Call for Proposals: Team of evaluation consultants or firms to conduct Mid-term Evaluation (MTE) of the Alliance

The Global Alliance is conducting an open tender for procuring a team of evaluation consultants or consultancy firms to conduct Mid-term Evaluation (MTE) of the Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation.

Candidates are requested to submit the following by 31 October, 2018 to the Monitoring and Evaluation Lead, Mr. Wayne Amago Bacale (Wayne.AmagoBacale@weforum.org).

  1. A technical proposal (max 4 page) describing the proposed methodology and approach
  2. An up-to-date Curriculum Vitae (CVs) and/or company profile
  3. Financial Proposal (in USD)
    • Personnel Cost (proposed daily rate X man-days)
    • Reimbursable travel and administrative expenses
  4. A sample performance evaluation report/s

Learn more about the project below.

Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Mid-term Evaluation (MTE)

Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation

1. BACKGROUND

1.1. Introduction

The World Trade Organization’s Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) provides a unique opportunity to enable trade as a central driver of growth. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the TFA could reduce total trade costs by more than 14% for low-income countries and more than 13% for upper-middle-income nations by streamlining the flow of trade across borders.[1] Implementation of the TFA and subsequent reduction in trade time and costs could increase developing countries’ exports by up to US$730 billion per year.[2] Trade facilitation reform also has the potential to increase investment[3], especially in sectors such as manufacturing.

The macroeconomic link between trade and investment leading to economic growth is well established[4], and broadly, economic growth is necessary, although not sufficient, for poverty alleviation. Improved trade facilitation policies can connect poor people to regional and global markets, allowing for increased real incomes and reducing poverty.[5] Trade facilitation reforms can play an essential role in enabling firms in developing and least developed countries to access global markets for the first time. TFA implementation can also contribute to a range of other development objectives as set out in the SDGs[6], including by lowering the price of essential goods and reducing food wastage in emerging and least-developed economies.

In support of national and international efforts, the “Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation,” also called “the Alliance,” seeks to bring together the business community in developed and developing countries to coordinate and accelerate trade facilitation reforms. The Alliance supports commercially meaningful and sustainable trade facilitation reforms through a partnership between global and local private sectors, bolstering the ability of the private sector and government in developing countries to be real partners in a reform process that benefits citizens of those developing countries.

1.2. The Programme description

The Alliance is a public-private partnership dedicated to international trade facilitation[7]. It is a not-for-profit venture jointly led by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) – in cooperation with Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). The Alliance was launched at the World Trade Organization’s 10th Ministerial Conference in December 2015 and is supported by the governments of the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Germany.

The Alliance’s theory of change purports that implementation of trade facilitation programs will reduce the hassle and uncertainty as well as the time and cost of cross-border trade; which in turn brings increased trade and investment; spur productivity improvements or price reductions due to market pressure; and ultimately economic growth and poverty reduction. [8]

The Alliance’s unique approach, known as ‘co-creation’, is to involve the private sector as an equal partner of government, leveraging its resources and know-how in the development and implementation of reforms. All of the in-country projects are designed through this approach and designed based on the idea that:

· Public and private sectors have a shared responsibility for trade facilitation reform

· Reforms are most likely to be commercially meaningful if designed by both sectors

· Leveraging private expertise and resources makes delivering reform more efficient and cost-effective

· Cooperation allows us to strengthen local capacity to engage in meaningful public-private dialogue

1.2.1. Programme Updates

Below is a summary of the pillars of the programme. Relevant resources, such as the programme design, logframe, project design, progress reports, list of partners (private and public sector) among others, will be shared as part of the inception phase (desk review).

Pillar 1: Public-private partnerships and Inclusive multi-stakeholder dialogues on trade facilitation reform are engaged

Neither governments nor the private sector can deliver successful trade facilitation reforms alone. The Alliance works with governments, businesses and other international organisations to create the right environment for trade reforms that respond directly to business needs. Public-private partnerships & inclusive multi-stakeholder dialogues are vital to benefit from private sector expertise — both local and international — to identify the cross-border trade challenges and opportunities, securing ratification of the TFA and to ensure TFA implementation lead to more accessible and less costly trade for traders of all sizes. The Alliance aims to raise awareness of the importance of the TFA, encourage governments and businesses to work together to implement it, and share best practice. The work to establish public-private dialogues continues to serve as a vital tool to feed the project pipeline, leverage private sector contributions and share best practice.

