RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/IFSC/6/Rev.2/Add.1
3 December 2003
(03-6433)
Integrated Framework Steering Committee
FINAL REPORT OF THE EVALUATION OF THE INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK
 SUMMARY
Addendum
This document contains the summary of the Final Report of the second Evaluation of the
Integrated Framework for Trade-related Technical Assistance to the Least-developed Countries (IF).
It is an addendum to the full Final Report circulated as document WT/IFSC/6/Rev.2.WT/IFSC/6/Rev.2/Add.1
Page 2
Evaluation of the Revamped Integrated Framework
For Trade-related Technical Assistance
to the Least-Developed Countries
Project GLO/03/G01
Summary
of the Final Report
Presented to
The Integrated Framework Steering Committee
Prepared by
Capra-TFOC Consortium
(Capra International Inc. and
Trade Facilitation Office Canada)
November 2003WT/IFSC/6/Rev.2/Add.1
Page 3
INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the findings of the Final Report  on Evaluation of the Revamped Integrated
Framework [IF] for Trade-Related Technical Assistance to the Least-Developed Countries  [LDC]
(October 2003) and addresses comments made by re presentatives of core agencies, donor and LDCs,
both orally and in writing1, at the IF Steering Committee meeting on October 27, 2003.  The findings
regarding the evaluation elements specified in the Statement of Work  and in the Terms of Reference ,
which are diffused throughout the final Evaluation Report, are referenced to their respective sections
in the Final Report  in Table 1 [pp. 21-24].
The Report Structure
The Final Evaluation Report.  The full Final Report was designed to facilitate reading at two levels:
(1) as an integrated whole, or (2) as free-standing parts, on a country-by-country or issue-by-issue
basis.  To accommodate both interests, the Report’s recommendations are numbered both within each
free-standing part and sequentially, as well as in groups.  The grouped recommendations appearing in
this Summary , reference in square brackets the sequentially numbered recommendations, which are
contained in the Final Report. Individual sections within the report are structured to identify:  (1) the
evaluation context, as drawn from the Logical Framework Analysis  (Annex A);  (2) a description of
the evaluation findings;  (3) a brief interpretation of the significance of the findings;  (4) a discussion
of potential adjustments;  (5) a visualization of the potential impact of adjustments;  and (6)
recommendations.  Specific recommendations on who should do what and when have been avoided,
since such aspects can only be fully addressed after key issues of perception, approach and capacity
have been dealt with.
The Summary Report .  In the course of the review of the Final Report, both donor and agency
representatives wondered how much additional time might be required, if certain recommendations
were implemented, as for example, the greater use of local consultants, more extensive local
participation and more capacity development.  To estimate the time requirements broadly, this report
adds brief notes on Possible Implementation Options , a feature that did not appear in the full Final
Report.  Building on these notes, a typical time requirement is then estimated for those options where
the Evaluators have international data.  It must be noted, however, that in actual practice,implementation time-lines may vary significantly from LDC to LDC, for a number of good reasons.
Regardless of additional time requirements, the long-term effectiveness of IF must be considered,
which may be diminished, if certain necessary inve stments in time are not made.  A further concern
expressed by agency and donor representatives relates to priorities  in implementing change.  Again,
this Summary Report contains suggestions for priority ranking, a feature that was not addressed in the
full Final Report.
                                                     
1 Responses to comments are woven into the text of the Summary Report, without identifying the
source.  In a few cases, it was not possible to address comments precisely due to their generality or theirapparent reference to IF as an instrument, rather than to aspects of the evaluation.WT/IFSC/6/Rev.2/Add.1
Page 4
The Approach to the Evaluation
The approach to the evaluation was the best that could be done in the extremely short period of time
available to the Evaluators, which was about half of the seven months initially contemplated in the
Terms of Reference.
While the primary purpose of the evaluation was the assessment of results , it was evident that it was
too early to look for measurable developmental results  in terms of poverty reduction attributable to
increased trade and economic growth.  Therefore the evaluation focused on operational results , but
even for these, the lack of measurable goals and objectives, and hence quantitative performance
indicators, imposed serious limitations on what could be done in the short available timeframe.  Based
on documents that had been provided to the Evaluators, these constructed a potential Logical
Framework Analysis  (Annex A), which assisted them in the design of the approach to the Evaluation.
The Fundamental Evaluation Issues  were:  (1) The extent to which increased trade can be reasonably
expected to contribute to poverty reduction in LD Cs;  (2) which conditions must exist to ensure that
increased trade will benefit the poor; and (3) the IF’s achievement of expected results of
mainstreaming trade into development,  i.e. the issues relating to the Doha Development Agenda .
The Specific Evaluation Issues  were:  (1) The level of awareness of the IF among stakeholders2;  (2)
the stakeholders’ understanding of IF objectives;  (3) the stakeholders’ expectations from IF;  (4) the
stakeholders’ motivation and level of preparation to cooperate;  (5) the implementation of IF in terms
of success factors and barriers;  (6) the governance of IF in terms of the adequacy of the IFmanagement structure;  and (7) learning from IF, in terms of recommendations.
On the premise that the IF is LDC-driven, the initial contact  was with the IF Focal Point, and, when
required, with representatives of core agencies, Lead Donors/Facilitators, and in some cases local
Chambers of Commerce.  In particular, these contact person had been asked to identify the local IFstakeholders
3, that should be involved in the evaluation, including governmental officials, the private
sector, academia and civil society, as well as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).  Even though
six field consultants had been made available to undertake the evaluation in a multilingual
environment (English, French, Arabic), who were supported by a Panel of Experts  consisting of seven
members, many key informants were not available to participate, since the two-day4 country visits had
to be forced into a rigid timeframe, in many cases during the peak holiday season.
Against the backdrop of the Evaluators’ Logical Framework Analysis  (Annex A), the Evaluators
undertook both secondary and primary research.  The secondary research  consisted of both a
document and literature review and a preliminary analysis of available statistical data regarding
poverty and fiscal capacity, i.e. two indicators, the significance of which should be further assessed in
terms of governance indicators.  The primary research  was conducted using (1) interviews, focus
groups and other meetings, based on an Interview and Focus Group Guide , to ascertain the views of
core agencies, selected donors and representativ es of LDCs in Geneva , Washington, New York,
                                                     
2 As for the assessment of awareness , it should be noted that since the Focal Points selected the IF
participants in the evaluation, it is assumed that the best informed individuals were chosen, if they were
available at the time of evaluation.  It follows from that assumption, that a low level of awareness may meanthat either the level of awareness is truly low, calling for better communication, or that the Evaluators did nothave access to better informed individuals, for whatever reasons.  Low awareness was also noted among the fewcontacts with regional development banks that were possible.
3 The list of actual contacts, which includes all of these categories, has not been published in the
Report, under pledge of confidentiality to the participants.
4 The highly compressed timeframe for country visits, of only two days each, permitted a fairly general
assessment, but largely precluded the formulation of extensive specific recommendations aimed at improvingthe LDC-based IF.WT/IFSC/6/Rev.2/Add.1
Page 5
Brussels, London and 17 LDCs, plus telephone interviews with representatives of another LDC, as
well as (2) an invitational electronic survey  (Annex E).
