Insights from
developments in
national PCD systems
Key dilemmas for advancing PCD
Dr. Paul Engel, Director, ECDPM
13th June 2013
Key components of PCD in action
Three operational ‘building blocks’:
1. Policy statements of intent for promoting and
implementing PCD; it’s political.
2. Institutional and administrative
mechanisms supporting policy
coordination to realise PCD; it’s
systemic.
Monitoring,
analysis and
reporting
3. Knowledge-inputs and assessment
capacity; it’s knowledge
intensive.
ECDPM
Setting and
prioritising
objectives
Coordinating
policy and its
implementation
Page 2
PCD at the national level
Political
context
I. Policy statements and
commitments
Pressures
from non-state
actors
II. Institutional and
administrative mechanisms to:
Strengthen
coherence
Approach to
governance
ECDPM
Address
incoherencies
III. Knowledge inputs &
assessment
Source: Concord Denmark, 2012
Knowledge
communities
Page 3
Approach and methodology
Study commissioned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Denmark.
Concentrate on six countries:
Belgium, Finland, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden.
Scope:
•
•
•
Update of 2007 ECDPM, ICEI & PARTICIP GmbH work on EU
institutions & member states’ mechanisms for PCD.
The report is not an an evaluation of best practices.
Limited in terms of scope, resources and time.
Confirms the main findings:
•
•
ECDPM
No ideal one-size-fits-all approach;
Systems are rarely static: PCD outcomes part of a continuously
changing and dynamic political and policy debate.
Page 4
1. Communicating the concept of PCD
• Widespread confusion remains between PCD and
‘policy coherence’:
o Coherence or coordination?
o Coherence within MFA ≠ PCD
• Policy coherence is not necessarily positive for
development, and several ministries strive for
‘their' coherence.
• Communicating PCD: ‘fair politics’?
ECDPM
Page 5
Ensure a common understanding
• Agree on Policy Coherence for what; which
development objectives need to be served?
• Value of whole-of-government statement.
• Set the standards and indicators to measure
progress and make an implementation plan.
• Seek out high-level political sponsorship on specific
thematic issues to create momentum for PCD.
• Clarify at which level PCD is being promoted.
ECDPM
Page 6
2. Integrating the development
perspective in the decision-making
• Mandate of PCD mechanisms is primarily to raise
awareness of PCD issues and exchange
information – PCD mechanisms are not ‘binding’.
• Importance of Cabinet level: most relevant
decisions and trade-offs are not taken in PCD
mechanisms.
• Effectiveness depends on the degree to which
PCD is a shared responsibility (Netherlands).
ECDPM
Page 7
Ensuring PCD is a shared responsibility
• Integrate PCD checks into the inter-ministerial policy
consultation process.
• Develop a ‘PCD reflex’ – ex-ante impact assessments to
inform PCD checks (Netherlands, maybe Belgium).
• Promote inter-departmental dialogue through a
network of PCD focal points.
• Incorporate PCD in the training of public officials and
promote staff exchanges between government
departments/ministries.
• An inter-departmental ‘advance calendar’ of PCD issues
(annual or 6 months period).
ECDPM
Page 8
3. Building an evidence base
Policy-makers interested in promoting PCD
should consider ways in which to:
1. Ensure ‘PCD checks’: i.e. PCD impact is
systematically assessed throughout policy and
institutional coordination processes and results and
decisions are documented (rather than treated on an
ad-hoc or case-by-case basis);
1. Promote research on impact (or lack of it) of national
and international policies on development objectives
and developing countries and feed it back to the policyand decision-making.
ECDPM
Page 9
State of the art with regard to
knowledge-inputs
• Few instances of impact assessment currently in place
(Netherlands, perhaps Belgium);
• Little knowledge and practice on assessing the impact of
national and international policies on developing countries
(Ireland, Netherlands, Finland);
• Limited role of Parliament in evidence-based PCD scrutiny
but important for achieving political momentum;
• Civil society contributing to filling some knowledge gaps
and raising awareness.
Despite interest knowledge currently the ‘weakest
link’ in national PCD systems.
ECDPM
Page 10
Concluding Remarks: Basic ingredients
• Shared understanding of the objectives pursued by
PCD remains as essential as sustained political
support for the concept;
• Invest in (and contribute to international initiatives)
to assess the effects of (inter) national policies on
developing countries and progress towards PCD;
• Without investment in research-based evidence,
and policy processes properly informed by such
evidence, the PCD cycle cannot be kick-started nor
can it be effective.
ECDPM
Page 11
ECDPM’s works on PCD
•
ECDPM & OECD (Upcoming 2013). Methodology for Country-level Impact Assessments of PCD
on Food Security.
•
Galeazzi, G., Knoll, A., Krätke, F., Lein, B. Rosengren, A., Sherriff, A. (ECDPM 2013). Insights
from development in national policy coherence for development systems: Key cross cutting
issues and dilemmas. (ECDPM Discussion Paper 144).
•
Keijzer, N., and J. Oppewal (ECDPM 2012). Learn to walk before you run? A review of
methodological approaches for evaluating coherence in the field of international cooperation
(ECDPM Discussion Paper 132).
•
King, M., N. Keijzer, E. Spierings and A. Matthews (ECDPM & IIIS 2012). Measuring Policy
Coherence for Development, Final Report. ECDPM & IIIS (Trinity College Dublin).
•
Keijzer, N. (ECDPM 2010). EU Policy Coherence for Development: from moving the goalposts
to result-based management? (ECDPM Discussion Paper 101).
•
Engel, P et al. (ECDPM 2009). External Evaluation of the Policy Coherence Unit of the
Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (ECDPM Discussion Paper 91).
•
ECDPM, ICEI and PARTICIP GmbH (2007). Evaluation of the EU Institutions & Member States’
Mechanisms for Promoting Policy Coherence for Development.
• ECDPM
ECDPM & ICEI (2005). Scoping Study on EU mechanisms to promote PCD.
Page 12
Thank you!
www.ecdpm.org
Page 13