The European
Experience on PCD
Lessons Learned and Challenges
for the Future
James Mackie – Senior Advisor
EU External Action Programme
12 June 2014
I. We have come a long way since
Maastricht
ECDPM
Page 2
Overview –22 years of PCD in the EU
Legal status:
•Treaty of Maastricht (1992), Art. 130v. ‘The 3 Cs’
•Lisbon Treaty (2009), Art. 208.
•Cotonou Agreement (2000), Art. 12
Political commitment:
•European Consensus on Development (2005) - 12 priority areas.
•FA Council (2009): “a more focused, operational and result-oriented
approach to PCD”
•FA Council (May 2012): “PCD is essential for the credibility of the EU
as a global actor”
•FA Council (Dec 2013) “need for regular political PCD discussions”
Policy:
•Agenda for Change (2011): security and migration + “future MFF
should reinforce PCD”
•COM (2009) … : 12 > 5 priority areas (T&F, CC, FS, MG, SEC.)
•PCD Work Program (2010-2013)
Post-2015: “A decent life for All” + Council Conclusions
ECDPM
Page 3
Three periods
• 1990s – slow on the uptake
• Little discussion – MS reluctance to move on 3Cs
• Definitional issues – what do we mean by coherence?
• NGO lobbying on coherence – kept up pressure
• 2000s – picked up steam
•
•
•
•
European Consensus on Development
Member States efforts made
3Cs Evaluations – mechanisms being put in place
Biennial EU PCD reports – monitoring
• 2010s – consolidation and now some soul searching
• Repeated declarations and monitoring, but …
• How to sustain the effort … and now … where next?
ECDPM
Page 4
Legal basis
In the EU Treaty:
•Treaty of Maastricht 1992: “The Community shall take
account of the objectives [of development cooperation] in the
policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing
countries” (Art. 130v).
•Treaty of Lisbon 2009 extends this to the whole Union: “The
Union shall take account of the objectives of development
cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to
affect developing countries” (Art. 188D).
And externally a commitment to development partners:
•Cotonou Agreement 2000: “…where the Community intends, …
, to take a measure which might affect the interests of the ACP
States, as far as this Agreement’s objectives are concerned, it
shall inform … the said States of its intentions”. (Art 12)
ECDPM
Page 5
Political Commitments
•
2005 EU Consensus on Development
•
•
•
Introduced name “Policy Coherence for Development” (PCD)
Monitor progress in 12 policy areas through biennial reporting.
2009 Review of PCD approach
•
•
•
Agreement to engage proactively in 5 areas instead of 12 priorities
Council Conclusions acknowledge progress on PCD in EU MS (official
commitments/ institutional capacity); yet call for “a more focused,
operational and result-oriented approach”
Agreement to develop PCD Work Programme
•
2010 First Report on PCD by EU Parliament
•
2011 Agenda for Change – reconfirms EU action to improve PCD
•
Most recent: PCD as part of the post-2015 agenda
•
•
•
•
ECDPM
A Decent Life for All, COM(2013)92
Council Conclusions (June 2013) on post-2015 position & PCD report
EU PCD Report 2013
A Decent Life for All: from vision to action COM(2014)335
Page 6
Progress on PCD mechanisms
25
20
15
10
5
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
# EU MSs and institutions
which made PCD policy
statements
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
# EU MSs and institutions
who put in place PCD
mechanisms
Source: Mackie et al., 2007, 3Cs Study No.7, Aksant, p.49, http://www.three-cs.net
ECDPM
Page 7
Mechanisms to promote PCD – 3Cs Evaluations
Different types:
i.
Policy statements
ii. Institutional &
administrative
mechanisms
iii. Knowledge &
assessment
capacity
Really need all three
Each serves a purpose
→ a PCD System
ECDPM
Political
NSA
Context
Pressures
i. Policy
statements of
intent
ii. Institutional &
ii.administrative
Institutional &
administrative
mechanisms
b. Resolve
a. Strengthen
mechanisms
to:
incoherencies
coherence
to:
iii. Knowledge
inputs &
assessment capacity
Approach to
Knowledge
governance
communities
Page 8
PCD mechanisms – case studies
Common approaches:
• France – Inter-ministerial committee
• Netherlands – PCD Unit in MFA
• Finland – Development policy committee
• EC – Inter-service consultation system
• EP – role of Development Committee
• Council – working groups
Most sophisticated approach:
• Sweden – Global development policy
Lessons with hindsight
• Raising awareness – recognising ‘PCD mechanisms’
• Same types of mechanisms are still in use 10 years later
ECDPM
Page 9
PCD mechanisms at the EU level
Institutional
Knowledge & Assessment
•DEVCO A1 – PCD Unit
•Stakeholder consultations
•Inter-service consultations
•Impact Assessment process
•PCD Inter-service group
•Dialogue processes (eg. Cotonou
Agreement / Delegations)
•PCD Network
•Council: CODEV, COREPER
presidencies
•EU Parliament: Standing
Rapporteur for PCD
•
Bi-annual report on PCD at EU
and MS + Commission PCD …
2007, 2009, 2011, 2013
•
Piloting Impact Assessments at
country level (Food Security)
DAC Peer Review 2012:
“While appropriate institutional mechanisms (…) have been developed,
these instruments are not yet used to their full potential”
ECDPM
Page 10
Strengthening the evidence base of PCD
for OECD Members
Pilot Methodology for country-level impact
assessments of PCD on food security
•Identifies and Assesses the impacts of OECD policies on
food security in individual developing countries.