Due to the time constraints it was only possible to conduct an electronic survey , which obviously
limited the number of participants to those who could access the Internet.  Had more time been
available, a parallel mail-in survey might have been attempted to reach those who lack Internet access.Since the electronic survey resulted in a relatively small sample size, LDC responses were grouped
for analysis. It should also be noted that the survey questions were designed to look at both perceived
actual results and potential performance.  The survey resulted in key findings regarding awareness and
understanding of the IF, expectations from IF, as well as implementation and governance of IF.
The Summary Finding
In overall terms, the evaluation revealed that considerable progress has been made, especially at the
agency and planning levels, but fine-tuning  is required to move to a robust implementation stage,
where concrete in-country results can be achieved within more countries.
With regard to general progress, the Evaluators noted with satisfaction the fundamental soundness of
the IF approach, which they expressed in the First Evaluation Issue  relating to Trade and Poverty ,
and, in particular, to its premise that, all other factors being equal, poverty should decline as the level
and extent of socio-economic intervention increases .
In reporting their findings, the Evaluators also noted what they considered to be the most essential
ingredients of success .  These include:  (1) a Logical Framework  (see Annex A) in which expected
results are clearly defined in terms of short-term outputs, medium-term outcomes and long-term
impacts, which are then transformed into a prioritized Action Plan;  (2) a high level of political
support for introducing change;  (3) an adequately re sourced Focal Point, at the centre of a network of
local stakeholders, agencies and donors;  (4) effective capacity development (see Annex G);  and (5)throughout the IF system (agencies, donors, LDCs), individuals who are committed to the IF
objectives.WT/IFSC/6/Rev.2/Add.1
Page 6
WHAT NEEDS TO BE FINE-TUNED?
The Evaluators have identified two other Evaluation Issues  as well as eight broad programmatic
areas , where fine-tuning is critical to the success of the IF.
Two Evaluation Issues
Second Evaluation Issue .  One of these other two Evaluation Issues  addresses the question when
trade will benefit the poor .  In macro  terms, the answer is that trade will only benefit the poor in an
LDC, if governance  provides for political inclusiveness and greater social development.  What good
governance means has been summarized in the six World Bank criteria of:  Voice and accountability;
political stability and absence of violence;  Government effectiveness;  regulatory quality; rule of law;
and control of corruption.
In micro  terms, trade benefits the poor, when, in designing DTIS, a conscious effort is made to
include potential export products, produced by the poor, in a pro-poor environment.  To make that
possible, it may be necessary to work hand in glove with the PRSP processes early in the introduction
of IF to an LDC.  Some of the PRSP initiatives entail a wonderful World Bank tool, that of poverty
mapping .  Basically a poverty map is grounded in the premise that in rich and poor countries alike
there may be significant pockets where poverty is concentrated.  To reduce poverty effectively and
efficiently planners should not, and cannot, ignore some targeting of their efforts.
Third Evaluation Issue .  The third and last Evaluation Issue , calling for fine-tuning, relates to
mainstreaming of trade into development .  The Evaluators noted, and the Donors in their comments
stressed, that a critical area, in which some LCDs are underachieving, is the extent of the LDC
participatory  environment, which needs to be strengthened, along with certain broad programmatic
areas, as discussed below.
What about the eight broad programmatic areas in which fine-tuning is perceived to be necessary?
Eight Broad Programmatic Areas
1. IF Scope
The first of these is the question of IF Scope  to clarify differences of perception , with special
reference to the issue of supply-side constraints ?  How big is IF, or how big should it be?  The
Evaluators noted, and the Donors also pointed this out, that there appears to be a divergence of
opinion between the donors and several LDCs with respect to supply-side constraints.  The
fundamental issue is whether IF should be a broad fu nding source, or whether it should remain to be a
relatively small mechanism to help member count ries identify their strengths and weakness, and
particularly their quantified needs for funding, which are then presented to donors with a request for
funding from a variety of sources.  The Evaluators  recommend that the IFSC develop a guideline on
the issue of IF scope and that the LDCs, in requesting the reduction of supply-side constraints, weigh
the associated costs and benefits in relation to their other trade and development priorities.
Grouped Recommendations
4.1.1 It is recommended that the IFSC develop Guidelines to establish the limits of IF-
defined activities, including the scope, coverage and parameters of supply-side
constraints.   [See Recommendations 29, 95 and 96.]WT/IFSC/6/Rev.2/Add.1
Page 7
4.1.2 It is recommended that countries implemen ting the IF pay particular attention to the
cost and benefits of supply-side constraint projects and weigh these against their
expected results. [See Recommendation 97]
Possible Implementation Options
Option 1: If the decision is to provide direct IF funding to reduce supply-side constraints, then it
may be desirable to establish a separate fund for that purpose, in order not to threaten
highly effective less costly IF core activities that may have lesser political appeal.
Option 2: If the decision is not to provide direct IF funding to reduce supply-side constraints,
then the Action Plan Matrices might be used to develop funding request packages for
presentation to donors, in two categories:  (1) regular IF and (2) funding to diminishsupply-side constraints.
2. Country Selection
The second broad programmatic area requiring fine-tuning, relates to country selection .  From the
perspective of the LDCs, the predominant concern appears to be the perception that country selectionis not sufficiently objective and transparent.  To address this issue, the Evaluators recommend that the
IFSC develop, and widely publicize, an object ive and transparent country selection process.
The Evaluators also recommend the use of an objective filtering process, comprising macro , meso  and
micro  features.  The precise nature of these filters needs to be carefully considered to achieve both
effectiveness and efficiency of operation, while noting the potential limitations of the politicalconsiderations impacting on the selection process.
Fundamental to country selection, it is important, from a macro  perspective, to clarify the grounds for
selection :  Should IF favour (1) the selection of countries offering a high rate of return for an
investment of effort, or (2) countries that are most needy of assistance in their development process?Depending on the IF members’ choice, the results flowing from the selection will differ.  If the IF
members find it difficult to define the grounds for selection, due to political aspects, then, as a
minimum response, the selected country should be classified, after the fact, as to type, since that will
assist in defining realistic expected results.
In the context of country selection, the question arose whether the IF approach in general, and the
DTIS process in particular, should be extended beyond LDCs.  This is essentially a resource issue, as
well as one of focus.  While it could be done, especially as some low income countries are probably
better positioned to benefit more quickly from the IF, it would require a substantially larger financial
contribution from the international community, and a much strengthened and enlarged Secretariat.
Given the number of potentially eligible countries, much stricter adherence to selection criteria would
be required, which could even lead to the exclusion of LDCs for whom the IF was created in the firstplace.  The Evaluators would consider such an outcome to be undesirable.
