar Nyi Nyi Aung NIU Coordinator

Myanmar Ko Ko Lay EIF NIU Team

Nepal Toya Narayan Gyawali NIU Coordinator

Nepal Prachanda Man Shreshtha Trade Expert - Private

Nepal Ms yam Kumari Khatiwada Ministry of Industry

Nepal Narayan Gopal Malego Ministry Commerce & Supply

Nepal Pradeep Jung Pandey FNCCI –Private Sector

Nepal Jib Raj Koirala Ministry of Finance

Nepal Chabindra Prajuli Ministry Commerce & Supply

Nepal Buddhi Prasad Upadhyaya NECTRADE

Nepal Bigyan Adhikari SEJON- Private Sector

Nepal Pradhumna Raj Pandey Ministry of Agricultural Development

Nepal Shamhu Regmi Ministry of Law and Justice

Nepal Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Thakur National Bureau of Standards & Meteorology

Nepal Phadindra Gautam Ministry of Information & Communications

Nepal Megh Nath Neupane CNI- private Sector

Nepal Vijaya Dugadh Nepal Pashmina Industries Association

Nepal Puspaman Shrestha Nepal Pashmina Industries Association

Nepal Dr Posh Raj Pandey SWATEE- Private sector


88


Nepal Shankar Das Bairagi Ministry Foreign Affairs

Nepal Rajesh Kaji Shrestha Chamber of Commerce

Nepal Rajan Khanal Ministry Commerce & Supply

Nepal Ms. Laxmi Shahi Ministry Commerce & Supply

Nepal Pankaj Giri NECTRADE

Nepal Purushottam Ojha Trade Expert -Private

Nepal Keshab Prasad Bimali Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Aviation

Nepal Ram Prasad Dhakal Ministry of Industry

Nepal Mahesh Bhattarai National Planning Commission

Nepal Ananda Bhandari Ministry of Finance

Nepal Pushpa Acharya SEJON- Private Sector

Nepal Mr Vijaya Kumar Mallik Ministry of Agricultural Development

Nepal Jaya Mukunda Khanal Ministry of Agricultural Development

Nepal Ravi Bhattarai Ministry Commerce & Supply

Nepal Sharadha Chalise Ministry Commerce & Supply

Nepal Saroj Acharya NECTRADE

Nepal Chandi Prasad Ghimire Ministry of Finance

Nepal Tulsi Prasad Ghimire Nepal Rastrya Bank

Nepal Jaya Narayan Acharya PMO & Council of Ministers

Nepal Hemanta Dawadi Dederation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry

Nepal Narendra Khadka Nepal Ginger Producers and Traders Association

Niger Hamidou Karidio Ministry of Trade EIF Focal Point

Niger Abdou Adamou NIU Coordinator

Samoa Aida Faumui Savea Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade EIF Focal Point

Samoa Peseta Noumea Simi EIF Donor Facilitator (Ministry of Finance)

Samoa Salote Meredith NIU Coordinator

Senegal M. Cheikh Saadbouh Seck Ministry of Trade EIF Focal Point

Senegal Gilles Abraham Amary Mbaye NIU Coordinator

Senegal Cheikh Fall EIF NIU Team

Senegal Makhtar Lakh Ministry of Trade

Senegal Laffy Mane Directorate General of Customs

Senegal Birame Sidy Kane Directorate General of Customs

Senegal Ousman Ndiaye Directorate of Economic and Financial Cooperation

Senegal Mamadou Syll Kebe Ministry of Industry and Mines

Senegal El Hadji Malick Mbaye Ministry of Tourism and Air Transport


89


Senegal Mamadou Daff Ministry of Tourism

Senegal Ndiassé Ngom Agency for Export Promotion

Senegal Dr. Mbaye Jean Marie Diouf Agency for Export Promotion

Senegal Youssoupha Diop National Confederation of Senagal’s Employers

Senegal Abdoulaye Ndiaye Department of Plant Protection

Senegal Cheikh Ngane Cooperative Federation of Horticulture Stakeholders in Senegal

Senegal Dr. Macoumba Diouf Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

Senegal Mamour Ousmane Ba Ministry of Finance

Senegal Natiffatore Diop Ndiaye Researcher

Sierra Leone Abdul Kamara NIU Coordinator

Solomon Islands Georg Tuti NIU Coordinator

Solomon Islands Shiv Raj Bhatt EIF Technical Advisor

Solomon Islands Primo Ugulu Tuna Industry Assoc.

