EU Member States on the road towards more Policy Coherence for Development (PCD)

EU Member States on the road towards more Policy Coherence for Development (PCD)

Colophon Enhancing Policy Coherence: Making Development Work Better aims to contribute to poverty reduction by enhancing policy coherence for development (PCD) through awareness raising among different stakeholders.

Project Partners Instituto Marquês de Valle Flôr (IMVF) Evert Vermeer Foundation for international solidarity (EVF) Glopolis, Prague Global Policy Institute Eesti People to People (People to People Estonia) Cape Verdian Platform of NGOs This publication was produced in the framework of the project Enhancing Policy Coherence: Making Development Work Better is a project co-financed by the European Union. The views expressed in the website and publications do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Commission You can copy, download or print the content of this publication for your own use [use certified or recycled PAPER] , and you can include excerpts from this publications, databases and multimedia. products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of this publication as source and copyright owner is given.

Many thanks to all partners and experts who have kindly commented on the draft texts of this publication.

This publication benefit from the expertise of Patrícia Magalhães Ferreira, external consultant.

Editors: Instituto Marquês de valle flôr 2

Design: Diogo Lencastre March 2012 Copyleft 2012

Publication financed by

European Comission

Suppport by

This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the Czech Development Agency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic.

Foreword Fernanda Faria European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM) Twenty years on since the Maastricht Treaty called on the European Union (EU) to improve the coherence of European policies for development, making it a legal requirement, Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) remains a somewhat distant and unclear target in the EU, and particularly across Member States as the contributions to this publication clearly illustrate. A shared responsibility of EU institutions and Member States as stressed in the Treaty of Lisbon in 2008 (Art. 208), reinforcing the 2005 European Consensus on Development, EU Member States are therein recognised and given an important role in advancing the European PCD agenda.

Progress has undoubtedly been made over the last two decades in advancing the PCD agenda within the EU. Critical to the evolving path of Policy Coherence for Development in EU foreign policy were commitments to international agendas on aid effectiveness and to the principle of ‘do no harm’ of which the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has been a strong promoter, influencing many of its members. The pressure and awareness role played by many Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and research institutions, highlighting the lack of coherence and concerns over negative impacts of EU development and relevant policies on developing countries, also played an important role to advance PCD in the EU. Increasingly, PCD appears not only as critical to maximise EU development efforts, but also an argument to make the best possible use of ODA funds, which some Member States will feel tempted to lower in the current context of deep financial crisis. Furthermore, at a time when the EU is being challenged by an increasing presence of emerging economies in Africa and elsewhere, PCD is also about the credibility of the EU, and reducing the gap between development objectives and effective accomplishments of EU policies for development.

Much more is now known about the impact in developing countries of different policy areas (e.g. trade, security, environment, migration, agriculture or fisheries, among others). Many Member States have made explicit policy commitments to PCD in their national strategies, adapted relevant legislative frameworks, and established institutional or administrative mechanisms to enhance PCD. Nevertheless, many of those responsible for policy-making and implementation in the EU – Member States, European institutions and non-state actors concerned – struggle with the clarity and reach of the concept of PCD.

3

4

As often mentioned in ECDPM contributions to the debate1, PCD is ‘a moving target’ and one that requires much more than just subscribing to international commitments, establishing PCD mechanisms, promoting knowledge about the impact of development and non-development policies in developing countries and interlinking different policy areas. These are all important but, as illustrated in this publication, per se they are not sufficient to align external and internal policies with development objectives and reconcile or mitigate legitimate conflicts of interests between different policy areas and actors, each with its priority objectives. That is not likely to happen as a result of an administrative exercise only, or out of promoting knowledge and sensitisation about PCD among the different actors involved.

Promoting PCD in the EU will depend also, and above all, on a clear and firm political decision in Member States and on the active involvement of political actors in the monitoring and management of tensions and dilemmas inherent to a PCD process. That, too, is not in itself a guarantee to achieving policy coherence in development efforts. There is, furthermore, a risk that PCD processes become too much in-ward looking, when PCD is first and foremost about the intended and unintended impact of European policies (internal and external) on developing countries. As such, political decisions on PCD must also be informed by the views of those most directly affected, i.e. the government and societies of the developing countries concerned. Member States representations in the country (like EU delegations) can and should play a role in the dialogue with the local actors and, together, assess and monitor policy coherence for development.

This publication is a testimony to the efforts being made by some EU Member States and a welcome contribution to the sharing of experiences within the EU. It is also a good reminder of how much progress is yet to be accomplished if policy coherence is to become an effective target in the decision-making and implementation of European development policies.

1

ECDPM contributions on PCD can be found in the website: www.ecdpm.org

Photo: Brígida Rocha (Guinea-Bissau)

What is Policy Coherence for Development (PCD)?

Some thoughts and definitions “Policy Coherence for Development means working to ensure that the objectives and results of a government’s development policies are not undermined by other policies of that same government which impact on developing countries, and that these other policies support development objectives where feasible”.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) “The EU seeks to build synergies between policies other than development cooperation that have a strong impact on developing countries, for the benefit of overseas development (“policy coherence for development”).

Making development policy in isolation will not bring sufficient results”.

