Ecdpm presentation-policy-coherence-development-eu-model-2015

Dr. Damien Helly, Deputy Head of Programme EU External Action

Camões, LisbonThursday, 18 June 2015

Policy Coherence for Development and the

EU: A feasible model for development?

Challenges faced by European Member States

I. Rationale for PCDII. Prevalent definitions of PCDIII. Progress and Challenges thus far… IV. Case Study: “Use of PCD Indicators by a

Selection of EU Member States”V. Conclusion: What is necessary going

forward?

CONTENTS

Page 2ECDPM



forward?

CONTENTS

Page 3ECDPM

Why do we need to promote and ensure PCD? The rationale is provided by:

• Globalisation and liberalisation: the end of domestic policies and the need to achieve poverty eradication and sustainable development;

• Economic costs of incoherent policies;

• A means to enhance development effectiveness;

• A policy tool advocated by both EU Member States and the OECD to facilitate progress towards shared goals

I. The rationale for PCD

ECDPM Page 4



forward?

CONTENTS

Page 5ECDPM

ECDPM Page 6

II . Prevalent definitions: PCD = …

EU

“The EU seeks to minimise contradictions and to build synergies between policies other than development cooperation that have an impact on developing countries, for the benefit of overseas development”

OECD

“The pursuit of development objectives through the systematic promotion of mutually reinforcing policy actions on the part of both OECD and development countries”.

Two-fold implication: seek horizontal and vertical policy synergies between development cooperation and other policies

to in order to address existing incoherencies

1. Originates from a north-south paradigm with responsibilities for better PCD placed on developed countries for the benefit of developing countries

2. Make sure all policies are development-friendly3. Ensure the proactive promotion of development objectives in

other policies: exploit synergies > win-win

ECDPM Page 7

PCD is thus described as a process of integrating multiple development aspects at all stages of policy-making

with various objectives

OECD, 2014

• Addressing the negative spillovers of domestic policies on long-term development processes.

Reminder: at EU level, 5 policy areas for PCD promotion are emphasised:

1) Trade and finance

2) Climate change

3) Food security

4) Migration

5) security

• Increasing governments’ capacities to identify trade-offs and reconcile domestic policy objectives with internationally agreed-upon objectives

• Foster synergies across economic, social and environmental policy areas to support sustainable development



forward?

CONTENTS

Page 8ECDPM

ECDPM Page 9

Progress includes:

1. Awareness raising on the importance of PCD: “development friendliness” of non-development policies = more impact on development (including making developing countries responsible for contributing towards poverty reduction) than (declining) aid (Busan)

2. Increased peer pressure (OECD, EU, NGOs, policy research institutes,..) has moved up PCD on development agenda: exchange of experiences, best practices, institutional arrangements etc

3. Reaching out beyond the (converted) development community: Agriculture, Trade, Economic Affairs, Migration, etc.

4. More sophisticated measuring of PCD (“evidence”): case studies, commitment to development index…

III. Progress and Challenges

General challenges include…monitoring

Conceptual challenge: difficult to grasp… Some think it is better not speak of PCD but rather of “synergies for development”, etc.

Political and practical challenges in PCD monitoring: • how to connect PCD approaches to post-2015 debates in

the UN about SDGs?• the specific PCD concept is not well known / endorsed

outside niche of development actors and EU/OECD actors active in post-2015 discussions

• there are disagreements within governments on what ‘coherent policies’ entail

• PCD priorities vary from one country to another

ECDPM Page 10

This is taken from discussion paper 163, June 2014, written by Anna Knoll-Asmita



forward?

CONTENTS

Page 11ECDPM

IV. CASE STUDY

“Use of PCD indicators by a Selection of EU Member States”

Discussion Paper 171, January 2015

ECDPM Page 12

1. Background2. Methodology and limitations3. Who monitors: monitoring mechanisms4. What is monitored: PCD priority policy

areas5. Comparing Member States PCD indicators6. Examples of indicators and chains of

causality

Case study: contents

Page 13ECDPM

1. Background

• Aim: to inform endeavours by governments seeking to develop indicators to guide PCD efforts

• Selection of 8 EU MS; Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Finland, Luxembourg, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, to offer a variety of PCD experiences

• Decided early on it makes little sense to look at indicators in isolation

• Examination of explicit PCD monitoring mechanisms including indicators and related targets and objectives adopted by governments

ECDPM Page 14ECDPM case study, January 2015

2. Methodology and Limitations

• The research was undertaken and mostly completed in October 2014 – synthesis more recent.