Solomon Islands Cormac Mangan Ministry External Trade

Solomon Islands Jack Waneoroa Ministry Culture and Tourism

Solomon Islands Jimmy Saelea Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock

Solomon Islands Douglas Sade Ministry of Finance & Treasury

Solomon Islands Jerry Tegemoana CEO Chamber of Commerce

Solomon Islands Joe Sika Association of Solomon Island Manufacturers

Solomon Islands Tom Nanau Ministry of Health

Solomon Islands Cornelius Donga Ministry of Commerce & Industry

Solomon Islands Leliana Daoana Firisua Industry Association

Solomon Islands Jack Ooi Ministry External Trade

Solomon Islands Sivoro Barney Ministry Culture and Tourism

Solomon Islands Noel Roposi Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock

Solomon Islands Barnabas Bago Ministry of Development. Planning & Aid

Solomon Islands Leliana Firisua SME Council

Solomon Islands Nathan Kama Ministry of Finance & Treasury-Customs

Solomon Islands Sylvester Diake Ministry of Fisheries

Solomon Islands Alfred Ramoagalo Commodity Export Marketing

Solomon Islands Jerry Maiki Tengemoana SI Chamber of Commerce

Solomon Islands Joseph Maahanua Ministry of External Trade

Solomon Islands Niniu Oligao Ministry of Culture and Tourism

Solomon Islands Freda Unusi Solomon Islands Visitors Bureau (Tier 2)

Solomon Islands Henry Baeoro Ministry Finance

Solomon Islands Jerry Oikwao Ministry of Development, Planning & Aid

Solomon Islands Antonio Lee Tuna Association


90


Solomon Islands Selwyn Takana Ministry of Fin. & Treasury-Econ.

Solomon Islands Derrick Aihari Ministry of Commerce & Industry

Solomon Islands Samson Bisafo. Solomon Islands National University

Sudan Manal Musaad EIF Coordinator

Tanzania Edward Mathew Sungula Ministry of Trade, Industry and Marketing EIF Focal Point

Togo Talime Abé Ministry of Commerce and Private Sector Promotion EIF Focal Point

Togo Paul Bassolawoue Koka NIU Coordinator

Tuvalu Temate Melitiana Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Trade, Tourism, Environment and Labour EIF Focal Point

Uganda H.E Mr. Julius B. Onen Ministry of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives EIF Focal Point

Uganda Elizabeth Tamale NIU Coordinator Ministry of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives

Uganda Brenda Kabasinguzi EIF NIU Team)

Uganda Henry G.K Nyakoojo Ministry of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives

Uganda Silver Ojakol Ministry of Trade, Industry & Cooperatives

Uganda Alex M. Mukuluma Ministry of Trade, Industry & Cooperatives

Uganda Dr. Mukama P. Charles Ministry of Agriculture

Uganda Dr. Peter Ngategize Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development

Uganda Othieno Odoi National Planning Authority

Uganda Nakajjo Alex Private sector

Uganda Bbombokka David Katamba DICOSS project (EIF)

Uganda Mr. Moses Ogwal Private Sector Foundation of Uganda

Vanuatu Willie Luen NIU Coordinator

Yemen Iqbal Bahadir Ministry of Industry & Trade EIF Focal Point

Yemen Mohammed Humaid NIU Coordinator

Yemen Amin Shamsan Saeed EIF NIU Team

Yemen Sahoul Eliyass Ministry of Industry & Trade

Yemen Mohamed M. Amer Ministry of Industry & Trade

Yemen Raied abdulatif al-Qadhi Ministry of Industry & Trade

Yemen Ali Mohammed Abdulatif Ministry of Industry & trade (Small industries)