Pillar 2: Commercially measurable trade facilitation problems are addressed by Alliance projects

The Alliance is working on the ground with governments and the private sector to provide a portfolio of projects to implement the TFA, making international trade simpler, faster and more cost-effective. The projects tackle trade barriers with a business mindset, bringing together governments and companies to identify trade issues such as customs delays and unnecessary red-tape at borders, and design and implement targeted reforms that deliver commercially quantifiable results. Table 1 provides a list of the Alliance’s ongoing projects:

Table 1: List of current projects[9]

Country Project Title
Brazil Modernisation of INMETRO licensing procedures
Colombia Establishing a Centre for Trade Facilitation and Good Practices
Implementing a risk management system for the National Food and Drug Surveillance Institute (INVIMA)
Ghana Introducing a risk-based pre-arrival customs process
Kenya Entering a risk-based pre-arrival customs process
Morocco Optimizing import and export processes in the agri-food sectors
Sri Lanka Developing the trade facilitation framework for multi-country consolidation
Vietnam Adding a modern customs bond system for conditional release of goods

Furthermore, development of new projects is progressing at pace in Argentina, Dominican Republic, and Zambia.

Pillar 3: Alliance projects are supported by evidence, analysis and insight

The Alliance is contributing to the global knowledge and best practice on trade facilitation through the development of innovative metrics initiatives to identify gaps and priorities; and guide the implementation of the TFA. The Alliance is using real-world business metrics to benchmark and track the impact of trade facilitation reforms. These data are used to help design our country projects, ensuring that we target support where it is most needed, and to track the impact of our work, allowing us to gather and share best practice. The metrics highlight how trade facilitation reforms can make countries more attractive to investors and traders; and empower local businesses. Sharing these data creates a competitive incentive for countries to implement changes.

1.2.2. Governance structure

The Alliance is governed by a steering group comprising a representative from each donor government (United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, and Germany) as well as five private sector representatives who serve on a two-year rotating basis. The steering group provides strategic direction and approves all Alliance projects and budgets.

The Alliance’s day-to-day activities are overseen by its management team comprising its director, Philippe Isler, and a deputy director from each host organisation (International Chamber of Commerce, World Economic Forum and Centre for International Private Enterprise) and its implementing partner (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit).

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE EVALUATION

This midterm evaluation aim to assess the performance of the Alliance from inception until the present looking into both the learning and accountability aspects. The learning aspect of the evaluation will focus on drawing lessons to improve the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of operations and the Alliance’s sustainability. This evaluation will also serve as an instrument to build knowledge by identifying good practices and areas for improvement in the design and implementation of the different components of the Alliance. With respect to accountability, the evaluation will attempt to determine the extent to which the Alliance is progressing towards achieving the planned results of the three pillars, particularly output targets.

The specific objectives of the evaluation are to:

(i) assess the progress made to date towards achieving the planned results, particularly output targets of the three pillars of the Alliance. More specifically, this evaluation will assess the extent the Alliance is progressing in achieving the logframe output targets; the extent to which the three pillars complement each other, particularly the extent the public-private dialogues (pillar 1) and TF data and matrices (pillar 3) supported the design and implementation of country projects; and, provide recommendations how to maximise the use of the global logframe as the results measurement tool and as ways to strengthen data for the endline evaluation;

(ii) analyse the efficiency and estimate the anticipated Value for Money in delivering the planned results, particularly output targets of the three pillars of the Alliance;[10]

(iii) assess the functioning of the governance structure and coordination mechanism; and suggest ways to maximize performance of the structure;

(iv) identify lessons and emerging good practices in the implementation of the global and country initiatives.

This MTE covers progress from inception (December 2015) until December 2018.

3. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS

This evaluation will be conducted following the OECD/DAC evaluation criteria (e.g., relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and the likelihood of sustainability). Other aspects can be added as identified by the evaluation team following the given purpose and in consultation with the evaluation task force. Any fundamental changes to the evaluation criteria and questions will be agreed between the evaluation task force and the evaluation team; and reflected in the inception report.

Relevance:

· What has been the role of the Alliance private sector stakeholders [11] in raising awareness and support for TFA implementation?

· How did the co-creation process[12] facilitate in the selection of the priority trade facilitation (TF) needs?

· How was the target countries selected? What was the process for defining the type of interventions, target groups and locations?

Effectiveness:

· What is the progress to date within the three pillars in terms achieving outputs and contributing to outcomes? What facilitating and hindering factors affected the achieving the objectives of the Alliance?

· Does the governance and management structure of the Alliance adequately provide strategic guidance and oversight?

· To what extent has the Secretariat increased public-private dialogue around TF in target countries?

· To what extent has the Secretariat identified and addressed TF problems in the target countries?

· To what extent were evidences, analysis and insights were used to support the design and implementation of Alliance projects?

· To what extent has the Secretariat addressed increasing voice for disadvantaged groups in TF, e.g. women entrepreneurs, rural and smaller traders? To what extent has the Secretariat addressed TF concerns that most affect these same disadvantaged groups? How could the Secretariat improve on this focus going forward?

· Are there adjustments that could be made in the objectives and strategy for the three pillars of the Alliance?

Efficiency:

· To what extent did the Alliance maximize cost-effective use of resources, expertise and in-kind contributions among public and private partners to meet the GATF objectives? How can it be improved?

