James Mackie – Senior Advisor EU External Action Programme Workshop: How to promote Policy Coherence and Policy Coherence for Development approaches in the Post-2015 framework? 12 June 2014, Berlaymont Building, Room WHALL (Rue de la Loi 200, 1049 Bruxelles, Belgium)

1. Lessons Learned and Challenges
for the Future
James Mackie – Senior Advisor
EU External Action Programme
12 June 2014
The European
Experience on PCD

2. I. We have come a long way since
Maastricht
ECDPM Page 2

3. 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
Overview –22 years of PCD in the EU
ECDPM Page 3

4. • 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?
Three periods
ECDPM Page 4

5. 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)
Legal basis
Page 5ECDPM

6. • 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
• 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
Political Commitments
ECDPM Page 6

7. Progress on PCD mechanisms
ECDPM Page 7
0
5
10
15
20
25
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
# EU MSs and institutions
which made PCD policy
statements
# 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

8. 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 Page 8
Political
NSA
Context
Pressures
Approach to
Knowledge
governance
communities
ii. Institutional &
administrative
mechanisms
to:
ii. Institutional &
administrative
mechanisms
to:a. Strengthen
coherence
b. Resolve
incoherencies
i. Policy
statements of
intent
iii. Knowledge
inputs &
assessment capacity

9. 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

10. Institutional
•DEVCO A1 – PCD Unit
•Inter-service consultations
•PCD Inter-service group
•PCD Network
•Council: CODEV, COREPER
presidencies
•EU Parliament: Standing
Rapporteur for PCD
PCD mechanisms at the EU level
ECDPM Page 10
Knowledge & Assessment
•Stakeholder consultations
•Impact Assessment process
•Dialogue processes (eg. Cotonou
Agreement / Delegations)
• 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”

11. 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
Strengthening the evidence base of PCD
for OECD Members
ECDPM Page 11

12. European Report on Development (2013):
“The EU has made more efforts on PCD than most,
but the impact of these efforts remains limited”
Good progress on mechanisms
- yet how much has really changed?
ECDPM Page 12
• 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

13. • 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?
Walking the talk: policy vs. practice
ECDPM Page 13
“It’s the politics and competing interests, stupid!”

14. II. Lessons learned?
Opportunities and Challenges for PCD
in post-2015
ECDPM Page 14

15. 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 post-
2015 financing to be more effective (ERD 2014)
•Sustainable development agenda needs more cross-
cutting integrated approaches (e.g. various
DGs/ministries working together)
1. Opportunities for PCD Post-2015
ECDPM Page 15

16. ECDPM Page 16
2. Bottlenecks for PCD in the EU & even
more so at global level for post-2015
Underdeveloped
structures for
knowledge-input
Lack of research
on impact of
(in)coherencies
Lack of
political
pressure
Little public
attention
• Diverging
interests
• Knowledge gaps
• Differing levels
of awareness
Difficult conversations
between generalists vs.
specialists
Few
resources
allocated
Many policies
… Higher risk
of incoherent
policies

17. • 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?
3. How to sustain leadership?
ECDPM Page 17

18. • 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
4. A Universal PCD agenda?
ECDPM Page 18

19. • 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?
5. PCD as global policy tool?
ECDPM Page 19

20. • 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
6. Knowledge Inputs
ECDPM Page 20

21. • 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 policy-
making 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?
6. Dialogue – PCD Accountability Gaps?
ECDPM Page 21

22. III. Where has the road since
Maastricht taken us?
ECDPM Page 22

23. • 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
Conclusions
ECDPM Page 23

24. Thank you
www.ecdpm.org
www.slideshare.net/ecdpm
James Mackie, jm@ecdpm.org
Anna Knoll, ak@ecdpm.org
Page 24