Yemen Farouq M. Qassim Ministry of Agriculture & Irrigation

Yemen A. Rauf M. Binbrek Ministry of Fisheries


91


Yemen Mr. Fahed Mabrook Salem Shabwa Ministry of Agriculture

Yemen Nanduri Sateesh Economic Opportunities Fund

Yemen Amer al-matari Consumer

Zambia Healey Mweemba NIU Coordinator


92

Annex 4 – Organizational Structure of EIF

Evaluation of the Enhanced Integrated Framework Capra International Inc. and the Trade Facilitation Office Canada

93

Annex 5 - Summary of On-going and Completed Projects by Country On-going and Completed Projects

(USD) August 25, 201466

Type Country Subtype Implementing

Agency

Status and Funding

Ongoing Operational

Closure Pending Grand Total

Completed Projects

Tier 1

Afghanistan DTIS Agency 400,000 400,000

PRE-DTIS Government 50,000 50,000

Bangladesh PRE-DTIS Government 50,000 50,000

Bhutan DTIS Agency 400,000 400,000


Burundi DTIS Update Agency 200,000 200,000

Cabo Verde DTIS Update Government 200,000 200,000

Cambodia DTIS Update Agency 199,983 199,983

Chad DTIS Update Agency 367,000 367,000

Congo, Democratic Republic of the

DTIS Agency 400,000 400,000


Gambia, The DTIS Update Agency 197,950 197,950

Haiti DTIS Agency 400,000 400,000


Lao PDR DTIS Update Government 390,483 390,483

Lesotho DTIS Update Other - USAID 160,000 160,000

Malawi DTIS Update Agency 199,500 199,500

São Tomé and DTIS Update Agency 200,000 200,000

66

Information is as of August 25, 2014 and was downloaded from EIF Knowledge Hub. The tables only include the LDC projects not the global and administration funding.