• Based on earlier studies of ECDPM, additional desk-work and a small number of interviews.

• Focus on monitoring-mechanisms and indicators measuring PCD progress in general adopted (or commissioned) by governments – not in relation to specific partner countries.

• If you have any additions, updates or clarifications we are most interested in hearing them… continual work in progress…



3. Who monitors: Monitoring Mechanisms (MMs) (1)

Examples of recent efforts made to strengthen PCD monitoring:

• Luxembourg = under discussions to create PCD MM in the Inter-ministerial Committee on Development Cooperation

• Belgium = new political agreement on an institutional mechanism, whereby an inter-departmental PCD commission at federal level will decide on the focus areas for Belgian PCD action

• Luxembourg= NGOs collaborate with government in monitoring PCDIreland= engaging with academics on PCD monitoring activities

• Germany= identified specific sectors for PCD targets (BMZ sustainable agriculture strategy)

• Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden = officially defined a whole-of-government PCD monitoring framework with indicators (June 2014)



Danish PCD Action Plan was published in June 2014:• inter-ministerial Special Committee on Development Policy

Issues led the formulation of the plan• contributions made by Danish civil society, Parliament, the

council for Development Policy and research institutions• Action Plan is a rolling document to be reviewed annually

Thus….Clearly ‘national preferences’, ‘consensus around key PCD ‘themes / policy areas’ and ‘EU direction’ all provide influence

ECDPM Page 18

PCD Mechanism “Official” cross-government PCD indicators

1. Belgium Yes Not yet

2. Denmark Yes Yes

3. Finland Yes Not yet

4. Germany Yes Not yet

5. Ireland Yes Not yet

6. Luxembourg Yes Not yet

7. Netherlands Yes Yes

8. Sweden Yes Yes


Information correct as of October 2014 – any updates welcome if there have been further developments

The five EU PCD priority areas (trade and finance, climate change, food security, migration and security) have informed national PCD agendas.

• NL areas identical to EU

• DK covers all but migration

• FIN overlaps except climate change

• SWE leaves out food security but adds ‘oppression’

• GER - BMZ reports focus on all but trade and finance and

adds biodiversity

Clearly ‘national preferences’, ‘consensus around key PCD

themes’ and ‘EU direction’ all provide influence

Incorporating EU PCD priority areas = allows MS to use EU

system as a catalyst tool to achieve progressECDPM Page 19

4. EU & national PCD priority policy areas

ECDPM Page 20

5. Comparing Member States PCD indicators (1): the example of climate change

Denmark

• An ambitious EU position for COP21 that sets higher thresholds in the international negotiations for a binding protocol

• Language on SE4ALL and energy reflected in relevant EU documents as part of post-2015/SDG process. EU delegations further engaged in promoting SE4ALL goals

Ireland (from study)

• ODA spent on environmental protection

• Average annual growth rate of GHG emissions/PPP GDP

• Performance in meeting Kyoto Protocol targets

• ODA expenditure on climate change, as a % of 2008 GDP

• ODA expenditure on desertification in % of 2008 GDP

The Netherlands

• In all partner countries climate and environment aspects are part of the MASPs

• CDKN will be advising 60 developing countries in the coming period, with support from the Netherlands and the UK

• REDD initiatives are aligned to the EU FLEGT initiative

• Developing countries have specific emission targets

Sweden

• Work to establish an ambitious and effective international climate regime after 2012

• Continue to press for an ambitious climate policy in the EU and seek to ensure that the EU lives up to its current commitment on emission reductions and climate change adaptation

Quick observations: DK focuses on EU-level, Ireland (from study) focuses on inputs, Sweden’s are not very specific specific.

ECDPM Page 21

Difference between: Mix and match approach

• Outcome Indicators

• Policy Outputs

• Policy Inputs

• Policy Stance Indicators

See page 8 for definition

5. Comparing Member States PCD indicators (2)

• Outcome indicators: focus on outcomes defined as socio-economic variables – measure real trends that may be only partly influenced by policy instruments

• Policy outputs: capture concrete changes in efforts designed to make policy more ‘development friendly’ - are directly under influence of policymakers.

