Presentation - International NGOs and the Research-Policy

Nurturing The Research Policy-linkage In Trade Negotiations
Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz
Mainstreaming Development in Trade - A Longer-term Approach to Developing
Sustained Capacity
ILEAP - Arusha, 29 September 2006
ICTSD Programmatic Strategy
ICTSD Mission:
By empowering stakeholders in trade policy through information, networking,
dialogue, well-targeted research, and capacity building, the Centre seeks to
influence the international trade system such that it advances the goal of
sustainable development.
Enabling interaction:
through
information
Enabling interaction
among trade policy
makers and influencers
through the production of
a consistent flow of nonpartisan reporting,
context-setting and
analysis
Facilitating interaction:
through
generative dialogue
Facilitating dialogue by
providing opportunity and
space for relevant actors
to explore common and
diverse interests, identify
problematic issues and
seek solutions to complex
problems in non
negotiating settings
Supporting interaction:
through
research & capacity
building
Supporting interaction
through policy-relevant
research resulting from
knowledge gap analysis,
opportunity identification
and brokerage of
capabilities and resources
Seeking SD outcomes : The Importance of Knowledge
Capability in Trade Negotiations and Dynamics
Terms of engagement
in trade negotiations
Outcome of trade
negotiations:
Leadership
Readiness
Cautiousness
•
Optimal
•
Sub-optimal
•
Perverse
•
Harmful
Reluctance
Level of knowledge
capabilities
The ICTSD Model
Min. Env.
Agriculture
Existing Communication Channels
Additional interaction fostered by ICTSD and
partners through info, dialogue, and research
Health
Geneva
Mission
Education
Min. Trade,
Foreign Affairs,
Finance
Academics, Think
tanks
Civil Society
Private Sector
Trade Unions
Multilateral
trading system
Geneva
Mission
Geneva
Mission
Sustained by “policy
entrepreneur”
Mapping
stakeholders following
policymakers/influen
cers model
Poliy dialogue
among
representative
stakeholders
and knowledge
holders
It forms an opensource model identity
by sharing information
and monitoring
developments
Decentralizes
initiative and activity
Stewardship
It has fulfilled its
potential; subdivides;
or mainstreams
Maturing
Legacy
Coalescing
Potential
Explore
diverse and
common and
imagine a
policy shift/
intervention
Discuss
possible
futures, derived
agendas; peer
problem
solving
Engage in a variety
of learning activities
and generative
dialogue; identify