· In what way has the Alliance been able to leverage expertise and resources among public and private partners to support trade facilitation reform?

· Does the governance and management structure of the Alliance adequately provide strategic guidance and oversight?

· Is the monitoring, evaluation, reporting and learning system of the Alliance appropriate for accountability and adaptability? Have appropriate metrics and indicators been developed to track results?

Anticipated sustainability[13]:

· In what ways the Alliance likely to increase capacity to deliver trade facilitation reforms through the co-creation process with the public and private sector partners?

· To what extent has the Alliance contributed to strengthening the institutional capacity of public and private partners in the target countries and building a sustainable public-private partnership through the co-creation process on trade facilitation?

· To what extent is the Alliance leveraging public and private commitment and resources to address trade facilitation bottlenecks and issues?

4. METHODOLOGY

This evaluation will use mixed methods, combining qualitative and quantitative instruments. Analysis should include disaggregated data by type of intervention, sector, and geographic scope, among others. Throughout the evaluation, the evaluation team will triangulate data sources and techniques. To validate and extract information that might be inconsistent or data gaps that were not fully elaborated in the data collection phase, the evaluators should propose a method for each evaluation question to triangulate the findings. Moreover, the evaluators should review person-level data and information that is disaggregated by gender, where possible.

5. MAIN DELIVERABLES

The MTE will include the deliverables described below. All reports should be submitted in English:

1. An inception report

The evaluation team will prepare an inception report that will operationalize and direct the evaluation. The inception report will be elaborated based on the information presented in this ToR to bring greater precision to the planning and design of the evaluation. It will be based on a preliminary review of the documentation, discussions with key stakeholders, literature review, etc.

The inception report must include the following:

a. An evaluability assessment. More specifically, the evaluation team will conduct a stakeholder mapping exercise; review the coherence and logic of the intervention and the Programme Results Framework, Theory of Change and the Logframe of the development intervention; and, review the evaluation questions. Evaluation questions can be withdrawn if they are impossible to answer, overly difficult or if there is a need to reduce the focus of the evaluation. Questions may be further elaborated, modified or added. All changes, additions or deletions of questions must be accompanied by a supporting argument/rationale. In addition, the evaluation team must examine and document the existence and quality of data (specifically including sex-disaggregated data); availability of key informants, and the timing of the evaluation; identification of whether key stakeholders want/resist having their development intervention evaluated (e.g., the level of resistance to the evaluation and its reasons).

b. Review of the evaluation questions. Following the evaluability assessment, the must review and updated the evaluation questions. The purpose, scope and evaluation questions are to be used by the evaluation team to determine the most appropriate approach for the present evaluation.

c. Evaluation methodology. The methodology must be developed in line with the evaluation approach chosen and support the answering of evaluation questions using credible evidence. The evaluation team must explain and justify the selection of the proposed evaluation approach and must also specify and justify the overall evaluation design. Thus, to describe and explain the evaluation methodology and its application the evaluation team shall, detail the proposed techniques for both data collection and data analysis. The rationale for choosing those techniques must be provided and potential limitations and shortcomings must be explained.

The evaluation team shall attach the annexes to the inception report:

• Evaluation Matrix

• Sampling. For each sample the following must be defined and explained in detail: the purpose, objectives, universe/population, sampling criteria, sample design, sampling frame, sampling unit, sample size, sampling method(s), proposed sample and limitations.

• Proposed draft data collection tools (interviews, focus groups or other participatory methods, protocols, tabulations, etc.).

• A detailed timeline for the evaluation, including the detailed fieldwork plan in consultation with the Evaluation Task Force and Alliance team, including the criteria for selecting the project sites for the field visit;

• The proposed report structure

The evaluation team submits a draft inception report and submits a revised inception report, incorporating comments/inputs from the Evaluation Task Force. The Evaluation Task Force review and approve the inception report, prior to the conduct of the field visit.

2. Fieldwork

The evaluators will organize meetings or interviews with the Global Alliance team based in the host organisations (CIPE, ICC and WEF) and the implementing partner (GIZ); convene individual or group meetings/ video calls with the Steering Group, the working groups and business partners; and visit at least two country project sites (the sites will be determined based on a criteria set by the evaluators). Where necessary, the evaluators can also propose as part of the technical proposal the administration of online surveys and follow-up calls. The evaluators should manage and verify the data entry and ensure quality analysis of the data.

3. Draft Report

The draft report should include, among other things:

a) an executive summary with the methodology, key findings, conclusions, and recommendations;

b) purposes and methods of the evaluation (including assumptions and limitations);

c) an analysis of the results and a table presenting critical outputs delivered by each components;

d) identified findings, conclusions, and recommendations;

e) lessons learned and good practices fact sheets.

f) annexes, including data files, including applicable survey data, case studies, and focus group discussions transcribes, etc. as defined in the final inception report;

The total length of the report should be a maximum of 30 pages for the main report, including charts and figures and excluding annexes; background and details on specific projects evaluated can be provided in the annexes. The report should be sent as one complete document. Photos, if appropriate to be included, should be inserted using a lower resolution to keep overall file size low.