Grouped Recommendation
4.2.1 It is recommended that the IFWG develop, and widely publicize, an objective and
transparent country selection proces s, using macro, me so and micro filters
.  [ S e e
Recommendations 65; 83; 84.]WT/IFSC/6/Rev.2/Add.1
Page 8
Possible Implementation Options
Option 3: If the decision is to use a macro filter, identify either an in-house specialist, trained in
statistics, or a contractor, to develop a methodology based on the conclusions in
Annex D, to track annually the macro LDC secondary data on poverty, GDP and
governance, with a view to ranking poten tial IF candidate LDCs.  Under either
approach, the use of this filter is relatively low cost and requires a minuscule
investment in time.
Option 4: If the decision is to use a meso filter, there may be an alternative to the use of a pre-
selection DTIS-Lite, which had been suggested in the Final Report.  That alternative
would be the preparation of a country profile  based on available economic and social
secondary data.  Such a profile, like the macro filter in Option 1, would requirerelatively little cost and time to prepare.  As in the case of the macro filter, this work
could be executed by an in-house statistician or by a contractor.
Option 5: There is no doubt, as confirmed in donor comments, that the micro  filter is of critical
importance, since it will ascertain the extent of political will  and readiness  of the
country to assume IF-related leadership.  This filter would incorporate, to a
considerable extent, the substance of the existing initial assessment mission and
concept paper.
3. LDC Participation and Ownership
The third broad programmatic area requiring fine-tuning, relates to LDC participation and ownership .
While country ownership is a primary criterion for ultimate IF success, participation, buy-in and
commitment in LDCs vary greatly.  Where countr y ownership is weak, IF development is weak.
Where country ownership is strong, the IF flourishes. All LDCs should be encouraged to ensure as
broad participation as possible.  In the case of new LDCs, the extent of planned participation may wellbe an important element for country selection.
The criteria for LDC country ownership encompass:   (1) Senior level government commitment, i.e.
political will;  (2) a fully equipped IF Focal Point (human and financial resources);  (3) the
establishment of, and membership on, the National Steering Committee ;  (4) local leadership in the
DTIS
5 and Action Plan Matrix  processes;  (5) local consultant selection;  (6) an Action Plan Matrix
that is manageable and indicatively costed, as an LDC’s tool for the solicitation of donor support; and
(6) LDC control over projects to be executed within their countries.  Many LDCs want more direct
initial participation in all phases of IF planning.
Grouped Recommendations
4.1.3 It is recommended that IF officials, who promote the IF in existing and new IF
countries, ensure that they obtain senior level government commitment to the IF
before making any commitments for IF support .  [See Recommendations 14 and 46.]
                                                     
5 In that context, every effort should be made to  encourage the production of leaner and better focused
DTIS. There should be less emphasis on priority sectors and more attention to overall exporter  support and
development.WT/IFSC/6/Rev.2/Add.1
Page 9
4.1.4 It is recommended that the IF Focal Point be equipped with sufficient human and
financial resources to be able to manage the IF initiative effectively, including
communication, task distribution within di fferent government offices and document
preparation for donor solicitation.   [See Recommendations 8, 15, 23; 28, 34, 48, 51,
59.]
4.1.5 It is recommend that the IFSC develop a Guideline on the Meaning and Extent of
Country Ownership and Participation in the IF Process, including:  (a) the
establishment of and membership on the National Steering Committee [NSC],
including pro-poor representation;  (b) local leadership in the DTIS and Action Plan
Matrix processes; and (c) local consultant selection.   [See Recommendations 1, 4, 5,
20, 25, 26, 29, 36, 37, 42, 44, 49, 57, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 71, 88.]
4.3.4 It is recommended that the Action Plan Matrix be developed in such a way that it
serves as a manageable and indicatively costed work programme.  [See
Recommendation 60.]
4.3.5 It is recommended that, after LDCs have identified their trade-related priorities  and
needs, the country open a competition inviting the cooperation agencies to “bid” on
their areas of expertise and interest, while the country selects the sectors or projects,
which will be attended by those agencies, this being an approach that can foster a
sense of national dignity and ownership.  [See Recommendation 31.]
4.3.6 It is recommended that Agencies and Donors increase coordination at the national
level .  [See Recommendations 32, 36, 56.]
Possible Implementation Options
The achievement of country participation and ownership depends on many variables, not the least on
some of the broad programmatic areas that are discussed below.  Nevertheless, the following process
options are of critical importance.
Option 6: IF implementation should be responsive .  That means that an LDC that has been
selected should be allowed to advance at its own pace .  IF agencies and donors
should respond  to the extent that LDCs are ready to advance by offering timely and
effective support in terms of technical advice, guidance and funding, as needed.
Agencies and donors should not rush LDCs , since that would imply that the LDCs
serve agency and donor interests, rather than the other way around.  If an LDC
perceives a value in IF for improving its socio-economic advantages and the quality
of life of its citizenry, then, it will want to benefit as quickly as possible.  This optionwill likely require more time than external interventions, but it should not require
greater budgetary resources.  These may even be less!
Option 7: To foster LDC participation and ownership, IF implementation should be undertaken
in a learning environment , where the LDC owners of the process are allowed to make
mistakes, without being penalized.  Experi ence has shown that participation and
ownership in a learning environment is more important to ultimate success than
achieving a high degree of technical quality in outputs that were produced by
outsiders.  Such a learning environment may be achieved using Action Learning
principles, as discussed in Annex G.  The implementation of Action Learning  requires
the training and use of an Action Learning Facilitator .  A suitably trained and locallyWT/IFSC/6/Rev.2/Add.1
Page 10
based Donor Facilitator may be the best person for that role.  The estimated duration
of a training workshop is two to three days.
Option 8: To assist agency and donor representatives in responding to LDCs in a learning
environment, it may be helpful to develop an IF Facilitator Tool Kit  comprising
implementation checklists and other resources, such as a model for a Results-Based
Management  (RBM) planning matrix.
4. Consultant Selection
The fourth broad programmatic area requiring fine-tuning relates to consultant selection .  There is a
widespread perception that current practices of consultant selection result in “doing it for them”
instead of “doing it with them”.  Obviously, local consultants have to be qualified.  If the
requirements can be clearly defined in terms of necessary abilities to do the work, it should bepossible to rate local people against these requirements and involve them to the extent that they are
fully or partially qualified. International consultants might be invited to pick up the slack, and, in
general terms, provide mentoring and coaching support.  As the old adage has it, it is better to teach a
man to fish than to feed him fish.  Having said that, it should be noted that mentoring  may be far more
challenging and time consuming than delivering  the final product, but this extra effort must be viewed
as an effective investment in long-term development.
Grouped Recommendations
4.4.1 It is recommended that the IFSC issue a Guideline on IF Consulting, with a view to
attracting and developing more fully or partially qualified local people capable of
undertaking assignments or contracts for IF-related research  and implementation
studies, whereby international consultants would predominantly perform mentoring
and coaching functions, as required .  [See Recommendations 86, 89, 91, 98, 99.]
4.4.2 It is recommended that the IFWG develop and maintain an IF-related consultant
database comprising both local and international consultants .  [See
Recommendation 92.]
Possible Implementation Options
Option 9: Convene a system-wide DACUM workshop , as discussed in Annex G of the Final
Report, to define and document in a DACUM profile  the sub-occupational or sub-
professional as well as personal competencies or skills which are required to execute
a DTIS study.  Per competency area, such a workshop and subsequent development
work, including preparation and travel would normally require about three weeks.