timeliness of policy
processes and target
Sustain energy, set
standards, educate
new entrants,
establish legitimacy
and influence on
results
Institutionalize by
affecting policy,
institutionalize roles and
practices, or generate
new communities
Broker, link-builder, translator, transmitter
Adapted from © 2005 Etienne Wenger & William M. Snyder
Trade Policy Stakeholder Mapping
Decisionmakers
Traditional
Actors
M
Policy
Influencers
i n
A
g
(
I F
R
W
e
I P
O
t
i t
d
a
c
r
p
h
a
c
o
m
S
e
r
t
u
r
o
s
e
r
E
n
r
e
e
t
I s
o
n
-
a
l t
O
o
l t
r
f
u
r
T
e
-
r
;
o
m
m
u
n
i o
n
e
D
U
a
d
G
e
e
a
/
n
s
;
a
p
F
e
o
v
r
a
a
d
N
g
e
i g
M
o
m
c
t
n
t
D
n
i s
s
:
n
s
i c
o
s
A
i o
a
N
f
n
f
s
N
b
a
a
i r
;
w
s
y
t
E
I n
P
r
r
c
e
M
s
;
t
e
M
r
v
u
s
;
y
,
E
;
n
b
e
t
n
,
s
e
;
i s
a
k
:
r
i n
i s
n
s
e
l a
M
s
U
O
m
;
:
s
l
G
u
s
,
n
s
r
A
P
i o
r
c
e
e
U
e
o
;
A
m
r
t
s
e
,
;
c
i e
c
t
D
s
A
i t
a
l o
A
n
e
n
e
T
i o
t
u
t
v
C
s
t
S
e
N
i s
S
c
d
,
m
n
a
h
:
m
o
u
T
s
o
y
i n
n
i s
a
t
t
r
i o
y
n
o
a
l
f
F
F
i n
i n
a
a
n
n
c
c
e
i n
;
M
g
i n
I n
s
i s
t
i t
t
r
u
y
t
o
i o
n
o
m
f
s
)
e
c
v
i c
y
c
v
i r
;
a
d
c
l u
n
i t
e
s
r
e
i r
o
o
f
p
a
A
E
S
g
i o
n
i n
e
s
m
e
d
i a
c
r
a
e
s
i r
m
t
o
a
n
g
a
n
n
d
m
n
a
r
t
s
o
e
e
l
n
e
v
l i a
e
n
m
s
n
r
t
e
a
r
i a
t
a
n
i s
d
d
t
s
e
g
i o
e
i r
M
i n
i s
t
r
y
o
f
s
r
t
v
;
n
;
a
e
t
i a
e
h
n
r
i o
n
l o
/
p
l o
n
s
b
a
s
m
b
l
e
e
e
c
n
i e
s
c
r
o
e
n
t
a
r
i a
i c
t
s
t
;
S
M
E
s
;
l a
b
o
u
n
d
r
o
r
d
n
o
a
s
i s
r
o
e
r
t
i o
a
n
d
p
i e
I n
i a
l
;
r
;
i s
c
a
t
y
n
o
i c
i e
t
i e
s
n
m
P
E
C
s
;
g
a
l
n
m
l
i n
i n
d
u
t
;
O
a
r
fi
s
e
s
e
e
s
n
e
s
o
n
s
o
,
e
o
u
i e
s
i o
t
u
r
n
o
d
t
n
f
g
E
a
e
s
s
f
v
v
n
n
n
r
r
t
r
a
i e
I E
;
I P
P
n
w
r
a
e
a
i e
l
r
s
i n
r
u
r
c
c
n
a
c
r
e
r
e
c
e
i c
t
a
r
u
v
e
a
s
s
H
u
i t
o
d
/
m
p
t
o
n
m
c
m
i o
o
a
i n
e
,
g
s
a
t
n
n
r
t
a
t
r
m
e
n
l i s
d
y
,
c
l t
h
i e
t
n
n
a
i t
a
e
N
d
e
r
n
i s
i e
s
s
;
e
e
n
l e
y
;
a
t
i o
b
i o
;
l e
o
u
a
t
t
r
t
s
r
a
s
s
,
a
h
;
I P
–
s
s
c
t
i s
r
a
m
t
i c
i e
p
c
s
e
t
n
e
r
o
f
u
l a
t
o
n
c
i a
l
s
a
o
a
s
t
e
c
f
n
c
e
;
r
a
i e
n
t
b
/
c
u
n
e
r
o
m
m
c
o
n
f
fi
d
c
t
i l s
s
c
e
,
g
r
m
e
u
u
r
r
h
a
o
e
;
c
t
e
u
b
g
o
h
p
c
e
n
s
o
,
;
i o
l o
r
s
b
i n
n
g
u
t
p
e
r
e
c
h
e
n
r
s
p
t
i g
l
i n
,
i o
d
a
y
o
t
f
c
i t
o
r
u
s
t
s
e
d
s
e
m
i n
o
e
u
u
r
s
e
s
,
a
a
,
s
t
r
y
n
d
,
s
t
i c
e
;
a
h
O
s
n
d
i fi
c
s
g
r
y
e
i n
t
s
G
r
;
fi
e
a
a
c
o
g
n
p
e
c
e
t
r
t
o
m
m
r
e
s
m
s
u
n
n
u
r
i t
f
a
n
s
;
t
c
s
h
o
r
d
s
i n
a
p
v
s
e
e
t
c
s
o
l i c
u
t
u
r
o
r
i t
i e
r
c