The draft report will be presented during a reflection and learning workshop in Geneva, where participants will have the opportunity to provide feedback. The Evaluation Task Force will also circulate the draft report to key stakeholders, the project staff, and the donors, as appropriate, for their review and forward any additional comments to the evaluation team.

4. Reflection and learning workshop in Geneva (and virtually)

The evaluation team leader should present the preliminary findings of the evaluation in person during a reflection and learning workshop that will be organized at the World Economic Forum in Geneva, Switzerland. The purpose of the workshop is to discuss preliminary findings contained in the draft report, and obtain feedback and additional inputs to complete the evaluation and deliver the final report. Most GATF participants from the field will be connected through video conference.

5. Final report

The evaluator team leader will finalize and submit the report to the evaluation task force. The report should address all comments and/or provide explanations why comments were not taken into account. A summary of the report, a data annex, and the lessons learned and good practices fact sheets from the project should be submitted as well. The final report will be presented to the Steering Group through a video conference.

6. MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

This section provides an overview on how the evaluation will be managed, particularly defining the responsibilities of the evaluation team, the evaluation task force and the steering group.

The Steering Group of the Alliance will be responsible on:

– Providing comments and inputs to the evaluation TOR and the draft evaluation report

– Review and approve the final evaluation report

– Prepare the management response to the evaluation recommendations, including an action plan how to move forward.

Evaluation Task Force

An Evaluation Task Force will be created Chaired by the GATF Director with support from the M&E Lead of the Alliance. The task force will be represented by the Secretariat M&E Lead and M&E focal points from CIPE, GIZ, ICC and WEF, with the following roles:

– Select the evaluation team

– Orient the evaluation team about the MTE- expectation, timeline and the evaluation management arrangement

– Provide inputs/ comments the inception report, including the appropriateness of the methodology, the criteria and selection of the project site visits and the evaluation work plan

– Circulate, provide and consolidate comments to the draft evaluation report

– Facilitate the reflection and learning workshop

– Review the final evaluation report

– Attend regular meetings (e.g. bi-weekly video calls) from October 2018 to April 2019 to perform these tasks.

In support to the tasks of the task force, the GATF Secretariat will provide the following:

– Conduct the administrative processing for the contracting of the evaluation team

– Compile and share relevant references and resource materials about the Alliance and the projects to the evaluation team

– Consolidate and provide the list of Alliance partners (public and private sector)

– Coordinate the schedule of the field visits with the evaluation team, relevant GATF staff and the project team

– Review and provide consolidated comments to the inception, draft and final reports

In addition, GATF project managers will provide administrative support, in particular, securing the necessary administrative support for the field visits; and give the evaluators the required background information BUT will not be involved nor attend any activities related to the evaluation.

The Evaluation Team

The evaluation should be performed by an evaluation team comprised of an evaluation team leader and an evaluation member. Knowledge of gender equality issues will be considered in the selection of the evaluation team. The team should have members fluent in English and a working knowledge of Spanish to perform the interviews with relevant stakeholders.

The responsibilities and profile of the evaluation team are described below.

Evaluation team leader- Senior Consultant

Responsibilities Profile
· Desk review of relevant documents

· Briefings with Alliance staff and the Evaluation Task Force in Geneva

· Interview with the donors

· Develop the inception report

· Interview global and country partners, stakeholders and staff

· Undertake field missions

· Facilitate reflection and learning workshop in Geneva

· Draft evaluation report

· Finalise the evaluation report

· Not have been involved in the Alliance.

· Relevant educational background, such as international trade, economic development and/or private sector development

· At least 8 years’ demonstrated experience on international trade, trade facilitation and/or private sector development. Experience with at least one donor funded programmes or project through public-private partnership is an asset.

· Have conducted at least one performance evaluations of private sector development programmes or projects in an international context as team leader

· Demonstrated experience in qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis

· Experience conducting evaluations in at least one of the priority countries

· Fluency in English is essential, working knowledge of Spanish language is an asset

Evaluation team member- Evaluation Expert

 Responsibilities Profile
· Desk review of relevant documents

· Development of the inception report

· Review of records, interviews and development and completion of electronic questionnaires

· Meetings with global and national stakeholders

· Drafting evaluation report

· Finalisation of the evaluation report

· Not have been involved in the Alliance.

· Relevant academic background in economic development and/or private sector development.

· At least 5 years’ experience on the design and management of performance evaluations of private sector development projects, particularly projects implemented through a public-private partnership. Experience on trade facilitation would be an asset.