Each workshop would also require the participation of five to eight experiencedpractitioners under the leadership of an experienced DACUM Facilitator
6, as well as
one or two subject matter experts for subsequent development.
Option 10: Use the DACUM profile  (Option 9) as a recruitment tool to assess the skills of
available local consultants, using documentary screening and interview techniques7;
then recruit those local consultants that appear to be able to demonstrate some or all
of the required skills, complementing these, to the extent necessary to overcome
                                                     
6 Outside Canada, full DACUM training programmes have been delivered in at least ten countries,
including: Argentina; Bénin; Brazil; Burkina Faso; Chile; Palestine; Finland; Mali; Mexico; and South Africa.
7 If desired, such a simplified approach can be enhanced by means of standard Prior Learning
Assessment  techniques.WT/IFSC/6/Rev.2/Add.1
Page 11
knowledge or skill gaps, by qualified international consultants, who will act as
coaches.  Standard recruitment timeframes apply.
5. Planning, Management, Monitoring and Evaluation
The fifth broad programmatic area requiring fine-tuning, relates to planning, management, monitoring
and evaluation .  There is a perception that: (1) IF is a series of free-standing activities, assigned and
controlled by outsiders, without necessarily associating trade-related development with poverty
reduction; i.e. the focus seems to be on activities rather than results;  (2) the DTIS tend to be too
generic and often lack a pro-poor dimension; and (3) the Action Plan Matrices , generally lack
prioritization.  In addition, other improvements should be made to enhance planning, management,
monitoring and evaluation.
The fundamental recommendation to address the area of planning, management, monitoring and
evaluation urges the adoption of a Results-Based Management  [RBM] process.  While some donors
wondered whether RBM might be burdensome for so me LDCs, that should not be the case. RBM is
not an imposed super-model that everyone has to follow.  The process is as simple or as complex as a
given LDC desires. It is a tool that each LDC can choose to adopt. Fundamentally, the RBM approach
entails the following:  (1) Decide where you want to go, or in RBM terms, which specific results do Iwant to achieve?  (2) What do I have to do to get there, in terms of activities and strategies?  (3) How
do I know when I have arrived, i.e. are there any indicators against a baseline?  (4) Whom do I need to
help me get there, i.e. what are the human resource  requirements?  And (5), how much will it cost, i.e.
the budget or funding requests presented to donors?  The answers to these questions are what
participating LDCs decide they want to do.  IF facilitators should accompany  the LDCs to where they
want to go to reduce poverty, at the pace they want to go, allowing them to do some things their way .
If an RBM approach is adopted, this will facilitate the availability of a DTIS follow-up mechanism at
the local level as well as mainstreaming of the IF  within agencies and donors.  Some valuable donor
roles in that regard were noted in the report of the Hague workshop.
8
The RBM approach generally, and the Logical Framework Analysis (LFA), in particular, is also mosthelpful in anticipating risks, such as changing go vernment priorities and declining interest in IF.
Since both the RBM and LFA are readily changeable, these tools would also be ideal for the design of
an exit strategy .
It should be noted that the reach of RBM can be considerably broader than just IF, by ultimately
influencing public management practices throughout LD Cs.  If that should happen, then IF-based use
of RBM will have been instrumental in stimulating greater accountability and better governance in
participating LDCs.
RBM  is now a central programme tool in the Canadian International Development Agency.  In many
cases, developing countries cannot even submit a proposal without doing a Logical Framework
Analysis , which is the heart of the RBM process!  A model of what that might be is contained in
Annex A of the Evaluation Report.
If the participating LDCs choose to operate IF under an RBM approach, they should also be the
managers  leading the monitoring process.  Performance criteria  would be defined in accordance with
a Logical Framework Analysis  and benchmarks  would be based on historical LDC experience.
                                                     
8 The Integrated Framework for Trade-Related Technical Assistance:  The Role of Donors. Report of a
workshop. 28-29 April 2003.WT/IFSC/6/Rev.2/Add.1
Page 12
One of the more general recommendations in the areas of planning, management, monitoring and
evaluation calls for the development of a simple, consistent and replicable data framework for the
dimensions of poverty, fiscal capacity and governance.
Grouped Recommendations
4.5.1 It is recommended that the IFSC ad opt a Results-Based Management (RBM)
Approach to define the expected results of poverty reduction attributable to trade in
terms of long-term impacts,  medium-term outcomes and short-term outputs, in order
to facilitate effective, efficient and integrated planning, management, monitoring and
evaluation throughout the IF system.   [See Recommendations 6, 12, 21, 40, 50, 66,
67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 80, 81, 82, 102, 103, 105.]
4.5.2 It is recommended that the data source for operational monitoring of IF progress be a
Results-Based Management (RBM) system.   [See Recommendation 108.]
4.5.3 It is recommended that IF managers in LDCs be responsible (1) for monitoring
expected results, in accordance with agreed-upon performance criteria, as well as(2) for reporting of these to LDC stakeholders, core agencies and donors.   [See
Recommendation 106.]
4.5.4 It is recommended that the IF be more communicative, efficient and transparent on
funds management at the country level, providing clear definitions on budgetallocation and identifying sources of funding  [Malawi] .  [See Recommendation 38.]
4.5.5 It is recommended that IF performance criteria be defined in the context of a Logical
Framework Analysis (LFA), reflecting LDC, core agency and donor requirements.
[See Recommendation 107.]
4.5.6 It is recommended that Benchmarks be defined in terms of historical LDC experience
with the IF, grounded in a Results-based Management (RBM) system.   [See
Recommendation 109, 113.]
4.5.7 It is recommended that the data source for periodic evaluations be twofold, (1) the
data derived from a Results-Based Management (RBM) system and (2) secondary
research data.   [See Recommendation 110.]
4.5.8 It is recommended that the development of a simple, consistent and replicable data
framework for the dimensions of poverty, fiscal capacity and governance be
developed, which is an essential component of a country selection and monitoring
framework.  [See Recommendation 111.]WT/IFSC/6/Rev.2/Add.1
Page 13
Possible Implementation Options
Option 11: Conduct a one-day Results-Based Management  (RBM) orientation workshop for the
members of the IFSC, IFWG and the IF Secretariat, including all Geneva-based LDC
representatives.  As one example of such a workshop, the CIDA model may be
viewed on the Internet.9
Option 12: Repeat the RBM orientation workshop (Option 11) in each LDC, with the
participation of the IF Focal Point, the members of the National Steering Committee
(NSC) or appropriate representatives of government, the private sector, academia and
civil society, if an NSC has not yet been established, as well as the IF agency and
donor representatives.
Option 13: In each LDC choosing to adopt the RBM approach, select a small group (at least two)
of dedicated officials who will facilitate the implementation of RBM and the
corresponding monitoring process, providing additional pre-assignment training, if
desired, these persons to be known as RBM Facilitators .