i s
s
o
m
i l i t
a
m
b
i e
u
m
o
a
r
s
t
;
h
c
o
u
n
i t
d
s
,
e
m
o
m
r
i t
i e
s
;
e
t
m
i e
p
e
s
;
i n
a
t
s
i t
u
i o
r
n
e
r
s
l
y
:
y
d
s
i o
r
l /
l a
i n
c
s
i t
u
c
e
e
e
N
n
n
m
t
e
c
i o
o
p
e
g
s
t
h
i g
r
r
e
n
d
s
b
c
g
;
s
a
l /
i g
m
n
i n
a
r
i m
i o
R
n
n
;
l
C
i o
a
s
t
a
I U
t
m
i a
r
a
a
n
s
u
e
g
u
c
u
;
r
u
o
t
y
n
i o
s
l e
;
h
t
s
a
o
d
s
C
b
;
a
s
N
e
s
i s
d
e
r
n
s
t
i t
e
a
s
s
r
i fi
g
e
o
n
e
t
h
a
,
n
h
t
o
u
e
g
u
c
a
b
g
A
;
n
s
i n
g
s
t
n
i o
l i n
e
i r
i t
s
i a
:
e
e
O
i o
v
u
s
r
s
u
i n
i c
o
e
M
d
a
c
r
e
;
u
,
m
o
f
g
n
s
h
A
i n
r
t
s
a
i c
O
j
e
r
m
v
;
s
o
m
c
I E
t
r
H
s
a
t
e
p
W
b
a
v
e
;
i e
a
e
a
r
i c
H
I G
r
:
n
I n
r
t
N
N
I P
i s
o
e
u
s
e
c
i o
d
r
i g
g
;
n
t
o
o
r
n
a
l
s
t
a
n
d
s
t
r
i e
s
;
s
u
s
a
r
t
i s
a
n
a
l
fi
u
s
;
s
c
c
o
i e
m
n
i s
r
t
a
s
m
t
a
u
t
s
s
i n
h
n
d
e
i t
o
a
r
i e
r
b
l e
m
e
s
g
;
n
l o
a
n
i s
e
n
e
;
fi
c
a
a
r
s
l
t
g
h
n
y
e
a
i o
u
r
t
s
c
o
i e
s
h
o
;
m
m
a
r
i t
s
i s
s
i o
u
n
i t
y
s
o
c
i a
t
i e
s
;
c
e
n
s
i o
r
t
n
i fi
s
;
e
r
s
;
;
Facilitating successful development outcomes in the Doha Round
A Selection of ICTSD’s Responses
Key issues in WTO
negotiations
Agriculture
Services
NAMA
S&DT/
implementation
IP
Cotton
Rules
Environment
Trade facilitation
DSU Review
SP/SSM: promoting options to identify products of key importance for
developing countries for food security, livelihood security and rural
development
Services: filling conceptual and analytical gaps on the relation between
trade in services and sustainable development; regional dialogues to
identify options for developing country stakeholders
Special and differential treatment: technical work on scenarios to illustrate
the concept of situational analysis as a constructive middle way in WTO
negotiations.
Intellectual property rights: promoting understanding and assisting in
finding solutions through multistakeholder dialogues and analysis on GIs
and disclosure of origin; identifying instruments for developing countries
to benefit from IP systems; promoting a development agenda at WIPO and
addressing TRIPS+ provisions in bilateral agreements.
Fisheries: strengthening the analysis on the livelihoods implications of
proposals currently on the table (e.g. Brazil and New Zealand) and helping
fisheries-dependent countries formulate their responses
Environmental goods and services (EGS): assessing the environmental
implications of EGS liberalisation; regional dialogues for stakeholders in
developing countries to identify potential products of export interests.
