ECDPM, 2012 To import or to produce? Agricultural trade and politics for the development of local food and agricultural sectors in developing countries under new framework conditions German Development Institute (DIE), the NGO Brot für die Welt and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) 3 December 2012, Bonn Quentin de Roquefeuil and Brecht Lein made a presentation at this meeting. The meeting discussed opportunities and threats of agricultural trade instruments as well as alternative measures to promote national production.

1. Monitoring the effects of the
CAP
General research on PCD and a
review of institutional options
ECDPM
3 December 2012

2. A need for „development-friendly‟
policies
• Long term trend: ODA is outgrown by other
financial contributions and loses relevance as a
central indicator for OECD countries‟
contributions to development
• OECD Strategy on Development promotes
evidence-based analysis of costs and benefits of
(in)coherent policies and indicators to monitor
• Decades of OECD discussions on making policies
development-friendly, but no systematic
monitoring beyond process
• Busan: “…it is essential to examine the
inter-dependence and coherence of all public
policies – not just development policies…”
• UN Task Team post-2015: “a high degree of
policy coherence at the global, regional, national
ECDPM
and sub-national levels will be required.” Page 2

3. ECDPM study for DE&NL government
• Objective: examine political and technical
feasibility of an institutionalised (i.e. formal)
system to compare countries on how their full
range of policies contribute to development
• Interviews with government officials, researchers
and NGOs, as well as case studies of different
comparative indices in and outside development
cooperation: PSE, PISA, CDI, MDG, aid
effectiveness
• Main findings:
• Existing indicator processes work when countries
see monitoring as being in their interest…
• …only feasible when key concepts and
objectives are agreed and understood
• Despite decades of discussion that‟s not yet the
ECDPM case Page 3

4. Recommendations:
• Findings suggest a twin-track approach,
consisting of
• (1) continuing current efforts in the OECD to
develop overall strategies and progress in
thematic areas, and
• (2) pushing for acceptance of PCD objectives and
targets in the debate on the post-2015
framework (particularly if they include
Sustainable Development Goals)
• Progress is best made incrementally, with a
specific focus on promoting research on the
effects of non-aid policies
ECDPM Page 4

5. The EU‟s work on „Policy Coherence
for Development‟ (PCD)
• Appeared first in the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht:
other policies have to take the EU‟s development
objectives into account
• Skip to May 2012, when EU Ministers for
Development Cooperation noted “(…) the need
for a more evidence-based approach and for
improving coordination mechanisms and
implementation within the EU institutions and
the Member States” - And that:
• “PCD is essential for the credibility of the EU as a
global actor, and hence, a strong EU leadership
on PCD issues at high levels of all parts of the EU
and in Member States is important”
• A good basis to write a paper on to what extent
this can be applied to the CAP
ECDPM Page 5

6. ECDPM research on CAP
monitoring
• Recent ECDPM paper related to CAP
monitoring for ODI (Keijzer and King
2012)
• Review of institutional options for potential
PCD monitoring, assessing political
feasibility and impact.
• Ranks option according to five criteria
(Feasibility, impact, likelihood, cost,
timeliness).
ECDPM Page 6

7. Monitoring of the CAP: status
quo
• Currently monitoring of the CAP does take
place, but strictly internal (although
subject to WTO scrutiny).
• BUT several windows of opportunities to
include external aspects:
- Amendments tabled in COMAGRI
- EU PCD efforts
- OECD PCD reflections
- Some MS support
- New advisory group on international
ECDPM
aspects of the CAP Page 7

8. Monitoring Option 1: Specific
external objectives in legal text.
• Idea is to include specific “beyond EU” goals
to the CAP‟s legal text. Monitoring would
follow.
• Pros: Most thorough and constraining, in
sync with policymaking.
• Cons: Politically unlikely (DG Agri, MS, agric.
lobbies).
• Promoted by NGOs, but not taken up by
EC, EP or Council.
ECDPM Page 8
• Significant impact, but politically unlikely.

9. Monitoring Option 2: Legal
text, but no objective
• Tabled in the EP. NL supports the idea in
council, backed by several other MS.
• Pros: More realistic than option 1. Could link
up to new international advisory group, and
feed into broader PCD monitoring.
• Cons: What would happen to the findings?
Would broad reference to PCD, without
specific mention of what is to be achieved
actually improve the status quo?
• Politically more realistic. Impact depends on
ECDPM
wording and take-up of findings. Page 9

10. Monitoring Option 3: Part of
Wider EU led PCD
• Don‟t mention it in the legal text, but make
sure CAP is reflected in the EU‟s PCD review
in a satisfactory way.
• Pros: “Whole of government approach”
(Tariffs +SPS!). Food security is a priority
area of EU PCD.
• Cons: Can be diluted by choosing
“uncontroversial” indicators. Ghettoization of
PCD in DEVCO, and consensus required.
• Politically feasible. Impact depends on the
ECDPM
indicators and institutional setup. Page 10

11. Monitoring Option 4: OECD or
Civil Society led monitoring
• External monitoring, supported by DG Agri.
• Pros: Could be linked to PSE currently
published by OECD, covers more countries
and policies. More independent than 3?
• Con: Opposition to PSE/development
linkage in the DAC. Like option 3) depends
on whether indicators “dilute” the CAP and if
the findings are taken up.
• Politically feasible, and impact could be
significant.
ECDPM Page 11

12. Our scores
• Option 1 (legal text + specific objective):
Impact: 9/10, Likelihood: 2/10.
• Option 2 (legal text, no objectives): Impact:
6/10, Likelihood: 5/10.
• Option 3 (EU PCD): Impact :
4/10, Likelihood, 4/10.
• Option 4 (OECD): Impact:
5/10, Likelihood, 6/10.
ECDPM Page 12

13. Avenues for future research
• Monitoring and the WTO: is realistic to
propose the monitoring of green box
support (i.e. income support)?
• Focus monitoring on the types of support
that are being phased out anyways to
overcome political resistance.
-> Would “Going with the grain” monitoring be
more politically acceptable (and have more
impact)?
ECDPM Page 13

14. References:
1. Keijzer, N., King, M. (2012) Monitoring the effects of the
Common Agricultural Policy in developing countries.
Research Report. London: Overseas Development Institute.
2. Klavert, H., Keijzer, N. (2012) A review of stakeholders‟
views on Common Agricultural Policy reform. Research
Report. London: Overseas Development Institute.
3. Keijzer, N., and J. Oppewal. 2012. Learn to walk before you
run? A review of methodological approaches for evaluating
coherence in the field of international cooperation.
Maastricht: ECDPM Discussion Paper 132.
4. King, M., Keijzer, N., Spierings, E., Matthews, A., (2012)
Measuring Policy Coherence for Development. Study
commissioned by The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation
and Development. Maastricht: ECDPM
www.ecdpm.org Page 14