Transcript Slide 1
Aid for Trade (A4T): Interrogating CSO silences in Southern Africa Brendan Vickers Institute for Global Dialogue (IGD) Email: [email protected] 15 March 2007 Outline of presentation 1. Background 2. IGD survey: CSO concerns about A4T 3. Role for CSOs in A4T debate 1. Background Trade policy reform and its benefits are a technical problem – augmented Washington Consensus? Major challenges: market access; infrastructural and technical capacities to trade: – – – – Uganda and clothing exports (transport = 80% tax) Farmers and post-harvest storage Durban vs. Dubai Mozal investment in Mozambique: exports up, GDP + 7% World Bank estimates that 1% rise in the stock of infrastructure could add 1% to GDP. A4T: provision of development assistance aimed at increasing the participation of developing countries in the MTS. Not new concept – ideas such as trade-related financial and technical assistance, and capacity-building. Debate driven by G8-OECD donors, WB, IMF, WTO TF on A4T. Africa not shy (AG, LDCs, ACP) – but global aid industry powerful, political and self-serving. 2. IGD survey: CSO concerns about A4T Conditional aid has notorious history in Africa – will rich countries help poorer nations compete with them in world markets? Easy promises of A4T used to pressure developing countries into further binding liberalisation (adjustment costs, policy space?). A4T diverts attention from negotiating real developmental outcome to the Doha Round: fairer, more equitable rules; implementation … A4T must complement reformed multilateral trading system, not substitute for its existing inequalities. No new resources, but repackage existing aid geared to social development – ODA commitments made to 2010. New concessional loans that will sink developing countries further into debt? A4T focused exclusively on technical assistance and capacitybuilding exacerbates the negative effects of existing trade rules. Aid to support implementation is contrary to the mandate of A4T and the broader Doha Development Agenda. 3. What role for CSOs in A4T debate? Disjuncture: policy-oriented NGOs and social movements in trade and development debates in Southern Africa ( SADC vs. SAPSN ). Under-represented groups: rural micro entrepreneurs, farming cooperatives, SMMEs. Critically interrogate assumptions underlying A4T and redefine its parameters from pro-poor developmental perspective: – Assist to enhance and diversify the productive capacity of agriculture, manufacturing and services sectors; – Construct roads to link local, regional and international markets; – Support SMME development. Draw lessons from problems, failures of existing trade-related aid initiatives: Integrated Framework for Trade-Related Technical Assistance and the Joint Integrated Technical Assistance Strengthen country ownership of A4T programmes: identify and formulate country’s unique trade-related needs and priorities. Mainstream A4T into national development policies: link A4T to poverty reduction, etc. Sensitize A4T to local gender, cultural, environmental and social realities. Regional/continental levels: coordinate A4T with AU/NEPAD Short Term Action Plan (energy, transport, ICT, water and sanitation). Build synergies with social movements and empower them for advocacy. Deliver A4T in form of training, SMME development, etc. Monitor A4T disbursements (Paris Declaration) and evaluate aid efficacy in local economic development. Thank you!