· Familiarity with the evaluation requirements of GATF donors

· Experience in qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis. Experience in the collection, use, and/or dissemination of statistics-based reports is recommended is an asset.

· Experience with project evaluations that cover at least one region of the following ones: Americas, Africa and/or Asia

· Fluency in English is essential, working knowledge in Spanish or other relevant language is an asset

Timeline and Payment Terms

The mid-term evaluation will be conducted on December 2018 to April 2019, with the tentative schedule below:

Deliverables Tasks Tentative dates Payment Terms
1)Inception report · A desk review of relevant documents

· A briefing with the evaluation task force and the Alliance team in Geneva and with the donors (via video conference).

· Submit a draft inception report

· Revise the inception report, incorporating the comments from the task force

3-21 December 2018 30% payment upon approval of the Inception report
2)Data gathering · Field missions to CIPE, GIZ, ICC, WEF and two project sites, including a debriefing at the end of the mission

· Interviews with stakeholders and beneficiaries in the target countries

· Interview with global stakeholders (via phone/skype)

· Interviews with the Alliance team (via phone/skype)

7-31 January 2019
3)Draft report · Draft the evaluation report

· Revise evaluation report, incorporating GATF comments and feedback from the learning workshop

1-28 February 2019 40% payment upon submission of the draft report.
4)Workshop · Organization of reflection and learning workshop (one day) in Geneva (with video conference) 15 March 2019
5)Final report · Finalization of the report, integrating comments received

· Present the findings to the Steering Group (through video conference)

18 March – 05 April 2019 30% payment upon approval of the final report.

7. LEGAL AND ETHICAL MATTERS

The evaluation will be carried out by the criteria and approaches for international development assistance as established by OECD/DAC Evaluation Quality Standard. The DAC Evaluation Quality Standards provide guidance on the conduct of evaluations and for reports with the aim to improve the quality of development intervention evaluations. They are intended to contribute to a harmonized approach to evaluation in line with the principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.

All evaluation drafts and final outputs, including supporting documents and analytical reports ownership rests jointly with the Alliance and the consultants, consistent with the quality standards of evaluation ethics, data protection and confidentiality clause[14]. Key stakeholders can make appropriate use of the evaluation report in line with the original purpose and with proper acknowledgment.

8. SELECTION PROCESS

Candidates are requested to submit the following by 31 October 2018 to the Monitoring and Evaluation Lead, Mr. Wayne Amago Bacale ( Wayne.AmagoBacale@weforum.org )

1. A technical proposal (max 4 page) describing the proposed methodology and approach

2. An up-to-date Curriculum Vitae (CVs) and/or company profile

3. Financial Proposal (in USD)

  • Personnel Cost (proposed daily rate X man-days)
  • Reimbursable travel and administrative expenses

4. A sample performance evaluation report/s

Technical score (max 60)
The bidder (evaluation team or firm) should have conducted at least ONEperformance evaluation ofprivate sector development programme or project in an international context 10
The Evaluation Team Leader must have at least 8 years’ demonstrated experience on international trade, trade facilitation and/or private sector development. 10
The Evaluation Team Member must have at least 5 years’ experience on the design and management of evaluations of private sector development projects, particularly projects implemented through a public-private partnership. 10
The technical proposal clearly enumerates the steps, including the process of developing the evaluation matrix and instruments to be used in sampling, data collection, analysis; and the data collection plan. 30
Financial score (max 40)
Financial proposal 40

 

Annex 1: GATF Logframe

Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation – Logical Framework

Mission: The mission of the Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation (Alliance) is to create broad-based opportunity, economic growth, poverty reduction and development in developing and least developed countries by leveraging private sector expertise and leadership to accelerate implementation of ambitious and commercially meaningful trade facilitation reform.

Global Alliance Impacts: In line with its mission, the Global Alliance is expected to contribute to inclusive economic growth by positively affecting: total value and diversification of imports and exports, integration into global value chains, participation of small and medium-sized enterprises in value chains and markets, increase in manufacturing FDI, improved revenue collection and reduced corruption.

Description Indicators Cumulative Targets (Annual targets in brackets) Data Source Further definition
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Development IMPACT
Inclusive economic growth and enhanced trade performance Project-level Impact Indicators

§ Trade volumes: Percentage change in annual trade volumes

§ Percentage change in number of annual shipments

§ Change in profitability of trading firms

§ Value of FDI in targeted sectors

§ Number of SMEs benefitting from the time or cost reductions

Impact indicators will be measured for selected projects and will be specified according to the individual project’s expected impacts. Will be defined on project level.

Data sources will include:

National Trade & FDI Statistics; Customs Data; ITC Trade Statistics; Private Sector Data; Private Sector Surveys

Project Objectives (OUTCOME)
Objective 2

Reduced time and cost of cross-border trade

· Outcome Indicator 2.1
Number of projects which resulted in reduced time or cost for border compliance or documentary compliance.
0 0 1 3

(2)

6

(4)

11

(5)

18

(6)

Customs Transaction Data, if accessible.

