MCDA Final Report Malawi - Standards and Trade Development ...

criterion across the capacity-building options, but also to make the priority-setting exercise more
transparent and open to scrutiny.
Table 5. Decision criteria and weights for setting priorities of SPS capacity-building options
Objectives Decision Criteria Minimum Mean Maximum
Up-front investment 0 11 30
Costs and Difficulty of
On-going costs 0 9 21
implementation
Difficulty of implementation 0 8 19
Trade impacts
Change in absolute value of exports 4 20 45
Trade diversification 0 11 40
Change in agricultural productivity 0 12 20
Direct agri-food impacts Change in domestic public health 0 8 20
Change in local environmental protection 0 7 20
Social impacts
Poverty impact 0 9 25
Impact on vulnerable groups 0 6 28
First, the specific nature of each of the SPS capacity-building options was described in some detail on the
basis of existing documentation, consultation with stakeholders, etc. Descriptions of each of the 16
capacity-building options are provided in Section 4 below.
The metrics to be employed for each of the 10 decision criteria were then defined, taking account of
currently available data and the range of plausible ways in which each of the criteria might be
represented. Table 6 sets out the final metrics. Note that the choice of metrics involves a sometimes
difficult compromise between the availability and quality of data, and the imperative to employ
continuous quantitative measures. However, it is important to recognise that the aim of the framework
is not to provide a final and definitive prioritisation of the capacity-building options. Rather, the
priorities that are derived should be revisited on an on-going basis and revised as more and/or better
data for the decision criteria become available.
Information cards for each of the 16 SPS capacity-building options were then compiled. These are
reported in Appendix 4. Each card presents data for the eight decision criteria, measured according to
the scales outlined in Table 6. For each criterion, details are provided of how measures for each of the
decision criteria were derived. There is also an indicator of the level of confidence in the measure
reported. Where there is a lack of underlying data and/or these data are of dubious quality, a low or
medium level of confidence is indicated. Conversely, where fairly rigorous and comprehensive prior
research is available, a high level of confidence is reported. These confidence measures need to be
considered in interpreting the results of the prioritisation exercise, and in considering how the analysis
might be refined in the future.
Page | 19