• Policy inputs: useful when hard to quantify or summarise the output of a policy in a single indicator – usually monitor donor expenditure on a particular policy area

• Policy stance indicators: arise because of the nature of decision making in multilateral agencies – require that publication of pre-negotiation positions to capture country positions rather than agreed outcome

Source: King, M. and Matthews, A. (2012) Policy coherence for development: Indicators for Irelands. Dublin: Institute for International Integration Studies, Trinity College. https://www.tcd.ie/iiis/assets/doc/IIIS%20PCD%20Indicator%20Report%202012.pdf

Defining PCD indicators

Page 22

https://www.tcd.ie/iiis/assets/doc/IIIS%20PCD%20Indicator%20Report%202012.pdf

Member States’ PCD agendas address different concerns…

• Still context and country specific• Driven by national goals and specific concerns of individual

foreign policies• Developed in different administrative and political environments• Used different methodologies

• Member States developed their own explicit chains of causality to underpin indicators

Individual indicators = linked to a chain of desired development outcomes/actions and policy reforms.


5. Comparing Member States PCD indicators (3): why are they different?

*Chains of causality have been developed by the authors based on official documents but have not been officially endorsed – See also page 15 of Discussion Paper

ECDPM Page 24

5.Examples of chains of causality (1) in the area of trade and finance in Sweden *

Denmark

ECDPM Page 25See also page 14 of Discussion Paper

5.Examples of chains of causality (2) in the area of trade and finance in Denmark*

ECDPM Page 26

5.Examples of chains of causality (3) in the area of trade and finance in the Netherlands*

• PCD monitoring remains a challenge, and the adoption and use of PCD indicators is still in its infancy

• Significant amount of methodological confusion around PCD monitoring – especially when it comes to indicators:- some are too general to provide meaningful guidance-most monitoring frameworks lack clarifications on roles and responsibilities of the different actors involved, to deliver on the PCD ambitions defined

• There is a need to develop explicit chains of causality to underpin indicators, containing a mix of information on policy outcome, output and input.

• The monitoring framework can cover national, EU and international policy initiatives


6. Take away points from our study (1)

• Strategically defining a small number of thematic focus areas is important to guide PCD efforts and ensure accountability including in PCD indicators (perhaps less is more?)

• Some of this confusion/lack of specificity = bi-products of the

fact that: - it is still an emerging policy area due to practical reasons- policy-makers do not want to bind themselves to

frameworks/indicators that they think will be difficult to deliver upon and to display progress on

- monitoring frameworks are often the result of cumbersome but important inter-departmental drafting and consultation processes


6. Take away points from our study (2)



forward?

CONTENTS

Page 29ECDPM

• More research on PCD monitoring is essential- looking into causal chains, country-specific indicators and the like

• Developing indicators = a political process to be informed by expert, independent analysis and methodological rigor

• Identify political momentum on the basis of solid political economy analysis in limited number of areas where concrete progress is feasible based (taxation, illicit capital flows, global common challenges = food security, natural resource management…)

• Continued ownership and sufficient capacity to assess progress against a rolling PCD monitoring framework is required going forward

• Ultimately, development of PCD indicators and monitoring systems = determined by governance structures and priorities of individual countries as guided by their multilateral commitments

V. Conclusion: So, what is necessary going forward?

ECDPM Page 30

Designing an overall approach?1. Responding to political momentum – how to ensure an adaptable

framework? Is it possible to have generic enough frameworks/indicators?2. How to link the new post-2015 SDG framework with PCD monitoring? 3. How far is PCD seen as compatible with South-South cooperation and

national policymaking systems?4. Pros and cons of a whole-of-government involvement vs. a ‘development

compliance unit’? 5. How to build capacities to follow through on PCD approaches?

Defining indicators?1. How do we develop best practices/standards for what is defined as an

indicator? 2. Roles and responsibilities of actors involved – who owns the indicators?3. Do we need integrate indicators at different levels? National vs. partner

country level?ECDPM Page 31

V. Conclusion: Some questions to think about…in Lisbon

Based on what I've read in Anna's discussion paper 163 and some from Andrew's and Cecilia's presentations-Asmita

Thank you

Questions and comments welcome!

Damien Helly– [email protected]

www.ecdpm.orgwww.slideshare.net/ecdpm

Page 32

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Ecdpm presentation-policy-coherence-development-eu-model-2015