Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Monitoring of Aid For Trade at regional and national level By Calvin Djiofack Zebaze, International Lawyers and Economists Against Poverty (ILEAP)
Outline of presentation • Why to monitor A4T • How to monitor A4T Conclusion
I. Why to monitor A4T • Strengthening the confidence among stakeholders • create conditions of efficient utilization of aid: • By allowing the recipient countries to extract lessons from the experiences and integrate them into the country’s overall development plans • To manage risk linked to aid: • like other forms of Aid flow, Aid for trade have a theoretical risk of Deutsch disease (see Adams et al, 2005) : the form of aid and its utilization is therefore essential
II. How to built Indicators for the monitoring in Recipients Countries? • Our approach consists to examine the channel through which the A4T initiatives can achieve its main objective of Poverty Reductions, and • Identify intermediate indicators for each stage of the channel. • propose Mean Indicators and Performances Indicators for each objective. • The illustration is as follows:
How to monitor: Channel of A4T to poverty • Channel of A4T to poverty
Suggestion of indicators • We focus on two Objectives: • Mainstreaming and • Donors responses
Sugestion of indicators: Mainstreaming • Mean Indicator: • the Extent to which the DTIS is introduced in PRSPs: “number of priority projects included in the PRSP”. • However, merely mainstreaming trade into PRSPs is not enough to improve A4T outcomes. • World Bank (2006) evaluation of IF find that the relatively few Bank lending operations have directly resulted from mainstreaming. • An ongoing evaluation of IF by ILEAP found that LDCs who have completed their DITS and are more advanced in mainstreaming are receiving more aid compared to others.
Sugestion of indicators: Mainstreaming • Result Indicator: • This allow to capture the effective weight of A4T in the country strategy: • “the share of total Public aid allocated to Aid for trade”.
Suggestion of indicators: Donor responses • Mean indicator: • Increasing in amount of AFT flow • However, this could not work without satisfying some conditions:
Suggestion of indicators: Donor responses • Result indicators • (1) Increasing in flow toward priorities identified by the beneficiaries • in DITS for example in LDCs • (2)Increasing in flow toward supply side projects. • This is essential to outweigh the potential Dutch disease resulted from augmenting foreign currency that could lead to appreciation of exchange rate • Pycroft (2008) in the case of Ethiopia shows that the extra inflow of aid of 3 % of GDP without any compensating effects on the supply side, cause an 11 % fall in exports
Sugesttion of indicators: Donor responses • (3) Share of A4T which is not linked • There are important donors maintaining their aid linked notably to: • Donor enterprises • Literature shows strong link between aid and economic interest of donors (numbers of enterprises) • Donor entrants origin • Increased cost of maintenance • Donor employees • Increasing practice from some donors
Sugesttion of indicators: Donor responses • (4) pro-poor orientation of flow: • Share of A4T allocated to rural infrastructure (appropriate in Africa context) • (5) stable and predictable flow: • Gap of aid flow with the average of the last five year
Conclusions • International community should mobilize effort to render beneficiary monitoring of A4T effective ( As recommended by task force) • Regional institutions may have comparative advantage to assume this responsibility in some regions • Monitoring A4T should not focus only on mean deployed but also on results through intermediate objectives.