94


Agency

Status and Funding

Ongoing Operational


Príncipe

Senegal DTIS Update Agency 200,000 200,000

Sierra Leone DTIS Update Agency 200,000 200,000

Timor-Leste PRE-DTIS Government 50,000 50,000

Togo DTIS Agency 400,000 400,000


Uganda DTIS Update Agency 200,000 200,000

Zambia DTIS Update Agency 399,000 399,000

Tier 1 Total Completed Projects 5,463,916 5,463,916

Implementation Phase

Tier 1 Bangladesh DTIS Agency 460,000 460,000

Benin DTIS Update Agency 200,000 200,000

NIA Support Government 899,991 899,991

Bhutan NIA Support Government 900,000 900,000

Burkina Faso DTIS Update Agency 200,000 200,000

NIA Support Government 1,500,000 1,500,000

Burundi NIA Support Government 900,000 900,000

Cabo Verde NIA Support Government 900,000 900,000

Cambodia NIA Support Government 1,293,900 1,293,900


DTIS Update Agency 276,000 276,000


Chad


NIA Support - ITA

Agency 454,410 454,410

Comoros DTIS Update Agency 256,791 256,791

NIA Support – Phase 1 – Agency 1,500,000 1,500,000


95


Agency

Status and Funding

Ongoing Operational


Phase 1 & 2 Phase 2 – Government



NIA Support - ITA

Agency 252,520 252,520

Djibouti

DTIS Update Agency 200,000 200,000


NIA Support - ITA

Agency 400,000 400,000

Ethiopia NIA Support Government

900,000 900,000

Gambia, The NIA Support Government 1,500,000 1,500,000

Guinea DTIS Update Agency 280,350 280,350


Guinea-Bissau DTIS Update Agency

100,000 100,000

NIA Support Agency 900,000

900,000

Haiti NIA Support Government 900,000 900,000

Lao PDR NIA Support Government 1,446,514 1,446,514

Lesotho NIA Support Government 1,474,000 1,474,000

Liberia DTIS Update Agency 200,000 200,000

NIA Support Government 1,499,900 1,499,900

Madagascar DTIS Update Agency 240,000 240,000


Malawi NIA Support Government 899,250 899,250

Maldives NIA Support Government 900,000 900,000

Mali DTIS Update Agency 200,000 200,000


Mozambique DTIS Update Agency 200,000 200,000


96


Agency

Status and Funding

Ongoing Operational



NIA Support - ITA

Agency 220,000 220,000

Myanmar DTIS Agency 400,000 400,000


Nepal DTIS Update Agency

182,000 182,000

NIA Support Government 718,000

718,000

Niger DTIS Update Agency 200,000 200,000


Rwanda NIA Support Government 1,634,400 1,634,400

Samoa DTIS Update TBD

200,000 200,000


Senegal NIA Support Government 900,000 900,000

Sierra Leone NIA Support Government 1,408,859 1,408,859

Solomon Islands NIA Support Government 900,000 900,000

South Sudan DTIS Agency 400,000 400,000


Sudan DTIS Update Agency 200,000 200,000

Tanzania NIA Support Agency 900,000

900,000

Togo NIA Support Government 900,006

900,006

Tuvalu DTIS Update Agency

200,000 200,000

NIA Support Agency 900,000

900,000

Uganda NIA Support Government 1,499,985

1,499,985

Vanuatu DTIS Update TBD

200,000 200,000


900,000

Yemen DTIS Update Agency 319,494

319,494


97


Agency

Status and Funding

Ongoing Operational



931,000

Zambia NIA Support Government 899,400

899,400

Tier 1 Total Implementation Phase 43,598,738 1,782,000 45,380,738

Tier 2 Benin Standards Government

2,999,089 2,999,089

Burkina Faso

Agribusiness Government 5,665,973 5,665,973

Feasibility Study

Agency 199,741

199,741

Burundi

Feasibility Study

Government 606,274

606,274

Standards Agency 2,610,372 2,610,372

Cambodia

Agribusiness Government &

Agencies 3,389,346 347,610 3,736,956

Textile and apparel

Agency 1,004,347

1,004,347

Tourism Non-governmental

organization 950,000 950,000



Chad


Feasibility Study

Agency 189,312 189,312

Comoros Agribusiness Agency

3,527,131 3,527,131

Gambia, The

Agribusiness Agency 2,355,517 2,355,517

Trade facilitation

Government 2,494,200 2,494,200

Guinea Agribusiness Government 2,998,148 2,998,148

Lao PDR Standards Government 2,520,350 2,520,350

Lesotho Agribusiness Agency 2,735,685 2,735,685

Maldives Trade facilitation

Government 1,557,838 1,557,838

Mali Agribusiness Government 4,369,153 4,369,153

Nepal Agribusiness Other – GIZ 3,900,000 3,900,000


98


Agency

Status and Funding

Ongoing Operational


Standards Agency 711,550 711,550

Textile and apparel

Agency 1,861,603 1,861,603

Niger Agribusiness Government 2,445,100 2,445,100

Samoa Trade facilitation

Government 2,944,223 2,944,223

Senegal Agribusiness Government 2,991,358 2,991,358

Sierra Leone Tourism Government 2,990,000 2,990,000

Solomon Islands Tourism Government 1,544,700 1,544,700

Uganda Trade facilitation

Government 2,998,119 2,998,119

Yemen Agribusiness Other - ICIPE 1,807,500 1,807,500

Zambia Agribusiness Non-governmental

organization 2,469,930 2,469,930

TIER 2 Total 59,368,975 13,815,156 73,184,131

Implementation Total 102,967,713 15,597,156 118,564,869

Grand Total All Projects 102,967,713 5,463,916 15,597,156 124,028,785


99

Annex 6 – Summary of Projects in the Pipeline by Country

Pipeline Projects by Country

(USD)