Dispute Settlement: making the WTO system more attractive to developing
countries through the reform process and facilitating access of developing
countries to the DSU through a review of country best practices; regional
dialogues
Facilitating successful development outcomes in the Doha Round
ICTSD’s 2006 Strategies of Engagement
•
Bringing development perspectives into trade policy processes WTO/DDA; EPAs; RTAs and FTAs.
•
Bringing analysis and perspectives to OECD capitals, particularly to key
centres of decision-making in the North –dialogue activities on specific
issues in Washington, Brussels, London, Paris, Tokyo.
•
Systematic engagement with leading policy-makers and influencers
(e.g. think tanks, farm groups, universities) in developing country
regions, including IBSA and China, to promote pro-poor outcomes
•
Fostering and/or strengthening issue-specific networks of researchers
from developing countries to bring Geneva-based discussions and
analysis to capitals in developing country regions e.g. SDT; SP/SSM;
Green Box; Fisheries; EGS; GATS;
•
Generating innovative ideas, technical work and new partnerships to
contribute to SD-supportive outcomes (I.e:the aid-for-trade initiative/
labour market and )
Strengthening Policy entrepreneurial Institutions in
Developing Countries: The Case of ENDA and PASSERELLES
Subscriptions to Passerelles
2500
•
A growing network of
3000 individuals &
organisations in
Francophone Africa
ICTSD
2000
Partnership since
1998
1500
1000
•
ENDA recognised as a
centre of expertise on
T&SD
ENDA
500
0
2002
Passerelles
•
Passerelles as a catalyst
of other regional initiatives
on T&SD
Passerelles
2003
2004
2005
Passerelles Synthèse mensuelle
Cotton initiative
Articulation WTO/EPAs
Building Networks and Partnerships:
ICTSD’s Core Partners and their Networks
ICTSD
CINPE (Costa
Rica)
Fundação
Gertulio Vargas
(Brazil)
ENDA Tiers Monde,
(Senegal)
Stockholm Environment
Institute, Asia, &
Chulalongkorn University
(Thailand)
In 2005, ICTSD worked with more than 80 partners in nearly
50 countries implementation of its programmes and projects
Using Dialogue and Research to Nurture & Maintain New Channels of
Interaction : The Case of C-4 Cotton Subsidies
Other WTO
members
Farmers Groups
in West Africa
Exporters
EU
commission
CSO and experts
Min. Trade/
Foreign
Affairs in
West Africa
Multilateral
trading
system
Geneva
Missions
(C4)
USTR
Ministries of Ag.,
Environment in
West Africa
Existing Communication Channels
Informal interaction fostered by
ICTSD and partners through info,
dialogue, and research
Bringing New Voices to the Global Trade Table :
The Case of Fisheries Subsidies
Targeted and Continuous Delivery
To:
• active policy and stakeholders
• Broader trade/SD knowledge
communities
• the general public
Differentiated in terms of:
• Appropriate language
• speech, tongue and
wording
• Format and packaging
• Media
• Timing
ICTSD’s Approach to Knowledge in a capsule
(1/2)
•
Acts in accordance with values and beliefs to:
•
process knowledge;
•
map stakeholders;
•
foster identification of policy window opportunities and knowledge
gaps;
•
facilitate problem-solving dynamics;
•
initiate, broker and catalyze research capacity and undertaking;
•
Engage in timely and targeted delivery.
ICTSD’s Approach to Knowledge in a capsule
(2/2)
•
Recognizing that many & diverse actors are involved in bringing
knowledge in its various forms into trade policy making processes, it
strives to:
•
map stakeholders in a non-partisan approach;
•
systematically engages policy-makers at targeted levels;
•
identify knowledge processing actors and their respective roles
(gov’t policy research units; academic research centres;
consultants; NGOs; business associations).