Else:

Private Sector Transaction Data AND/ OR Private Sector Perception Survey

(Project Monitor. System)

Border compliance and documentary compliance: See general definition at end of the logframe

The target of 18 projects represents 80% of the total number of implemented projects.

· Outcome Indicator 2.2

· Average time reduction for border compliance and documentary compliance [in hours].

0 0 0 tbd tbd tbd tbd Customs Transaction Data, if accessible.

Else:

Private Sector Transaction Data AND/ OR Private Sector Perception Survey

(Project Monitoring System)

Average time reduction = mean value (over projects) of the time savings in the trade segments targeted by the Alliance (i.e. targeted sectors, modes of transport etc.)

Reporting will also provide per project disaggregated information on the achieved absolute and percentage reduction in time.

· Outcome Indicator 2.3

· Average reduction in business cost for documentary and border compliance [in USD].

0 0 0 tbd tbd tbd tbd Private Sector Perception Survey

(Project Monitoring System)

Average reduction in cost = mean value (over projects) of cost savings in the trade segments targeted by the Alliance.

Reporting will also provide per project disaggregated information on the achieved absolute and percentage reduction in cost.

· Outcome Indicator 2.4

Average reduction in indirect supply chain costs in selected countries [in USD].

·

0 0 0 tbd tbd tbd tbd Total Transport and Logistics Costs Analyses (TTLCs) or other Alliance studies. Selected countries: at least 3 countries.
· Outcome Indicator 2.5

· Number of projects which resulted in increased predictability regarding time of border compliance.

0 0 1 3

(2)

6

(4)

11

(5)

18

(6)

Private Sector Survey

(Project Monitoring System)

The target of 18 projects represents 80% of the total number of implemented projects.
· Outcome Indicator 2.6

· Average percentage point increase in respondents rating the time for border compliance “extremely stable” or “very stable”.

0 0 0 10 15 15 15 Private Sector Survey

(Project Monitoring System)

Objective 1

Enhanced Trade Facilitation Implementation

· Outcome Indicator 1.1

Number of WTO TFA provisions implemented with the support of the Alliance.

0 0 1 4

(3)

9

(5)

15

(6)

23

(8)

OECD TF Indicators , WTO Notifications AND/ OR

Stakeholder Interviews
(Project monitoring system)

TFA provisions: TFA paragraphs (e.g. Article 7, Paragraph 1 Pre-arrival processing)

Reporting will differentiate between provisions notified as B/C categories.

Project Intermediate Results
PIR 1

Public-private partnerships and Inclusive multi-stakeholder dialogues on trade facilitation reform are engaged

PIR Indicator 1-1

Percentage of Alliance private sector stakeholders confirming that the dialogue mechanisms established by the Alliance are effective in leveraging public-private partnerships on TF reform.

75% 80% 80% 85% 85% 85% Annual Alliance Partner & Member Survey Confirming = marking in survey “fully agree” or “agree” on five point Likert Scale

Alliance private sector stakeholders: see definition below.

Dialogue mechanisms: covering global, regional and in-country level

PIR Indicator 1-2

Percentage of Alliance countries in which collaboration among government and the private sector on trade facilitation reform projects outside the Alliance intensified due to the Alliance engagement.

20% 40% 50% 50% Post-Project interviews with project stakeholders, 6-12 months after end of project.
PIR 2

Commercially measurable trade facilitation problems are addressed by Alliance projects

PIR Indicator 2-1

Percentage of Alliance projects whose results are rated by Alliance private sector stakeholders as commercially meaningful.

80% 85% 85% 90% Annual Alliance Partner & Member Survey

In-country private sector survey/ interviews (end of project)

Rated as meaningful = at least 80% of key private sector stakeholders mark in survey “fully agree” or “agree” on five point Likert Scale

“results”= Actual and expected results

“commercially meaningful” = having an effect on time or cost of import/ export

PIR 3

Alliance projects are supported by evidence, analysis and insight

PIR Indicator 3-1

Percentage of Alliance projects for which project stakeholders confirm that project development and implementation was guided by evidence and reflected global good practice on the topic.

80% 85% 85% 85% 85% Stakeholder Survey / Qualitative Interviews (last year of implementation) Confirming = marking in survey “fully agree” or “agree” on five point Likert Scale
 

Pillar 1 OUTPUTS

 

PIR 1.1

Stakeholder Investment in Trade Facilitation enhanced

· 1.1.1 Value of contributions of Alliance stakeholders to Alliance activities. 0.25 M$

(0.25)

0.75

M$

(0.5)

1.75

M$

(1)

3.25

M$

(1.5)

5.25

M$

(2)

7.75

M$

(2.5)

10.75

M$

(2)

Alliance Records In-kind and financial contributions combined as cash equivalent per Alliance guidelines.