Option 14: Under the leadership of the RBM Facilitators (Option 13), create an Action Learning
(see Annex G of the Final Report) environment within the National Steering
Committee and relevant sub-committees to facilitate the effective introduction and
application of RBM, including the definition of a Logical Framework  (for a model
see Annex A of the Final Report).
Option 15: The RBM Facilitators draft performance indicators  and benchmarks  on the basis of
the Logical Framework (Option 14) and othe r appropriate data and seek a consensus
for their approval by the IF Focal Point, National Steering Committee as well as IF
agency and donor representatives.
Option 16: The RBM Facilitators manage the RBM-based monitoring processes and ensure
timely reporting to the NSC, who, in turn, report the monitoring results to the IF
Focal Point, and through the Focal Point, to the agency and donor community, as well
as other LDC-based stakeholders in the IF process.
Option 17: The LDC-based IF agency  and/or donor representatives act as mentors or coaches on
RBM-related matters, if requested by the LDC to do so.
Option 18: The IF Focal Point commissions necessary periodic secondary research  that may be
required for the development of a simple, consistent and replicable data framework
for the dimensions of poverty, fiscal capacity and governance, as well as for periodicevaluations.
                                                     
9 http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/cida_ind.nsf/0 /daa38a8fb771568985256c5600191ddc?OpenDocumentWT/IFSC/6/Rev.2/Add.1
Page 14
6. Capacity Development
The sixth of the eight broad programmatic areas, requiring fine-tuning, relates to capacity
development .  The Evaluators found that LDC leadership capacity varies greatly across LDCs.  These
findings concern both local consultants and the IF community, in general.
In general terms, the Evaluators recommend addressing capacity development along the lines of
competency-based  approaches.  Basically that means, as discussed in Annex G of the Final Report,
that:  (1) input is provided by a group of individuals who are actual practitioners ;  (2) it is consensus-
based , i.e. each competency statement is the reflec tion of a consensus reach ed by the practitioners;
and (3) the approach is application-oriented  and phrased in such a way that it will be measurable
and/or observable.
This process also allows for the use of prior learning assessment .  It provides total flexibility in terms
of learning environment, learning speed, etc.  It is perfect for training people with diverse
backgrounds and learning ability, since it focuses on what they can do.
The Evaluators also recommend that training of this type be offered at all levels , including the Focal
Point, the National Steering Committee and other public and private stakeholders.
Various specific recommendations address overall governance direction, training contents, training
methodology, and the use of mentors.
Grouped Recommendations
4.6.1 It is recommended that the IFSC issue a Guideline on IF-related Capacity
Development, Mentoring and Assistance, with a view to increasing the capacity of
local consultants and IF managers and capitalizing upon the opportunity to develop
in-country skills and competency for the long-run benefit of the IF and the LDCclient .  [See Recommendations 90, 99, 100, 112.]
4.6.2 It is recommended, with respect to training contents, that the following elements be
included:  (1) the capacity to manage the IF itself;  (2) the application of Results-
Based Management (RBM) for planning, monitoring and evaluation;  (3) the roles,tasks and responsibilities of each stakeholder;  (4) WTO negotiations and accession
activities; and (5) communication skills .  [See Recommendations 24, 43, 52, 102,
104.]
4.6.3 It is recommended, with respect to training participants, that the following groups be
offered training, among both current and future LDCs participating in IF: (1) local
stakeholders, including the IF Focal Point, government officials; (2) potential localconsultants; (3) regional and local enterprises; (4) exporters .  [See
Recommendations 11, 13, 35, 41, 43, 58, 87, 104.]
4.6.4 It is recommended that the training methodology be competency based .  [See
Recommendation 23 and Annex G.]
4.6.5 It is recommended that mentors be drawn, to the extent possible, from: (1) local  core
agency representatives and (2) the lead donor facilitator .  [See Recommendation 3,
45.]
4.6.6 It is recommended that the operation of JITAP and IF be harmonized in countries
where both offer their services and that their resources be used in a coordinated wayWT/IFSC/6/Rev.2/Add.1
Page 15
and that similar approaches be used for the coordination of IF and other local plans.
[See Recommendation 10, 32, 39.]
Possible Implementation Options
Option 19: Convene an integrated series of system-wide DACUM workshops , as discussed in
Annex G of the Final Report (also see Option 9), to define and document in DACUM
profiles  the competencies or skills which are required for the administration of the IF
in an LDC .  One workshop each would be conducted to cover the functions of:
(1) the IF Focal Point;  (2) members of the National Steering Committee; and (3)
LDC-based agency and donor representatives.  The time requirement and practitioner
support would be as described in Option 9.
Option 20: Based on the DACUM Profiles for LDC- based IF administration (Option 19), and
with the participation of JITAP trainers, design an orientation programme ,
comprising expected learning outcomes and corresponding instructional objectives,
curriculum contents, as well as instructional methods based on adult learning
principles, including independent learning, and suitable for use in a variety ofappropriate media.
Option 21: Offer orientation training  (based on Option 20) to the three target groups upon their
appointment:  (1) IF Focal Points;  (2) members of the National Steering Committee;
and (3) LDC-based agency and donor representatives.
Option 22: Convene a system-wide 1-2 day planning workshop to define the criteria for the
development of a coherent Exporter Development Programme , with the participation
of JITAP, Trade Facilitation Office Canada, the Forum of International Trade
Training
10 and the DACUM Facilitator(s) (Options 9, 19, 20).
Option 23: With the participation of JITAP, Trade Facilitation Office Canada, the Forum of
International Trade Training and the DACUM Facilitators, develop a catalogue of
suitable available courses , as well as a list of new courses that need to be developed,
indicating the identity of recommended course developers, together with developmentcriteria and timelines.
Option 24: After establishing IF working groups of any kind, foster learning  on the job,  using
Action Learning  techniques (see Annex G of the Final Report).
7. Communication
The seventh of the eight broad programmatic areas, requiring fine-tuning, relates to communication .
One of the major risks  in any undertaking, the IF included, is that communication with stakeholders
may be insufficient to assure effective buy-in.
Various communication-related recommendations have been offered, the main ones being (1) the
creation of a Communication Unit  within the IF Secretariat and (2) the establishment of a Focal Point
Network .
A communication strategy  should be designed for the system as a whole and within each participating
LDC, identifying carefully:  (1) the specific communication objectives;  (2) the target audiences (and
they vary, as for example government officials, expor ters, civil society, etc.);  (3) discrete themes;
                                                     
10 http://www.fitt.caWT/IFSC/6/Rev.2/Add.1
Page 16
(4) within each theme several distinct messages;  and (5) the preferred media, such as letters,
pamphlets, meetings, the Internet, etc.
Grouped Recommendations
4.7.1 It is recommended that a dedicated Information Unit within the IF Secretariat be
established.  [See Recommendation 53, 76.]
4.7.2 It is recommended that an IF LDC Focal Point Network be established.  [See
Recommendation 77.]
4.7.3 It is recommended that an information strategy be designed, comprising: (1)
communication objectives  (see Recommendation 7, 9, 11, 27);  (2) targeted audiences
(see Recommendation 7, 9, 47, 79, 85, 93, 94);  (3) discrete themes and messages
(see Recommendation 7, 27, 47, 54, 85, 94) ;  and (4) media.   [See Recommendation
7, 27, 79.]