•
fosters links with other who perform key and unconventional
roles, such as issue/opportunity identification, brokerage and
“translation” services
•
supports systemic and adhoc involvement in follow up and
implementation
•
strives for institutionalization of research outcomes
An Episodic Illustration:
operationalizing the concepts of
food security and sustainable
livelihoods in trade negotiations and outcomes:
• the simple context of a complex issue
• the knowledge processing effort
• delivery
Heterogeneity of developing countries
Stage of development/economic transformation:
share of agriculture in GDP
Number of countries
50
e.g. Congo, Rep. 5.3%
Thailand 10.3%
40
e.g. China 15.9%
Guyana 31.1%
e.g. Bhutan 36.7%
Guinea Bissau 58.5%
30
20
e.g. Botswana 2.5%
Mexico 4.1%
10
0
below 5
5-15
15-35
35 and above
percent
From: Harmon Thomas, FAO. Joint FAO/ICTSD experts dialogue on SDT in Agriculture
Heterogeneity of developing countries:
population size and location - rural vs. urban (2000)
Country
Total (million)
Rural population % total
1,252.95
1,008.94
170.41
113.86
65.3
72.3
18.8
55.9
Mexico
98.87
25.6
Egypt
Nepal
Chile
Mali
Cuba
Haiti
67.88
23.04
15.21
11.35
11.20
8.14
57.3
88.2
14.2
69.8
24.7
64.3
Bhutan
Qatar
Suriname
Belize
Seychelles
Dominica
2.09
0.57
0.42
0.23
0.08
0.07
92.9
7.3
25.9
52.2
36.3
28.2
China, Main
India
Brazil
Nigeria
From: Harmon Thomas, FAO. Joint FAO/ICTSD experts dialogue on SDT in Agriculture
Heterogeneity of developing countries
Structure of production:
% population dependent on agriculture for livelihood
60
e.g. Argentina 10%
Tunisia 25%
Number of countries
50
e.g. Philippines 39%
Syria 28%
40
e.g. India 54%
Senegal
74%
e.g. Burkina Faso 92%
30
20
Papua N.G. 77%
e.g. UAE 4.5%
Singapore 0.2%
10
0
Below 5
bet 5- 25
bet 25-50
bet 50-75
Agricultural Population as % of Total Population
From: Harmon Thomas, FAO. Joint FAO/ICTSD experts dialogue on SDT in Agriculture
Above 75
Heterogeneity of developing countries
Trade structure:
% agricultural products in total merchandise exports
50
e.g. Egypt 10%
Trin&Tob 6%
Number of countries
40
30
e.g. Brazil 26%
Fiji Is.28.6%
e.g. Iran 4%
Qatar 0.1%
e.g. Gautemala 57%
Rw anda 62%
20
10
e.g. Malaw i 96%
Afghanistan 72%
0
Below 1
5 - 20
20 - 50
50 - 70
Above70
Tot Agricultural Exports as % of Tot Merch Exports
From: Harmon Thomas, FAO. Joint FAO/ICTSD experts dialogue on SDT in Agriculture
Heterogeneity of developing countries
Trade structure:
% single agricultural commodity in total merchandise exports
45
e.g. Bhutan 4%
Mexico 1%
40
e.g. Gambia 20%
Malaysia 5%
Number of countries
35
e.g. Paraguay 39%
Mauritius 20%
30
25
20
e.g. Burundi 75%
Vanuatu 42%
15
10
5
0
1 - 5%
5 - 20%
20 - 40%
Share (%)
From: Harmon Thomas, FAO. Joint FAO/ICTSD experts dialogue on SDT in Agriculture
Above 40%
Heterogeneity of developing countries
Extent of poverty:
% population living on less than $1 a day
Africa
Nigeria
Central African Republic
Madagascar
Burkina Faso
Sierra Leone
Gambia, The
Zimbabwe
Rwanda
Botswana
Ethiopia
Kenya
Senegal
Tanzania
South Africa
Latin America & the
Caribbean
70.2
66.6
63.4
61.2
57.0
53.7
36.0
35.7
33.3
31.3
26.5
26.3
19.9
11.5
Honduras
El Salvador
Ecuador
Paraguay
Venezuela
Mexico
Brazil
40.5
26.0
20.2
19.5
18.7
12.2
9.0
Asia
India
Nepal
Pakistan
Bangladesh
China
From: Harmon Thomas, FAO. Joint FAO/ICTSD experts dialogue on SDT in Agriculture
Source: World Bank , World Development Report 2000/2001
44.2
37.7
31.0
29.1
18.5
Heterogeneity of developing countries
Extent of food insecurity:
% of population undernourished
Burundi
Zambia
Haiti
Banglade sh
Dominican Re p.