August 25, 2014

Phase Type Country Subtype Final In Process Initial Submitted Grand Total

Formulation Tier 1 Afghanistan NIA Support 900,000 900,000

Bangladesh NIA Support 900,000 900,000

Burundi NIA Support Ph-2

600,000 600,000

Chad NIA Support Ph-2

600,000 600,000

Ethiopia DTIS Update 400,000

400,000

Kiribati

DTIS Update 200,000 200,000

NIA Support 900,000 900,000

Madagascar NIA Support 900,000 900,000

Mali NIA Support Ph-2

600,000 600,000

Myanmar NIA Support 900,000 900,000

São Tomé and Príncipe NIA Support 900,000

900,000

Sudan NIA Support 900,000 900,000

Timor-Leste NIA Support 900,000 900,000

Zambia NIA Support Ph-2

600,000

600,000

Tier 1 Total 400,000 1,500,000 8,300,000 10,200,000

Tier 2

Burundi

Tourism 3,000,000 3,000,000

Trade facilitation

1,171,539 1,171,539

Chad Agribusiness 2,999,284 2,999,284


Agribusiness 2,786,680 2,786,680

Djibouti Agribusiness 2,906,300 2,906,300

Ethiopia Agribusiness 5,080,000 5,080,000

Guinea Standards 2,999,602

2,999,602


100

Phase Type Country Subtype Final In Process Initial Submitted Grand Total

Guinea-Bissau Agribusiness

2,882,258 2,882,258

Liberia

Feasibility Study

200,000 200,000

Standards 2,994,700 2,994,700

Malawi Agribusiness 3,199,568 3,199,568

Maldives Agribusiness 3,104,000 3,104,000

Mali Agribusiness 1,115,002 1,115,002

Rwanda Trade facilitation

3,179,000

3,179,000

Samoa Agribusiness 2,000,000 2,000,000

Sierra Leone Standards 4,358,458 4,358,458

Solomon Islands Agribusiness 2,000,000 2,000,000

Uganda Agribusiness 4,292,155 4,292,155

Vanuatu

Tourism 3,150,000

3,150,000

Trade facilitation

3,000,000 3,000,000

Zambia Agribusiness 2,500,000

2,500,000

Tier 2 Total 2,500,000 21,308,834 35,109,712 58,918,546

Formulation Stage Total 2,900,000 22,808,834 43,409,712 69,118,546

Submission Tier 2 Togo Agribusiness 3,000,000 3,000,000

Yemen Agribusiness 2,362,560 2,362,560

Submission Stage Total 5,362,560 5,362,560

Grand Total of Pipeline Projects 2,900,000 22,808,834 43,409,712. 5,362,560 74,481,106


101

Annex 7 - Summary of Outcome Results Against Logframe Indicators The following Table summarizes the information on results from the EIF Knowledge Hub as of August 2014, which includes a May 2014 update. The number of countries reporting at the end of 2013 was 30 countries so many of the calculations are based on that number. The Table is intended as a snapshot of that point in time in terms of performance.

Outcome 1 Indicators Target (end of

programme phase) Current August 2014

Sufficient institutional and management capacity built in EIF Countries to formulate and implement trade-related strategies and implementation plans

O1.1. Tier 1 ‘Support to NIAs‘ projects completed or under implementation in EIF Countries

That all EIF Board-agreed EIF Countries have an approved Tier 1 ‘Support to NIAs‘ project by 2013. All three-year EIF Board-approved Tier 1 ‘Support to NIAs‘ projects extended to full five years.

37 of 51 countries have accessed NIA Support (73%)

O1.2. Number (and per cent) of active EIF Countries with complete, up-to-date (less than three years old) validated DTIS Action Matrices

100 per cent of active EIF Countries post-DTIS validation phase.