4.7.4 It is recommended that good practices and lessons learned in successful experiences
be disseminated to the IF partners, especially  LDC beneficiaries, perhaps using the
Focal Point Network.   [See Recommendations18, 22.]
4.7.5 It is recommended that information be provided efficiently and transparently about
funds management and funding sources at the country level.   [See Recommendation
38, 78, 79.]
4.7.6 It is recommended that communication skills be developed at all levels, including the
IF Focal Point.  [See Recommendation 24.]WT/IFSC/6/Rev.2/Add.1
Page 17
Possible Implementation Options
Option 25: If a discrete Communication Unit  will be created, successful implementation would
require:  (1) the secondment of suitable candidates who were trained or are
experienced in communication, preferably with an additional background in trade
and/or development;  (2) under the guidance of an experienced facilitator, possiblyusing Action Learning  techniques (see Annex G), guide the staff of the Unit in
drafting the necessary organizational infrastructure, communication policies,
communication management, and communicati on procedures, focusing on a results-
based approach and drawing on best communication practices;  (3) undertake a
knowledge gap analysis and provide on-the-job orientation and access to specialized
capacity development, as required;  and (4) develop an integrated training and
operations manual.
Option 26: Using the staff of the Communication Unit  (see Option 25), develop communication
capacity in LDCs.
8. Governance
The last of the broad programmatic areas, requiring fine-tuning is governance .  Basically the
Evaluators recommend that:  (1) the IFSC remain as is, as a high-level policy setting and policy
review entity;  (2) the IFWG become more ba lanced in agency, donor and LDC representation;
however, from Donor comments it is evident that this may be difficult to achieve for a number of
good reasons, including the need to assure full agency engagement;  and (3) the IF Secretariat shouldbe strengthened, perhaps by using secondments from the three IF partners.  With respect to the IF
Trust Fund, it was considered premature to offer significant recommendations, since the Fund, which
was established in 2001, was only finalized with Window II operations while the evaluation was in
progress.  Nevertheless, the Evaluators noted, in a preliminary way, that the IFTF procedures may be
a bit heavy and the speed of disbursement might be accelerated.
Grouped Recommendations
4.8.1 It is recommended that the IF Steering  Committee remain as a high-level policy
setting and policy review entity.   [See Recommendation 73.]
4.8.2 It is recommended that consideration be given to structuring the IF Working Group
so as to have an equal number of representa tives from each of the three IF partner
groups (i.e. agencies, donors and LDCs), say two members each, and to developing a
consultation network within each IF partner group to ensure adequate coverage of
all partner interests.   [See Recommendation 74.]
4.8.3 It is recommended that the Secretariat be strengthened through secondments from
within the three IF Partners.  [See Recommendation 75.]WT/IFSC/6/Rev.2/Add.1
Page 18
Possible Implementation Options
No implementation option is required with respect to the IFSC, since the IFSC would be essentially a
governance body.  As for the IFWG, the main concern that was voiced is the perception of imbalance
of representation between the partners.  There are basically two options to respond to that concern:
(1) the solution implied in Grouped Recommendation 4.8.2, which would see a smaller WorkingGroup, coupled with a consultative mechanism, and (2) a larger Working Group, consisting of six
representatives from each of the three IF members.  The latter option would not be easily workable, if
the IFWG were to retain a great deal of hands-on responsibility.  To overcome that difficulty and
make the second option workable, a significant workload related to day-to-day responsibilities might
have to be shifted to the IF Secretariat.
Option 27: In accordance with Grouped Recommendation 4.8.2, the IFWG would be reduced to
two representatives from each member, coupled with a consultation mechanism to
ensure full coverage.
Option 28: As an alternative solution to Option 27, to address the problem of perceived
inequitable representation, the IFWG might be expanded to six representatives permember, while responsibilities for day-to-day matters would be significantly shifted
to the IF Secretariat.  This growth in both the IFWG and the Secretariat might be
readily defensible:  (1) if, due to the shift,  the function of the IFWG would essentially
be one of executive oversight, for which fewer meetings would likely be required;
and (2) if due to the expected increase in the number of LDCs, as well as the potentialtransfer of certain functions from the IFWG, the workload of the Secretariat
increases.
Option 29: The existing IF Secretariat may be asked to estimate staffing needs  to satisfy current
requirements, new requirements stemming from the expansion of the IF to othercountries, requirements due to the potential shift of IFWG functions to the
Secretariat, new requirements, if a Communication Unit is established, as well as
other new functions that may be assigned to it, such as the oversight of the RBM
process, if that should be adopted, as well as the consolidation of associated RBM-
based monitoring activities.
Option 30: In the context of Option 29, recruit staff for the IF Secretariat through time-limited
secondments from among the IF members, with the possibility of reappointment, so
as to assure partial renewal from year to year, as required, with a view to preserving
sufficient continuity over time.WT/IFSC/6/Rev.2/Add.1
Page 19
A NEW IF WORLD?
Suppose that some of the major suggested changes will be made.  What would the new IF-world look
like?  The Terms of Reference  for the evaluation included the suggestion of potential enhanced
procedures for applying IF to selected countries.  The Evaluators have identified a set of necessary
assumptions and a three-step planning approach.
Assumptions
The assumptions are that:  (1) Country selection will be based on objective and transparent criteria;
(2) countries may select themselves as candidates for IF, or IF officials may suggest that a given LDC
consider participation in IF;  (3) countries which will be selected will be encouraged to become fully
involved from the start and that they adopt a Results-Based Management approach that is appropriate
for them;  and (4) fully or partially qualified local consultants will be used.
A Three-Step Planning Approach
The three-step planning approach comprises:  (1) an Orientation and Assessment Mission;  (2) a
Planning Workshop;  and (3) the formation of a National Steering Committee.
Orientation and Assessment Mission
The first of a three-step planning approach would be an Orientation and Assessment Mission , i.e. a
process similar to the existing pre-DTIS activities. In particular, such a process would include:  (1) Apresentation to LDC stakeholders of IF objectives;  (2) the determination of the extent of desired LDC
participation;  (3) the readiness for using a Re sults-Based Management approach;  and (4) the
preference for using local consultants, to the extent possible.
Planning Workshop
If the initial Orientation and Assessment Mission  is successful, a broadly based Planning Workshop
would be held, comprising representatives of:  (1) Government;  (2) the private sector;  (3) academia;
and (4) civil society.
The sole purpose of the Planning Workshop would be:  (1) to discuss the potential introduction of IF
into the country; and (2) broadly defining the expected long-term, medium-term and short-term results
which the LDC stakeholders hope to achieve.
