Flashback 2008 : “The PIP cited as an example of good practice in technical  cooperation by WTO and OECD”

Source PIP Magazine November 2008

“A study was organized jointly by the WTO SPS Committee, Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Report / September 2008). The research was based on replies from WTO Members and the OECD Development Assistance Committee Contact Points in response to a request for information on good practice in SPS-related technical cooperation. Members were asked to identify one or more SPSrelated technical assistance projects which could be considered as examples of good practice. A total of 24 projects were nominated by 19 organizations. PIP was selected for in-depth analysis as an  example of good practice. * (Good Practice in SPS-Related Technical Cooperation East Africa Region Report / September 2008)

Good practice in project design

Across beneficiaries in the private and public sectors there was strong support for the design of the PIP. The project was seen as addressing a real problem – the potential threat to exports of fresh produce to the EU. While it was recognized that the activities of the PIP were constrained by its design, the PIP was considered more flexible than other projects. One of the recurring themes in discussions with beneficiaries was the level of engagement of the PIP with the private sector; this was considered a positive attribute of the project among respondents in both the private and public sectors. The long duration of the PIP was also considered a strength; the fact that the project had secured funding and a defined schedule of activities for five years was seen as presenting real opportunities for capacity enhancement.

Good practice in project implementation

Overall, the implementation of the PIP was evaluated positively by beneficiaries, indeed it was considered to stand out as an example of good practice. In particular, efforts to engage with a wide range of stakeholders across the public and private sectors and at both the individual and collective levels were lauded. Further, activities had been adjusted over time according to ongoing learning processes and identified (and revised) priorities. The PIP employed a demand-driven approach which enabled the support provided to be adapted to the needs of particular beneficiaries, who were also able to play a role in designing the assistance they received.

At the same time, the fact that beneficiaries had to apply for support and write formal applications meant that there was some upfront cost and effort that eliminated those who did not have the basic minimum level of preexisting capacity. Support to industry task forces and the development of local service provider capacity was also seen as positive (…)”

The Pesticides Initiative Programme (PIP) was financed by the European Development Fund. The ACP Group of States and the European Commission entrusted responsibility for its implementation to COLEACP (today COLEAD).