8 approved DTIS with 5 completed 31 approved DTIS updates with 13 completed

O1.3. Level of capacity of the NIU to perform fiduciary programme management function for Tier 1 ‘Support to NIAs‘ project.

That more than 80 per cent of the EIF Countries with Tier 1 ‘Support to NIAs‘ projects under implementation have at least a satisfactory level of capacity (five-point scale). Capacity plans agreed (by TFM and ES) for those countries that do not meet the satisfactory standard.

24 of 29 countries (83%)

67

O1.4. Number of EIF Countries with up-to-date (not older than five years) trade strategies.

All EIF Countries with Tier 1 ‘Support to NIAs‘ projects have a strategy.


67

The total number of countries takes into account the countries where ratings were not done such as Comoros where the UNDP is implementing the Tier 1.


102


programme phase) Current August 2014

O1.5. Number of EIF Countries with quality trade strategies.

80 per cent of EIF Countries with Tier 1 ‘Support to NIAs‘ projects have a strategy that is at satisfactory level or above. Others have an agreed plan to develop such strategies.


O1.6. Number of EIF Countries with quality trade strategy implemented.

50 per cent of EIF Countries with Tier 1 ‘Support to NIAs‘ projects have at least satisfactory implementation of trade strategy.


O1.7. Number of EIF-funded projects achieving the expected results.

80 per cent of Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects are externally evaluated as satisfactory or above.

N/A – too early


programme phase) Current

EIF Countries mainstream trade into their national development strategies and plans

68

O2.1. Trade in PRSP and/or national development strategies

That all EIF Countries with Tier 1 ‘Support to NIAs‘ projects have trade mainstreamed satisfactorily (five-point scale).


O2.2. Existence of productive sector strategies for key sectors, integrating the trade dimension.

That all EIF Countries with Tier 2 projects have trade incorporated in 80 per cent of relevant sector strategies.

20 of 22 countries (91%) have sector strategies

O2.3. Functioning public/private consultation mechanism.

That all EIF Countries with Tier 1 ‘Support to NIAs‘ projects have satisfactory public/private consultation mechanisms in place; in at least 50 per cent of the countries, these mechanisms rate very good or good (five-point scale).

28 of 30 (93%) countries reporting at least good

68

This is an outcome for those EIF Countries that are at the DTIS Action Matrix phase, i.e., likely to have taken up a Tier 1 “Support to NIAs’ project.


103

Outcome 3 Indicators Target (end of programme phase)

Current

Coordinated delivery of trade-related resources (funding, Technical Assistance, etc.) by donors and implementing agencies to implement country priorities following the adoption of the DTIS Action Matrix

69

O3.1. Availability of an annual rolling implementation overview integrating all trade-related government and donor-supported activities (where applicable, identifying activities specifically addressing gender and the environment).

Annual publicly available overview for trade-related funding in 80 per cent of active EIF Countries and all EIF Countries with Tier 1 projects.


O3.2. Frequency of government and donor consultations on trade-related matters. .

All EIF Countries with Tier 1 ‘Support to NIAs‘ projects have at least satisfactory donor/ government consultation mechanisms and 50 per cent have good mechanisms (five-point scale).

24 of 30 countries (80%) have mechanisms 19 of 30 countries have ones that are rated good or very good

O3.3. UN CEB Cluster activities are based on DTIS Action Matrix priorities in EIF Countries.

100 per cent of EIF Countries where the Cluster is active.

N/A

O3.4. Number of countries with joint donor initiatives in the trade area (such as needs assessments; strategy formulations; programming; pooled funding; M&E; etc.).

That all EIF Countries with Tier 1 ‘Support to NIAs‘ projects have joint donor initiatives in the trade area.


69



104

Outcome 4 Indicators Target (end of programme phase)

Current

EIF Countries secure resources in support of initiatives that address DTIS Action Matrix priorities

70

O4.1. Number of EIF Countries with implementation plan integrating DTIS/Action Matrix priorities and indicating financing needs to be met through ODA.