National Steering Committee
If the Planning Workshop indicates broad support and interest, the formation of a National Steering
Committee  would be encouraged, which would be charged, as a first priority, with drafting the design
of a Logical Framework  for IF, which as a minimum, would include:  (1) expected short-term results,
i.e. outputs;  (2) the choice of either a full DTIS  or “DTIS-Lite”;  (3) the design of corresponding
Terms of Reference;  (4) the design of an interface mechanism between the emerging IF and existing
PRSP, or National Development Plans, or similar poverty-reducing initiatives;  (5) the identificationof required human resources, differentiated by essential skill competencies;  (6) the assessment of
local availability of competent personnel;  (7) participation in the negotiation between the LDC
government and the competent IF authority of an IF agreement;  (8) the selection of local and
international consultants, as required;  and (9) Results-Based Monitoring, based on the Logical
Framework .WT/IFSC/6/Rev.2/Add.1
Page 20
POTENTIAL SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS
If this describes the new IF World that is desired, then the following IF system enhancements should
be considered:  (1) Clarification of IF objectives and scope;  (2) objective and transparent country
selection;  (3) Results-Based Management;  (4) a stream-lined process for introducing IF to new
LDCs;  (5) competency-based capacity development at all levels;  (6) greater participation of localconsultants;  (7) greater pro-poor focus and integration in DTIS and action plans;  (8) more effective
integration of agency and donor processes;  and (9) equitable governance representation among all
three partners.
If these enhancements are undertaken, the following priorities are suggested and time requirements
are assumed, subject to further refinements by eventual service deliverers.
Priorities
In suggesting priorities, the Evaluators assumed that the admission of new LDCs and a decision on the
use of the IF for reducing supply-side constraints rank very highly, followed by the need to be able to
monitor progress in current IF operations.  In addition, certain concerns follow logically after others.With these considerations in mind, the Evaluators  recommend the following ranking of priorities,
where “1” is the highest:
1. Country selection (Programmatic Area 2)
2. Scope of the IF (Programmatic Area 1)3. IF Governance (Programmatic Area 8)
4. Planning, Management, Monitoring and Evaluation (Programmatic Area 5)
5. Communication (Programmatic Area 7)
6. LDC Participation and Ownership (Programmatic Area 3)
7. Capacity Development (Programmatic Area 6)8. Consultant Selection (Programmatic Area 4)WT/IFSC/6/Rev.2/Add.1
Page 21
Time Requirements
Possible Implementation Options Time Requirement
System LDC
Supply-side constraints
Supply-side constraintsTo be determined
(TBD) by IFSC
Country selection: Macro filter Annually, 3-5
days
Country selection: Meso filter Per new LDC, 3-
5 days
Country selection: Micro filter TBD per
new LDC
LDC participation: responsive Ongoing
LDC participation: learning environment. Training of Action Learning
FacilitatorOngoing
2-3 daysper course*
LDC participation: IF Facilitator Tool Kit About one month
Consultant selection: DACUM profile development Three weeks*
Consultant selection: DACUM profile, recruitment TBD LDC
Planning … : RBM workshop, central 1 day*
Planning … : RBM workshop, LDCs TBD by IF
Secretariat*
Planning … : RBM facilitators, LDCs TBD LDC
Planning … : RBM facilitators, Action Learning Ongoing11
Planning … : RBM facilitators, performance indicators Ongoing
Planning … : RBM facilitators, monitoring Ongoing
Planning … : Agency/donor reps as mentors Ongoing
Planning … : Focal Point commissions secondary research Occasional
TBD
Capacity Development: DACUM workshops 3 weeks for each
of three
competencyareas*
Capacity Development: Orientation programme TBD by parties*
Capacity Development: Orientation training Occasional
*
Capacity Development: Exporter Development programme TBD by parties*
Capacity Development: Catalogue of courses TBD by parties*
Capacity Development: Learning on-the-job Ongoing*
Communication: Establishment of Communication Unit About 2 months*
Communication: Communication capacity development in LDCs TBD by
IFS
IFWG Adjustment: Smaller
IFWG Adjustment: LargerTBD by IFWG
Secretariat [IFS]: Estimate of staffing needs TBD by IFS
Secretariat [IFS]: Staffing through secondments TBD by IFS
*Plus preparation and travel time, the latter applying, if an international consultant is used.  The need
for travel time can be reduced if several workshops in one location are planned in sequence.
                                                     
11 See Option 7 for Action Learning Facilitator training estimate.WT/IFSC/6/Rev.2/Add.1
Page 22
TABLE 1: IF EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK  LINKED TO THE FINAL REPORT
Statement of Work, TOR Evaluation Findi ngs and Recommendations References in  Report
Objective 1
• The impact of the Integrated Framework in
linking trade, development and poverty
reductionFindings: While increased trade should lead to economic growth , this
may not automatically lead to poverty reduction. This objective may be
achieved through complementary pro-poor targeting and planning .3.4.2
Annex D
• and in mainstreaming trade into PRSPs
and/or development plans  (restated in
TOR)This objective may be achieved through LDC-led, and agency/donor
mentored, design of Logical Frameworks  early in the planning process
to ensure effective linkage between IF and PRSP processes.3.4.2
Annex A
• and its effectiveness as a model for Trade-
Related capacity building . (restated in
TOR)This objective may be achieved through the creation of competency
profiles, which would serve as the basis for the design of modular skill
and knowledge transfer,  using various training delivery mechanisms.3.4.1
Annex G
Objective 2
The Impact of the Integrated Framework as a
means of generating coordinated donor support  and
sufficient funding  to a government-owned trade
capacity building programme.Findings: In light of the current programming, funding level and
disbursements, the existing mechanisms appear to generate sufficient
funds. More funds will likely be needed when new LDCs are selected
or existing capacity-building progra mmes are enhanced. This objective
may be achieved in a Results-Based Management  [RBM] environment.3.2.8.5
3.2.8.2
3.3.4
Objective 3
Reviewing the roles and re sponsibilities  of
agencies, donors and the LDCs, with a view to
further clarifying the extent to which they have
implemented these roles and responsib ilities under
the re-vamped Integrated Framework.Findings: The implementation of roles and responsibilities is variable.
This objective may be achieved by creating an RBM environment forplanning, managing and monitoring, by fully funding the Focal Points,
by creating competency profiles and corresponding capacity
development, by strengthening the interface between agency and donorprocesses.3.2.8
Objective 4
Addressing the urgent challenge of a systematic and
predictable implementation and follow-up process
in the post-DTIS stages.This objective may be achieved by creating an RBM approach, by
training LDCs, agency and donor representatives in its use, and byassigning responsibility for monitoring to LDC managers.3.4.2
Annex F
Objective 5
• Effectiveness of the IF as a mechanism to
deliver trade-related technical assistance ,This objective can be achieved more effectively by creating and using
competency  profiles to develop capacity and by harmonizing IF/JITAP.3.4.1
Annex GWT/IFSC/6/Rev.2/Add.1
Page 23Statement of Work, TOR Evaluation Findi ngs and Recommendations References in  Report
• and exploring its potential as an instrument
for addressing the supply-side constraints
of the LDCs.Findings. Since the removal of supply-side constraints require large
investments and are politically more visible, these might displacetraditional IF support. An IFSC guidel ine on IF scope is required. Other
programmes may be more appropriate. Priorities need to be weighed.3.3.6
Objective 6
Recommendation on all aspects of these TORS.Recommendations are presented by section (section numbered and
sequentially numbered), as well as in grouped formatGrouped in Section 4; section
numbered throughout.