Alliance stakeholders: see definition below.

· 1.1.2 Number of Alliance Partners committing to the Alliance. 10

(10)

15

(5)

20

(5)

25

(5)

30

(5)

35

(5)

40

(5)

Alliance Records, Commitment Letters
· 1.2.3 Number of companies acting as private sector leads in Alliance projects. 0 5 8 12 15 15 15 Written commitment statements
PIR 1.2

Dialogue mechanisms for stakeholders established

· 1.2.1 Number of senior-level country-specific public-private dialogues facilitated or initiated by the Alliance during project development and implementation 4

(4)

8

(4)

17

(9)

32

(15)

49

(17)

63

(14)

71

(8)

Alliance records Assumption: per project one dialogue per year
· 1.2.2 Number of senior officials, senior executives and civil society leaders participating in Alliance trade facilitation discussions.

·

10

(10)

25

(15)

50

(25)

75

(25)

100

(25)

125

(25)

150

(25)

Alliance records Broken down into :

– Ministers / Secretary of State

– CEOs (global, regional)

– Civil society leaders

Alliance Trade facilitation discussions: including global, regional and in-country discussion fora.

Numbers disaggregated by: country (low, middle, high income); size of company (Large, SME); gender.

1.2.3 Number of TFA related project ideas generated through Alliance dialogue mechanism in the co-creation process. 0 3

(3)

9

(6)

16

(7)

23

(7)

24

(1)

24

(0)

Alliance records, ideas as documented in Concept Note and/or in Minutes of meetings. Alliance dialogue mechanism: Pipeline working group, high-level global or regional dialogues, in-country dialogue mechanisms.

Reporting disaggregated by type of dialogue-mechanism from which ideas originate.

PIR 1.3

Global public awareness and support for TFA ratification and implementation enhanced

1.3.1 Number of Alliance-initiated media articles and broadcasts highlighting TF benefits. 20 45

(25)

70

(25)

90

(20)

110

(20)

130

(20)

Alliance records Including articles in print or online media, broadcasts on radio or TV, which were initiated by Alliance stakeholders and/or Alliance activities.
1.3.2 Annual number of unique webpage visits on the Alliance site per year. 7k 8k 10k 12k 14k 15k 15k Web statistics Hits disaggregated by: OECD countries, developing countries, LDCs. Additional info: number of countries the hits originate from
1.3.3 Number of Alliance business partners and government project-partners formally speaking annually at global or regional events on the Alliance (3) (10) (10) (10) (10) (10) Alliance records Global or regional events = events with a global or far-reaching regional audience : e.g. WEF events (Davos, Regional Summits), WCO, WTO events
 

Pillar 2 OUTPUTS

 

·
PIR 2.1

Co-created trade facilitation projects are delivered

· 2.1.1 Number of Alliance trade facilitation projects completed 0 0 1

(1)

4

(3)

9

(5)

15

(6)

23

(8)

Alliance records
· 2.1.2 Average outcome achievement rate of completed Alliance projects. 80% 85% 85% 85% 85% Project monitoring system Project achievement rate: percentage achievement of project outcome indicators
· 2.1.3 Percentage of key project stakeholders that are satisfied with the process of co-implementation.

·

80% 80% 80% 80% 80% Stakeholder survey at end of project (Project monitoring system) Project stakeholders: see definition below.

“Satisfied” = marking in survey “very satisfied” or “satisfied” on five point Likert Scale

PIR 2.2

In-country stakeholder capacity for inclusive trade facilitation reforms increased

2.2.1 Percentage of key project stakeholders confirming that the local capacity to implement and sustain the trade facilitation reform targeted in the Alliance project(s) increased. 80% 90% 90% 90% 90% Stakeholder survey among public and private sector project partners (Project monitoring system) Confirming = marking in survey “fully agree” or “agree” on five point Likert Scale
2.2.2 Number of laws and regulations changed. 4

(4)

5

(9)

6

(15)

6

(21)

2

(23)

Legal and regulatory texts.
PIR 2.3

Alliance project strategies reflect opportunities for development impact

2.3.1 Percentage of key project stakeholders that are satisfied with the process of project co-creation 75% 80% 90% 90% 90% Annual Alliance Partner & Member Survey

Local stakeholder survey (Project monitoring system)

2.3.2 Number of project proposals approved by the Steering Group 0 4

(4)

9

(5)

15

(6)

21

(6)

23

(2)

Alliance records
 

Pillar 3 OUTPUTS

 

 

 

PIR 3.1

1.1 Assessment of impact of trade facilitation strengthened

3.1.1 Number of Alliance projects for which rigorous external impact evaluations were conducted 0 0 0 0 1

(1)

3

(2)

3

(0)

