Speech at the OECD, Meeting of National Focal Points,
Paris, 09.02.2012
by Birgit Schnieber-Jastram, Member of the European
Parliament and Standing Rapporteur for PCD
(As prepared for delivery)
Honorable Secretary General Gurria, colleagues from the
European Commission, dear Focal Points and civil society
representatives,
Good morning!
As I do not have very much time I will only do what a key
speaker is supposed to: I will share my general thoughts on
the issue.
But first of all: Thank you very much for the invitation to this
important event! The OECD does a great job in raising the
awareness for Policy Coherence for Development (PCD).
And this is important because PCD will be a hot topic for
years to come.
By definition Development Policy should make itself
superfluous.
But this is not the case with PCD. As long as European
policies have an external impact PCD will be absolutely
necessary!
As the European Parliament's Standing Rapporteur for PCD it
is usually my job to be very critical. But let me also say that
much has been done in the past - especially in the EU.
1
One could even say that the EU has taken the lead on the
issue in Europe. A recent success was the rejection of a
fisheries agreement with Morocco by the Parliament.
The Common Fisheries Policy threatens the livelihoods of
local fishermen, thereby also giving an impetus for migration.
It may even force those fishermen to use their vessels for
piracy or, sardonically, for the perilous migration to
Europe.
But it is only natural that the EU has taken this lead!
Let me explain why: It is the core challenge for PCD when
developing and developed country's interests seemingly
conflict. This is a problem for nationally elected politicians.
And this problem is much bigger on the national level than
in the EU. The reason is that the EU is a little further
removed from those special interests, in this case from
Spanish fishery enterprises.
But the good news is that such apparently conflicting interests
may be aligned if a long-term perspective is taken. In these
times of transition such attitude might be even the very
hallmark of good statesmanship.
Why is that? Well, we and Developing Countries will profit
from such farsighted decisions in the long run:
Firstly, we will establish something more akin to a real and
sustainable partnership with developing countries (whose
resources we covet, by the way).
Secondly, we will free development policy of its role as a
repair station for other policies that do harm in the world.
This is even more true with the current crisis: I simply don't
know how to tell citizens that they have to cut back and then
ask them to subsidize agricultural policies which harm poor
farmers.
2
On top of that the tax payer is then asked pay for the harm
done by those same subsidies - this is crazy!
Thirdly, we will profit because coherent and fair policies will
give the governments and societies of developing countries
the chance and the responsibility to generate successes on
their own.
By the way, I agree to Mr Tamaki and think that Developing
Countries should improve their own Focal Points on PCD
(Article 12 of the Cotonoue Agreement has not been used
very often!).
This would be useful because on the one hand resources for
such a complex issue are scarce and we PCD politicians
need this input and expertise.
And on the other hand there are some impediments to PCD
in the Developing Countries themselves.
Good examples are dysfunctional tax systems that
contribute to the immense illicit outflow of money.
Let me finish with a positive outlook: I just mentioned that
we live in times of transition, in times of tectonic shifts.
This is a chance for PCD for two reasons:
1.) As myself and Mr Tamaki said, these shifts force
politicians to take fair and farsighted decisions.
If we don't do that we might protect some minor short-term
interests. But we would definitely loose out in the long term.
Global development is in Europe's interest. Not only
because we want good relations with Developing Countries in
the future.
But mainly because we need their emerging markets and
their resources.
3
If we acknowledged this win-win situation it would be a much
more sustainable reason for a real partnership than
compassion!
2.) Secondly, there is another problem for PCD: Experience
shows that awareness is not enough to change politics.
The Club of Rome published its report almost 40 years ago.
But we still face the same challenges. 2010 was the year with
the highest energy consumption in history.
People tend to cling to old habits and want to defend their
well-established premises.
PCD faces the same problem: Most challenges and
incoherencies are well known. But there is a lack of political
will!
That is where the tectonic shifts may help. Old certainties
crumble and suddenly there is space for new insights and
fresh ways of looking at things.
At the moment I am preparing the biennial report on PCD for
the Parliament.
I am looking forward to intensive discussions - and probably
even fighting - with the other committees.
But even if we don't win all the arguments now, I am
convinced that PCD will prevail in the end.
When asked to comment on the impact of the new ministry for
development in 1961, Former German chancellor Konrad
Adenauer called it a 'rose without thorns'.
I strongly believe that PCD will become this thorn!! The
fisheries are just one example.
As I said: We simply have better and more sustainable
arguments! If we don't follow this path, we will be run over by
history!
4
But it is not easy to sacrifice short-term interests in order to
achieve long-term success.
So, how can we generate the political will?
First of all we need politicians that take courageous and
farsighted decisions.
This also means acting against special or misunderstood
interests. To be able to do this, those politicians need the
support of their citizens!
And PCD is a very complex topic - this is true for all
mainstreaming projects by the way.
So those politicians - we here in the room - also need the
expertise of NGOs and institutions like the OECD.
Let me name only one thing: The new International Platform
on PCD, for example, is really invaluable!
Lastly, and Mr Tamaki mentioned that already, we need more
cooperation in the face of global challenges.
This includes better relations with the emerging donors. In
this respect, the concept of "Development Effectiveness"
might be a useful addition to "Aid Effectiveness" because this
concept is more convenient for those countries' development
policies.
And even more importantly: "Aid Effectiveness" without
"Development Effectiveness" is like tactics without strategy!
They are complementary.
Now I am looking forward to the fruitful debates and some
new insights today.
Thank you very much for your patience!
5