Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Dr. Damien Helly, Deputy Head of Programme EU
External Action Camões, Lisbon
Thursday, 18 June 2015
Policy Coherence for Development and the
EU: A feasible model for development?
Challenges faced by European Member States
I. Rationale for PCD II. Prevalent definitions of PCD III. 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 2 ECDPM
I. Rationale for PCD II. Prevalent definitions of PCD III. 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 3 ECDPM
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
I. Rationale for PCD II. Prevalent definitions of PCD III. 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 5 ECDPM
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-friendly 3. 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
I. Rationale for PCD II. Prevalent definitions of PCD III. 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 8 ECDPM
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
I. Rationale for PCD II. Prevalent definitions of PCD III. 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 11 ECDPM
IV. CASE STUDY “Use of PCD indicators by a Selection of EU Member States” Discussion Paper 171, January 2015
ECDPM Page 12
1. Background 2. Methodology and limitations 3. Who monitors: monitoring mechanisms 4. What is monitored: PCD priority policy
areas 5. Comparing Member States PCD indicators 6. Examples of indicators and chains of
causality
Case study: contents
Page 13 ECDPM
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 14 ECDPM 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…
ECDPM Page 15 ECDPM case study, January 2015
ECDPM Page 16 ECDPM case study, January 2015
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 PCD Ireland= 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)
ECDPM Page 17 ECDPM case study, January 2015
3. Who monitors: Monitoring Mechanisms (MMs) (2)
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
3. Who monitors: Monitoring Mechanisms (MMs) (3)
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
à Clearly ‘national preferences’, ‘consensus around key PCD themes’ and ‘EU direction’ all provide influence à Incorporating EU PCD priority areas = allows MS to use EU system as a catalyst tool to achieve progress
ECDPM 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 defini/on
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 quanWfy or summarise the output of a policy in a single indicator – usually monitor donor expenditure on a parWcular policy area
• Policy stance indicators: arise because of the nature of decision making in
mulWlateral agencies – require that publicaWon of pre-‐negoWaWon posiWons to capture country posiWons 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
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
à Individual indicators = linked to a chain of desired development outcomes/actions and policy reforms.
ECDPM Page 23 ECDPM case study, January 2015
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 25 See 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
ECDPM Page 27 ECDPM case study, January 2015
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
ECDPM Page 28 ECDPM case study, January 2015
6. Take away points from our study (2)
I. Rationale for PCD II. Prevalent definitions of PCD III. 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 29 ECDPM
• 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 poliWcal 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 compaWble with South-‐South cooperaWon and
naWonal policymaking systems? 4. Pros and cons of a whole-‐of-‐government involvement vs. a ‘development
compliance unit’? 5. How to build capaciWes to follow through on PCD approaches?
Defining indicators? 1. How do we develop best pracWces/standards for what is defined as an
indicator? 2. Roles and responsibiliWes of actors involved – who owns the indicators? 3. Do we need integrate indicators at different levels? NaWonal vs. partner
country level?
ECDPM Page 31
V. Conclusion: Some questions to think about…in Lisbon
Thank you
Questions and comments welcome!
Damien Helly– [email protected]
www.ecdpm.org www.slideshare.net/ecdpm
Page 32