The Case for Indicators of Context, Trade Mainstreaming and Donors’ response Symposium on Monitoring and Evaluation: Identifying Indicators for Monitoring Aid for Trade Geneva, 15-16 September 2008 David Luke Senior Adviser and Coordinator, Trade and Human Development Unit UNDP Geneva Office
Outline • Guidelines for identifying indicators • Case for context indicators • Case for mainstreaming indicators and donors’ response • Regional applications
Guidelines for Identifying AfT Indicators • Provide factual information about implementation and progress • Not try to point to possible causation between different variables • Universal coverage or as near universal coverage as possible with consensus on validity • Story emerging should be recognizable and conducive to a constructive dialogue focused on where further improvements are required.
Guidelines for Identifying AfT Indicators • The final product should not aim at researchers and analysts, or becoming a diagnostic or evaluation tool for programming. • It should not aim to be comprehensive. • The indicators should remain a political tool for assessing overall trends and progress. • Presentation should be based as much as possible on benchmarking and cross-country comparisons. • Final product is easily readable, non-judgmental and accessible.
Context Indicators • Readily available • Contextualize other indicators • Benchmark progress to acheiving internationally-agreed goals
Mainstreaming and donors’ response indicators • Task Force definition of AFT • Mainstreaming reflects political commitment to integrate trade in development strategies • Identification of clear priorities as basis for engaging partners • Donors’ response to partner countries’ efforts on mainstreaming equally important and central to Paris Declaration principles • AfT should be seen within the larger context of the WTO coherence mandate
Regional applications • Context, mainstreaming, and donor response indicators also apply regionally • Examples
Thank you David.firstname.lastname@example.org