Reportedly, difference of opinion cropped up between the Secretary Commerce and the Chief Executive of the TDAP in their briefing to the National Assembly sub-committee over the proper nomenclature of Pakistan's agency responsible for Export Promotion. The Secretary, quite rightly, held that it made no difference to Pakistan's exports whether the agency was called Trade Development Authority or the Export Promotion Bureau.
Surely, even the too suave, peripatetic, Chief Executive, known for his penchant for flying all over the world, would have to concede that efficiency and effectiveness lend credence to an organisation and not its name.
Then why the two, ostensibly committed to the same objective of promoting Pakistan's exports, found it compelling enough to air their differences before the parliamentarians? Admitted that changing the name of an organisation, as if it was the magic wand, has become fashionable, (NIPA to NIM, CBR to FBR) it is most unusual for the two supremos to get into this battle. Unless, of course, there is more to it than calling the rose (some rose, TDAP!) by any other name.
It really dates back to the founder of TDAP. Government rules were quite clear: the original body, Export Promotion Bureau (EPB), was an attached department of the Ministry of Commerce. This, in simple English, meant the head of the EPB reporting to the Secretary Commerce. Also, the Chief Executive of the EPB was the Vice-Chairman, and not the Chairman who was normally drawn from the business community and given the status of the Minister of State. The then Chairman EPB was not comfortable with either. He did not want the Secretary to have a supervisory role, nor did he want the Vice-Chairman to be seen as the head honcho. And he had friends in high places!
Presto, the TDAP, with its head dubbed as Chief Executive, and a Secretary TDAP reporting to him. The problem was the Commerce Minister. Under a parliamentary form you cannot by-pass the Minister, who is accountable to the people through the Parliament. Solution: Make him the Chairman of the TDAP Board. That the Board rarely met is the minutia of bureaucratic conundrum.
Issues like budget and personnel remained a problem - the TDAP had no other source of income than the budgetary support (and therefore the 'unwelcome' role of Secretary Commerce as the Principal Accounting Officer of the Ministry), and the EPB had been manned by a regularly constituted occupational group (Commerce and Trade) who had no place to go to except a regular Government department (going to an authority like the TDAP constituted 'Foreign Service', entailing special allowances). But everyone knew of the 'friends in high places'. Discretion became the better part of valour and a patently flawed Ordinance setting up the TDAP met with only token resistance.
This is what the Secretary Commerce wishes to revert to. Let the defective Ordinance expire, revive the old EPB. Let there be a method to the madness. This is what the Chief Executive TDAP opposes. Let the good times continue, with as little accountability as possible. Let the fiefdom stay.
But between the two of them we seem to be missing the point. It is not about turf, or who reports to whom. The real question is if we need an Export Promotion agency, call it by any name. Does it respond to the aspirations of the exporters, whose interests the agency, whatever it likes to call itself and whoever it is under the control of, is supposed to cater to.
Most exporters see little point in having a TDAP. It is poorly led, has little clout with relevant Government departments, and continues to employ thoroughly outdated promotional tools. The Chief Executive seems to have more pressing business outside Pakistan than within. The TDAP team, barring notable exceptions, is jaded, and more interested in their perquisites (official or otherwise) than exporter issues. If there is any serious effort at 'developing' exports it is certainly a tightly guarded secret. Such is its stock that it has serious problems stimulating exporter interest in the Expo, or for that matter attracting the right kind of exporters to the numerous trade fairs it sponsors at a prohibitive cost.
The precious Export Marketing Development Fund (EMDF) and the Export Development Fund (EDF) are badly misused, either through rank incompetence or worse. Slush funds, really; and if it means sharing the largesse with exporters and trade bodies that are capable of creating a stink, so be it.
Trade fairs, trade delegations, store promotions, sponsored buyer visits (Expo has acquired quite a reputation in this regard) are tools that have lost their shine. Today's export challenges center on improved competitiveness, trade facilitation (especially efficient and economical shipping and infrastructure), exchange rates, competitive export finance, a fair market access and export development based on relevant research and best practices. Is the TDAP poised for this shift? The current approach, where the top job has become a sinecure for retired civil servants, does not hold much of a promise.
Ask any exporter. He spends more time chasing government departments - something that the TDAP should be doing on his behalf and at his behest - than chasing export business. Instead of quibbling on the name the Secretary Commerce should perhaps order a top class independent external evaluation of the export promotion/development agency. And then set proper goals and a workable accountability framework.
(The writer is Chairman of Pakistan Bedwear Exporters Association)