Botswana
India
Bolivia
Philippine s
Gambia
Ve ne z ue la
Pe ru
Braz il
Jamaica
China
Egypt
Chile
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Proportion of people undernourished
From: Harmon Thomas, FAO. Joint FAO/ICTSD experts dialogue on SDT in Agriculture
70
80
Bound
Applied
Price Band
0
HS cha pte r
Bound
Applied
HS chapter
Price Bands
51
38
24
23
22
21
20
20
18
16
Bound
15
0%
17
15
15
13
12
11
10
09
08
08
07
07
06
04
02
02
51
35
33
23
22
21
20
51
41
33
23
22
21
20
50%
19
100%
20
150%
18
200%
19
Applied
17
15
15
Bound
14
12
12
11
HS chapter
SRI LANKA
15
12
60
12
09
09
08
08
08
07
07
07
250%
11
10
09
08
08
07
07
10
07
50
06
100
06
150
04
200
04
250
02
Bound
Applied
BARBADOS
04
0
01
20
02
HS chapter
01
40
01
%
60
02
0
01
%
51
35
24
22
21
20
19
18
16
15
13
12
11
10
09
08
08
07
07
05
04
02
02
01
%
80
02
%
43
29
22
22
21
20
20
19
16
%
120
01
53
43
35
29
23
22
21
20
20
19
17
15
13
12
11
10
08
08
07
07
06
04
02
01
01
PERU
HS chapter
15
15
Bound
14
12
12
70
11
%
60
10
09
09
08
08
07
07
06
04
04
02
02
01
KENYA
200
PAKISTAN
100
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
HONDURAS
HS chapter
Applied
Applied
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
0
Example of Tariff Structures: United States
350%
300%
TOBBACO
250%
200%
SUGAR
PEANUTS
DAIRIES
PEANUTS
PRODUCTS
150%
100%
HS CHAPTERS
Source: Mario Jales, ICONE, Brazil
52
51
41
24
22
21
21
20
20
20
20
19
18
18
17
16
15
12
12
10
09
08
08
07
07
07
06
04
04
04
04
04
02
02
0%
23
50%
01
AVE%
GRAPES
Example of Tariff Structure: European Union
300%
PROCESSED
CEREAL GRAINS
STARCH
MEAT OF BOVINE
250% AND PORK
WINE
MUSHROOMS
GARLIC
BANANAS
DAIRIES
200%
SUGAR
OLIVE OIL
150%
RICE
100%
50%
HS TARIFF LINE
Source: Mario Jales, ICONE, Brazil
52
35
24
23
22
22
22
20
20
20
20
20
19
18
16
15
15
12
12
11
10
08
08
07
07
06
04
04
04
02
02
02
02
0%
01
AVE%
PREPARED
VEGETABLES
Tropical and Diversification Products:
Opportunities for Trade AND Biodiversity Management AND
Building Competitiveness for Poor Countries?