Scope of the Work
Status of implementation of recommendations inthe first IF ReviewMany recommendations were adopted and changes implemented. A
number of issues reappear in this evaluation3.2.1
Status of the old IF 5 Round Table Countries The status is described in five discrete country reports 3.2.2
The process of country selection in re-vamped IF 3.2.10.1
The procedures for applying the IF to selected
countriesThe LDCs are not sufficiently participating in pre-DTIS activities; this
should be improved, particularly if RBM is adopted.3.2.10.2
Procedures and process for preparing the diagnostic
trade integration studiesThe format is variable, often lengthy and not specifically targeted to IF
requirements. There are difficulties tr anslating the Action Plan Matrices
into inputs to PRSPs or into funding request packages3.2.1.3
Quality of the DTIS The DTIS are improving, but should become more pro-poor. The
associated Action Plan Matrices shou ld be prioritized and costed for
donor action3.2.1.2
3.4.3 (A)
Selection of consultants More local consulta nts should be selected, coupled with capacity
development to overcome deficiencies and mentoring by international
consultants3.2.10.4
The involvement of core agencies There is a perception that the agencies, notably The World Bank, not
only lead the process but “own” it.3.2.1.2 (A.1)
The involvement of LDCs’ beneficiaries While the DT IS process is expected to be country-owned, LDC
involvement needs to be strengthened, particularly, at the level of theprivate sector and civil society3.2.1.2 (A.1)
The involvement of donors Donor involvement at the field level is variable, but could be stronger. 3.2.8.2
Defined roles of agencies, donors, LDCs About half of agencies and one third of donors reported a change in
roles since IF revamp, while two thirds of LDCs reported no change3.2.8
Stable and predictable mechanisms for the follow-
up of the recommendations in the DTISFindings: Stable and predictable mechanisms were not identified. To
develop such, an RBM approach is recommended.3.4.3
Linkages of the IF to existing development
architecture: e.g. PRSPs, CCGs, and Donor RTs.All LDCs are prepared to develop linkages. Problems relate (1) to the
timing of the PRSP cycle in relation to DTIS completion and (2) to theintegration of budgeted DTIS recommendations into PRSPs.3.2.9WT/IFSC/6/Rev.2/Add.1
Page 24
Statement of Work, TOR Evaluation Findi ngs and Recommendations References in  Report
IF potential in addressing supply-side capacity
buildingSupply-side concerns are ever present, but there are no clear parameters
to establish outer limits within IF. Priorities need to be considered.3.3.6
Performance criteria/benchmarks for on-going
evaluationNo common performance criteria, benchmarks or related indicators
were observed. Monitoring criteria and benchmarks can best bedeveloped within an RBM process, containing universal core measuresas well as LDC-specific measures. Evaluations should draw both onRBM data and secondary research Data.3.4.4
3.4.2Annex DAnnex F
Implementation
The development of an action plan that results from
the DTIS and national workshopsThe Action Plan Matrices tend not to be prioritized and costed for
presentation to donors in funding request packages. To be improved.3.2.1.2
3.4.3 (A)
Roles of Facilitating Donor, LDC recipients, and
agencies in implementing the results of the DTISLDCs should take greater lead; agencies and donor/facilitators should
mentor and coach.3.2.8
3.2.10.4
Linkages of the process and results of the DTIS intodevelopment plans such as PRSPs and CGs/RTsProblems relate (1) to the timing of the PRSP cycle in relation to DTIS
completion and (2) to the integration of budgeted DTISrecommendations into PRSPs.3.2.9
Re-focusing of core agency programmes for trade-
related technical assistance for the specific
implementation of the results of the DTISs, in
programmes for regional and country operations ofthe six core agencies and bilateral donorsVarious recommendations have been offered relating to roles,
governance, procedures and capacity building.3.3.2
3.2.8.1 (roles)
3.2.8.2 (roles)
3.2.8.4 (governance)3.2.10.2 (procedures)3.3.1 (capacity building)
Partner country workshops and commitment, suchas through the establishment of an institutionalstructure for implementation, including for
activities and follow-up: national implementation
arrangementsStronger orientation and assessment of LDC commitment in the pre-
DTIS stages is desirable.3.2.10.2
Involvement and association of the main regional
development banks in the implementation andfollow-up to the results of the DTIS; and , theinvolvement of other specialized relevant agencies
in implementation and follow-up to the results of
the DTISNo significant involvement of regional Development Banks (IDB,
African Development Bank and Asian Development Bank) was noted.[Note: The African Development Bank will likely be able to play astrong role when its planned reorganization to up to about 25 sub-
regional offices is completed].3.2.2.2 (Haiti)
3.2.2.1 (Bangladesh)3.2.4.3 (Mali)WT/IFSC/6/Rev.2/Add.1
Page 25Statement of Work, TOR Evaluation Findi ngs and Recommendations References in  Report
Governance
The adequacy of the IF management structure,
currently incorporating
• overall governance (IFSC);It is recommended that the IFSC remain as a high-level policy setting
and policy review entity.3.3.3
3.2.8.4 (E. 1)
• day-to-day management (IFWG) An imbalance of membership between agencies, donors and LDCs was
noted. Options for achieving balance, without reducing effectivecoverage should be explored.3.3.3
3.2.8.4
• fund management (UNDP) The Trust Fund serves an essential purpose and displays effective
operation. The need for two “windows” needs to be considered. TheFund may need to be publicized more widely.3.2.8.5
• trade mainstreaming (World Bank) The World Bank leads the mainstreaming activity. Greater LDC
ownership would be desirable.3.2.5.2
3.2.8.1E
• IF Secretariat (WTO) The IF Secretariat seems to be over loaded. An independent secretariat
staffed with IF member secondments would be desirable.3.3.3
3.2.8.4
Funding
IF funding, modalities, and replenishment cycles Considerable variation was noted among donors with respect to
programming and funding cycles. These cycles may make it difficult torespond to emergencies, which might result in priority IF projects notreceiving timely funding.3.3.4
3.2.8.5
IF and JITAP  and other trade capacity building
initiatives. Relationship of the IF and JITAP and
other trade capacity building initiatives for human
and institutional capacity buildingThe operation of JITAP and IF should be harmonized in countries
where both offer their services.3.2.2.3 (Uganda)
3.2.4.2 (A.3.6) (Malawi)
Strengthening the Role of Participating Agencies
The role of participating agencies should beexamined, particularly with a view to greaterinvolvement of all Agencies that are in the coreGroup. Explore the association with other UNAgencies, as appropriateThe collaboration of the six agencies in IF is exemplary, and wider
participation would be desirable
12. Nevertheless, the agency and donor
roles should focus more on coaching and mentoring, while LDCsassume a greater directing role..3.2.1.2 (C)
3.2.8
_____________
                                                     
12 While not discussed in the Report, the involvement of the ILO, as an example, in competency-based capacity development might b e desirable. That might be delivered
through the ILO Training Centre in Turin, Italy, if so agreed with the Centre.