All EIF Countries with Tier 1 ‘Support to NIAs‘ projects and Tier 2 projects have a satisfactory medium-term programme linked to the DTIS Action Matrix and the PRSP/ national development plan (five-point scale).


O4.2. Number of EIF Countries where a government budget exists for the implementation of its trade strategy.

100 percent 18 of 30 countries (60%)

O4.3. AfT flows to EIF Countries.

Commitments for AfT for the medium-term programme are monitored annually in all EIF Countries with Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects.

See separate table in Annex __

O4.4. Number and amount of projects funded by donors related to the DTIS Action Matrix.

One per year per EIF Country.

74 projects

70



105

Annex 8 – Total Aid for Trade by Individual LDCs Active in EIF

Total Aid for Trade by Individual LDCs Active in EIF (Commitments)

USD Million (2012 constant)

Country 2002-2005

Average 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Afghanistan 785 1,258 1,546 1,771 1,537 2,055 1,941 1,837

Bangladesh 807 624 795 1,105 957 1,255 1,872 1,055

Benin 116 331 88 175 237 248 159 106

Bhutan 46 17 95 29 79 58 49 40

Burkina Faso

234 173 134 208 601 341 343 321

Burundi 52 92 85 88 132 209 197 135

Cambodia 204 222 179 286 271 486 253 278

Cabo Verde 80 26 68 113 118 66 44 108

Central African Rep.

34 124 52 6 90 17 89 136

Chad 92 2 68 26 100 15 174 69

Comoros 4 9 7 2 31 7 6 26

Congo, Dem. Rep.

515 160 478 284 722 736 780 430

Djibouti 23 1 5 15 27 59 55 61

Ethiopia 540 709 934 669 770 952 456 2 006

Gambia 28 18 11 9 35 74 70 153

Guinea 62 64 132 13 40 11 121 142

Guinea-Bissau

26 24 19 5 15 26 13 2

Haiti 90 93 68 151 329 389 746 369

Laos 164 138 154 115 110 279 255 221

Lesotho 7 29 67 5 23 31 36 3

Liberia 1 22 158 50 294 199 199 384

Madagascar 302 167 228 409 58 37 69 261

Malawi 118 123 185 132 186 281 312 342

Maldives 9 3 32 14 27 17 2 27

Mali 171 149 794 590 643 329 264 68

Mozambique 351 361 514 535 386 673 327 370

Myanmar 13 19 12 24 23 36 56 69

Nepal 178 229 223 207 309 451 442 439

Niger 107 83 45 203 129 66 147 337

Rwanda 79 125 107 169 423 220 307 238

Samoa 17 3 77 20 5 25 30 13

Sao Tome & Principe

8 9 6 5 23 5 25 3

Senegal 187 262 127 348 414 836 236 362

Sierra Leone 97 20 104 132 36 172 90 107

Solomon Islands

14 56 5 22 9 48 69 34

South Sudan

.. .. .. .. .. .. 128 144

Sudan 25 35 73 588 248 387 608 290

Tanzania 422 441 568 1 394 821 1 472 595 685

Timor-Leste 36 28 37 48 34 97 54 120

Togo 6 3 5 94 61 157 77 41

Tuvalu 5 1 12 7 2 1 17 5

Uganda 268 199 857 300 1 010 788 445 396


106

Country 2002-2005

Average 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Vanuatu 7 70 33 31 30 20 20 95

Yemen 52 84 75 293 666 320 257 144

Zambia 224 297 191 216 311 177 449 462

Totals 6,606 5,645 7,907 6,636 9,825 9,346 9,071 8,036

Developing countries Total

23 543 23 733 26 980 36 950 34 655 40 334 37 228 46 821

% EIF LDCs of developing country total

28% 24% 29% 18% 28% 23% 24% 17%

Source: OECD Creditor Reporting System Database

EVALUATION OF THE ENHANCED INTEGRATED ...

Documents

Transcript of EVALUATION OF THE ENHANCED INTEGRATED ...