Source: FAO, 2003
State of Play (3) Tariff Escalation is significant in
both traditional and expanding commodities
Average MFN Applied Out-of-quota Duties (%)
Source: W orld Bank, Global Agriculture Trade and Developing countries
Conceptual Framework for the Identification of
Special Products in Developing Countries
National sustainable development
strategy
Non-trade policy makers
(Min. Ag, Env.)
Trade policy makers
(Min. trade, foreign affairs,
Geneva negotiators
Non-State Actors
(Farmer groups, NGOs,
academia, etc…)
Identify beneficiaries, develop relevant
indictors for SP and apply them to potential
products
Assess the potential direct and indirect impact of
trade liberalisation on products identified
Internal
discussion
ICTSD country
studies
Establish a national list of
SP to be defended in the
negotiations
Review the list in the light of the evolution of
multilateral negotiations and the flexibilities
provided in a revised agreement (tariff cut
formula, sensitive products, SPs)
Advancement of national sustainable development
strategy
Multilateral
negotiations
ICTSD’s « Integrated Circuit » Approach to Brokering
Knowledge: The Case of Special Products (SP)
FAO
South
Ag.
Private Min. Ag, Geneva
Farmers
Centre Experts
sector Trade Delegate
Review with
expert group
Design
methodology
for identification
of SP
Test
methodology
in the field
DC
Capital
experts officials
Bring findings
to WTO
negotiations
Involve local
researcher
e.g. Sri Lanka
Bring DC
on board
G33
Donors G20
Involve local
researcher
e.g. Kenya
Farmers
Private Min. Ag, Geneva
Sector Trade Delegate
Second set
of country studies
G90
G10
G33
ICTSD indicators
used as basis
for G33 proposal
HK Declaration:
(self-designation
guided
by indicators)
Collecting Basic Data on Food Security, Livelihoods and Rural Development
Cotton
Wheat
Rice
Potato
Sugar
Edible oil
Tomato
Onion
Citrus fruit
Apple
Tea
Beef
Mutton
Poultry
Milk
Total 14
items
Note:
25
6
3
8
10
1
2
0
0
32
5
1
17
15
0
0
0
0
-167,340
609,017
1,523,229
313,678
-1,723,129
-1,752,573
-3,705
172,684
183,683
8,287
4
3
1
1
15
0
1
1
0
9
-104,662
1,755
1,385
-269
3,940,334
78
82
* includes all vegetables
** includes all fruits
H=High, M=Medium, L=Low
10.6
0.8
0.6
1.0
20.8
92.4
1.4
0.0
0.1
6.5
102.
1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
30.7
33.7
10.8
2.0*
7.9
2.9**
12.6
2.7
7.3
1.2
33.2
0.3
0.2
1.0
1.3
0.3
14.1
36.4
9.6
0.5
4.5
2.6
0.1
0.5
0.9
0.2
H
H
H
H
H
H
7.7
13.3
5.0
0.8
3.6
0.4
0.4
0.5
2.1
0.5
0.0
2.2
2.0
1.4
23.8
56.0
Potential for
Value-Addition
Share of World
Exports%
Share of
agriculture
Value-added %
Rural Development
Regional
Importance
Area under crop
%
Share of Total
Crop Production
%
Share in crop
income of poor
%
Livelihoods
Import as % of
Consumption
Production
Minus
Consumption
Share in Calorie
Intake %
Food Security
Share in Food
Expenditure %
Commodity
0
9
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
H
M
M
H
L
M
H
L
H
H
L
L
L
L
H
Wheat
Rice
Maize
Sugar
Chicken meat
Bovine meat
Milk and diary
products
Tomatoes
Onions
Potatoes
(0.1)
1.0
Other
Issues
OVERALL SCORE FOR PRODUCT
(0.55)
Domestic production as % of world production
Criteria
Livelihood Security / Rural
Development
Agroecological sustainability
Environmental Impact
Contribution of Small Farmers to Total Output
Vulnerability to Import Displacement
Sectoral Linkages/Coordination/Strategic Alliances
Potential Forward/Backward linkages
Income Generation
(0.35)
% of farmers with activity as sole source of income
Food Security
% of [agricultural] land under cultivation of product
Product
% of producers that are small farmers (<0.025 ha)
% of labour force employed in activity