•Flexible tool including
a) Framework for analyzing international policy linkages
and domestic policy context
b) Sequence of research modules tailored to objectives
and capacity in developing countries
c) Integration of local consultation processes and
stakeholder views – a tool to enhance dialogue
•Currently tested in first pilot Countries (e.g. Tanzania)
Supported by Finland and Switzerland
ECDPM
Page 11
Good progress on mechanisms
- yet how much has really changed?
European Report on Development (2013):
“The EU has made more efforts on PCD than most,
but the impact of these efforts remains limited”
• Operational PCD-commitments are made only by DEVCO, while
other DGs, European Council and European Parliament are only
bound by broad treaty obligations;
• Inadequate resources do not match policy statements;
• Alignment with PCD Work Program 2010-2013 remains voluntary
and depends on political priorities of the MS;
• Development is never first priority when it comes to trade-offs >
Decreasing ODA figures
ECDPM
Page 12
Walking the talk: policy vs. practice
• CAP: Commission, European Parliament and Council
refuse to monitor external impact while maintaining
export subsidies.
• Illicit Financial Flows: tax loopholes remain and
money laundering still to be criminalised despite
commitments.
• Trade (Economic Partnership Agreements with
developing countries): the elephant in the room – good
for development or not?
“It’s the politics and competing interests, stupid!”
ECDPM
Page 13
II. Lessons learned?
Opportunities and Challenges for PCD
in post-2015
ECDPM
Page 14
1. Opportunities for PCD Post-2015
Post-2015 debate can bring renewed impetus and
opportunities for PCD
•PCD required to achieve ambitious post-2015 goals
(ERD 2013: ‘Beyond Aid’ – PCD vital tool).
•Financing & Other Means of Implementation debate
• PCD helps creating conducive environments for post2015 financing to be more effective (ERD 2014)
•Sustainable development agenda needs more crosscutting integrated approaches (e.g. various
DGs/ministries working together)
ECDPM
Page 15
2. Bottlenecks for PCD in the EU & even
more so at global level for post-2015
Little public
attention
Underdeveloped
structures for
knowledge-input
Lack of research
on impact of
(in)coherencies
Many policies
… Higher risk
of incoherent
policies
ECDPM
Monitoring,
analysis and
reporting
Lack of
political
pressure
Setting and
prioritising
objectives
Coordinating
policy and its
implementation
Difficult conversations
between generalists vs.
specialists
•
•
•
Few
resources
allocated
Diverging
interests
Knowledge gaps
Differing levels
of awareness
Page 16
3. How to sustain leadership?
• PCD is a long-term issue and requires clear political
leadership:
• How does one sustain political support for PCD over
lives of successive governments?
• How do you create the incentives to push for PCD?
• At global level MDG 8 alone was not sufficient to
sustain long-term commitment
• Dilemma of balancing values and interests
• Principle of smart sovereignty
• What PCD promotion strategy can we find at the
global level for the post-2015, that
• Evolves over time?
• Promotes political commitment?
ECDPM
Page 17
4. A Universal PCD agenda?
• How to overcome the donor-recipient paradigm
inherent in the current PCD?
• Policy Coherence is a problem of all government
• ‘Joined-up government’ is a challenge everyone faces
• Yet so far posed as a challenge for donor governments
• PCD so far had clear beneficiaries
• Can we find a universal PCD agenda in the post-2015
framework without loosing the clarity of the concept?
• Need to assign clear responsibilities for PCD and
‘beyond aid’ in MoI and goals discussions
• Yet, inherent tension between overcoming old paradigms
and assigning responsibilities for PCD
ECDPM
Page 18
5. PCD as global policy tool?
• There is no one-size fits all approach
• PCD systems and how they manifest themselves
operationally varies widely, dependent on
• Political culture
• Nature of administration systems
• How can PCD tools best be
• Promoted in the post-2015 context?
• Adapted to different circumstances so they are relevant
to varying contexts?
ECDPM
Page 19
6. Knowledge Inputs
• Monitoring – essential for pushing political awareness
• PCD Reports - are a vital tool though seem bland
•
•
•
•
Document step by step progress throughout EU
Focus largely on success stories / good practice
Much harder to document difficulties
Provoke debate – probably their most important role
• Measuring impact of PCD
• Problem of attribution
• Evidence of incoherence much clearer than for coherence
• But trying to make progress on this front
• To support PCD in the universal post-2015 context
• Data and knowledge challenges huge
ECDPM
Page 20
6. Dialogue – PCD Accountability Gaps?
• In EU so far only few examples of clear mechanisms
to exchange knowledge on PCD between countries?
• Multilateral platforms, such as Cotonou Partnership
Agreement Art.12, rarely used
• ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly could be a tool
• Impact assessments and PCD knowledge-based policymaking remains weak
• Knowledge inputs rarely shared between governments
• How to foster more Dialogue on policies and PCD in
the post-2015 context
• With partner countries?
• At the multilateral level?
ECDPM
Page 21
III. Where has the road since
Maastricht taken us?
ECDPM
Page 22
Conclusions
• Have made real progress over 22 years
• May be slow, but task is also extremely difficult
• Awareness levels now much higher
• PCD is clearly on the agenda
• We know what mechanisms to use and how they work
• Consultation systems in place
• Have the monitoring tools
• Impact assessments becoming stronger
• Different actors in the PCD System play their roles
• Council, EC, EP, Member States, NGOs, researchers …
• Looking closer into measuring PCD
• Key challenges remaining
• Maintaining political leadership over time
• Converting PCD into a universal agenda at global level
• Improving knowledge inputs
ECDPM
Page 23
Thank you
www.ecdpm.org
www.slideshare.net/ecdpm
James Mackie, jm@ecdpm.org
Anna Knoll, ak@ecdpm.org
Page 24