Alliance records (external impact evaluation reports) Rigorous impact evaluations: using quasi-experimental design, applying quantitative & qualitative techniques
3.1.2 Methodologies to measure trade related supply chain costs developed
and applied in at least 3 applicable project countries.
Developed Applied in

1

(1)

country

Applied in

2

(1)

country

Applied in

3

(1)

country

Applied in

3

(0)

country

Description of methodology, country studies
3.1.3 Number of trade facilitation cases studies prepared. 0 0 0 2 3

(1)

4

(1)

Alliance records (documented case studies) Using Case Study Research Methodology, combining qualitative and quantitative methods
PIR 3.2

1.2 Alliance project implementation supported by insight and analysis, and best practices derived

3.2.1 Number of projects for which Global Alliance analysis and/or insights from the Alliance Network were provided as input to project implementation. 0 0 3 7

(4)

12

(5)

17

(5)

18

(1)

Alliance records Assumption regarding target values: 80% of projects supported
3.2.2. Number of Global Alliance trade facilitation topic briefs documenting lessons learned from Alliance implementation. 0 0 0 3 7

(4)

12

(5)

18

(6)

Alliance records / Topic briefs Assumption regarding target values: 1 per topic in the last year of implementation, 80% of projects work on different TFA topics.
PIR 3.3

1.3 Alliance project identification and scoping supported by insight and analysis

3.3.1 Number of project concepts reflecting insights from Global Alliance analysis (data analytics, good practice assessments etc.)

 

0 2

(2)

7

(5)

13

(6)

19

(6)

21

(2)

21

(0)

Internal Assessment of project Concept Notes and Proposals along pre-defined criteria & benchmarks. Assumption: 100% of project proposals as of Q3 2017

Criteria for “reflecting insights”, e.g.: Robust description in Concept Note/ Proposal; reference to data analysis results; reference to 3rd country practices

Definition of recurring terms:

Alliance Business Partners Alliance Business Partners are companies or business associations that support the Alliance through financial or in-kind contributions. Partners need to submit a commitment letter.
Alliance Business Network Members Alliance Business Network Members are companies or business associations that express interest in Alliance activities and want to participate in or contribute to any of them.
Alliance stakeholders Alliance Business Partners, Alliance Business Network Members; project partners from the public sector, local/ global private sector and civil society as listed in the project proposals.
Alliance private sector stakeholders Alliance Business Partners, Alliance Business Network Members, project partners from the local private sector
Border Compliance Border compliance captures the time and cost associated with compliance with the economy’s customs regulations and with regulations relating to other inspections that are mandatory in order for the shipment to cross the economy’s border, as well as the time and cost for handling that takes place at its port or border. The time and cost for this segment includes time and cost for customs clearance and inspection procedures conducted by other government agencies.

Time for border compliance will be measured by:

– For imports: Time span between physical arrival of goods and release of import goods.

– For exports: time span between filing the export declaration and release of export goods.

Documentary Compliance Documentary compliance captures the time and cost associated with the documentary requirements of all government agencies: time and cost for obtaining documents, preparing, presenting, submitting documents and collecting processed documents.
Project stakeholders Project partners from the public sector, local/ global private sector, and civil society (if applicable) as listed in the project proposal

 


  1. OECD (2015). Implementation of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement: The Potential Impact on Trade Costs
  2. WTO (2015). World Trade Report: Speeding up trade: benefits and challenges of implementing the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement
  3. World Bank and WTO (2015) significantly. The Role of Trade in Ending Poverty.
  4. WTO (2015)
  5. World Bank and WTO (2015).
  6. GATF and the SDGs https://www.tradefacilitation.org/helping-achieve-un-sustainable-development-goals/
  7. GATF https://www.tradefacilitation.org/who-we-are/about-us/
  8. GATF Approach: https://www.tradefacilitation.org/who-we-are/__trashed/
  9. List of GATF Country Projects : https://www.tradefacilitation.org/country-projects/
  10. Efficiency assesses how well inputs/activities result in outputs; while Value for Money (while defined differently by different donors) is a broader term usually reserved for an overall assessment typically related to how project outcomes are linked to results demonstrated in impact assessments.
  11. These include Alliance Business Partners, Alliance Business Network Members, project partners from the local private sector.
    • Alliance Business Partners are companies or business associations that support the Alliance through financial or in-kind contributions. Partners need to submit a commitment letter
    • Alliance Business Network Members are companies or business associations that express interest in Alliance activities and want to participate in or contribute to any of them.
  12. https://www.tradefacilitation.org/who-we-are/unique-co-creation-process/
  13. OECD defines sustainability as the continuation of benefits from a development intervention after major development assistance has been completed: the probability of continued long-term benefits; the resilience to risk of the net benefit flows over time.
  14. Quality Standards for Development Evaluation https://www.oecd.org/development/evaluation/qualitystandards.pdf