Contribution to Total Domestic Consumption
Contribution to total domestic Output
Contribution to Caloric Intake
Import Dependency - % sourced from imports
Individual Food Security
Household Food Security
National Food Security - product identified in
National food security basket
Selecting SP: The Matrix Approach
Ranking of Special products
Sustainability
Issues
Individual Food Security
Import Dependency
Contribution to total domestic Output
Contribution to Total Domestic Consumption
Environmental Impact
110220
Maize other than seed maize
5 5 5 5 4
5
5
5
2
5
5
4
4
59
2
100510
Milk & cream, concentrated, sweetened
5 5 5 5 3
4
4
5
1
5
5
5
5
57
3
0402
Maize flour
5 5 5 5 4
5
5
5
2
5
5
2
4
57
4
100190
Wheat, other than durum and meslin
5 5 5 5 5
5
4
4
5
3
4
3
4
57
5
170111
0403
Cane sugar, raw solid form without added flavour/ colour
5 4 5 5 5
Buttermilk, curdled milk & cream, yoghurt, kephir,
fermented or acidified milk & cream, whether or not flavoured 4 4 5 4 3
4
4
3
2
3
4
5
5
54
4
4
5
1
5
5
5
5
54
6
Total Points
Household Food Security
1
Agroecological sustainability
National Food Securiity
Food Security
Employment Generation
Income Generation
Potential Forward/Backward linkages
Contribution to Caloric Intake
Vulnerability to Import Displacement
Tariff Item
Rank Number Description of products
Livelihood
Security /
Rural
Development
7
0105
Butter & other fats & oils derived from milk
4 4 5 4 3
3
4
5
1
5
5
5
5
53
8
0207
Rice, semi/wholly milled, polished not broken
4 5 5 3 4
5
4
3
5
2
4
4
4
52
9
0405
Cane/beet sugar chemical pure sucrose refined nesoi
5 4 5 4 5
3
3
3
2
3
4
5
5
51
10
0406
Wheat and meslin flour
4 4 4 4 4
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
50
Key: 5 = high importance; 1 = low importance
Closing message
(1/2)
•
Research -knowledge processing- needs to be driven by purpose to be of
influence.
•
•
To serve Sustainable Development, research - knowledge processing needs to be inclusive (of stakeholders) and methodologies and outcomes
tested before delivery to policy-making processes.
•
•
researcher, policy issue and terms of reference (who, what and on
what terms) should be aligned with purpose.
systematic engagement with leading policy-makers and influencers
(e.g. think tanks, producer groups, academia, advocacy groups) is
essential in building robust and policy-useful conclusions from
research.
Researchers can be entrepreneurial about changing policy but it may be
more efficient/effective to work with “policy knowledge brokers”,
•
a clear division of labour between researchers (knowledge providers
and codifiers) and agents that act as “connectors” or ‘transmitters” of
findings to policy making processes may result in more effective use
(better timing and targeting) of research.
Closing message
(2/2)
•
There is no “single, one-size-fits-all model” to making research and
knowledge processing effective in influencing trade policy.
•
•
Policy environments/arena for trade policy are many and distinctive.
•
•
Effective research-policy schemes must respond to particularities.
Policy entrepreneurs engage in knowledge processing with the aim of
changing something, not in order to contribute to contribute knowledge
only.
•
•
Serendipity, opportunity and strategic design are all valid and capable
of generating successful outcomes.
Expanding policy capacities; affecting policy debate; affecting policy
regimes; or, developing new policy regimes, (Neilson, IDRC, 2003) all
require distinct research-policy dynamics.
Effective research-policy linkages should ideally result in agenda-setting
and not remain reactive to policy-makers needs.