DG Development, European Commission “The EU has always been one of the key promoters worldwide of the concept of Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) aimed at strengthening synergies and weeding out inconsistencies between non-aid policies and development objectives. The main incentive has been the knowledge that limiting policy incoherence and strengthening synergies among EU external and internal policies will enhance the overall efficiency of development cooperation and will also lead to increased development benefits in developing countries. “ EU 2011 Report on Policy Coherence for Development

5

On the role of EU Member States and developed countries…

“The Member States constitute the third relevant level for promoting PCD because of their decision-making role in the Council and their responsibility for implementing policies which may in turn affect development objectives, like in the areas of migration or security.

Moreover, Member States should ensure that their own policies, developed at national level, are also PCD-compatible”.

EU 2011 Report on Policy Coherence for Development “The EC and the EU Member States should work together to raise awareness, strengthen their staff and organisational capacity and use more effective and ambitious PCD mechanisms. (…).The Council underlines that political ownership of the PCD agenda and awareness of development objectives in all relevant parts of the EU institutions and Member States is crucial for success. The Council therefore invites incoming Presidencies, Member States, the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council, within the scope of their respective competencies, to take work on the PCD work programme forward in order to ensure ownership by all relevant stakeholders and taking into account human rights (…)”.

EU Council Conclusions on PCD, November 2009 6

“We, Ministers of OECD Countries (…) reaffirm our strong commitment to PCD and stress its importance in achieving the internationallyagreed development goals, including those contained in the Millennium Declaration (MDGs). We resolve to continue our efforts to ensure that development concerns are taken into account across relevant policies inter alia through improved impact analyses and better policy co-ordination both at country level and within the OECD, taking into account in particular the impact on the international development objectives of our environmental, agricultural, fisheries, economic and financial policies, as well as our policies in the areas of trade, migration, security, energy, science and technology”.

Ministerial Declaration on PCD, OECD, June 2008

“Governments have to give more careful consideration to the cumulative and inter-related impacts of policies and regulatory regimes. From a governance perspective, there is the need to ensure that in any given sectoral area of interest as noted in the 2008 OECD PCD Declaration policies are both vertically and horizontally coherent. (…).The PCD institutional framework requires: political commitment, co-ordination, analysis and monitoring. These three “building blocks” provide a framework for considering and promoting approaches towards greater policy coherence for development. In establishing them, governments may also have to adopt measures to improve policy making processes, foster cultural changes in the public service and reconcile policy priorities and budgeting imperatives”.

Recommendation of the Council on Good Institutional Practices in Promoting Policy Coherence for Development, OECD, April 2010 “We call for increased efforts at all levels to enhance policy coherence for development. We affirm that achievement of the Millennium Development Goals requires mutually supportive and integrated policies across a wide range of economic, social and environmental issues for sustainable development. We call on all countries to formulate and implement policies consistent with the objectives of sustained, inclusive and equitable economic growth, poverty eradication and sustainable development”.

Keeping the promise: united to achieve the Millennium Development Goals “Outcome Document” United Nations (UN) General Assembly Resolution, September 2010

7

8 Photo: Neni Glock (Angola)

Introduction In the framework of the project “Enhancing Policy Coherence: making development work better”, the partners in this project have been very actively striving for more PCD within their respective Member States. PCD cannot only be dealt with on the EU level, instead it are the Member States who can play a catalysing role when it comes to putting PCD high on the political agenda and stimulating the setting up of institutional PCD mechanisms both on the European level as well as within the individual Member States. In this publication an overview is provided on the latest developments around PCD within the Czech Republic, The Netherlands, Portugal and Estonia. Some of the issues addressed include: what kind of institutional mechanisms have been established and to what extent are the national parliaments aware of the importance of PCD and how are they involved?; Besides is civil society involved in actively pushing forward the PCD agenda?

The PCD agenda within the European Union has been progressing quite steadily since the European Commission, the Council and the Parliament jointly committed to the concept in the 2005 European Consensus on Development2. Today PCD has a strong legal basis within the Treaty of Lisbon, in which Article 208 states that; The Union shall take account of the objectives of development cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries.

Furthermore three Commission biannual progress reports have been published so far (2007, 2009 and 20113), the European Parliament (EP) has passed a resolution on PCD in 20104, which led to the establishment of a PCD standing rapporteur within the European Parliament (EP) namely Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Birgit Schnieber Jastram who is currently preparing the next EP PCD report. And a PCD working programme5 has been created by the Commission as requested by the Member States and five PCD priority areas (migration, climate change, security, trade & finance and food security) have been decided upon. The Commission Communication of 12 2 European Consensus on Development. page 6 http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/ repository/european_consensus_2005_en.pdf

3 Please see; http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/policy-coherence/ index_en.htm REPORT on the EU Policy Coherence for Development and the ‘Official Development Assistance plus’ concept (2009/2218(INI)) Committee on Development Rapporteur: Franziska Keller

4

5 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Policy Coherence for Development Work Programme 2010- 2013 accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS A twelve-point EU action plan in support of the Millennium Development Goals Brussels, 21.4.2010 SEC(2010) 421 final

9

October 2011, ‘Increasing the Impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change’ further underlines a focus on PCD, highlighting in particular issues relating to security and migration, and stating that the future MultiFinancial Framework should reinforce PCD. These PCD developments could not have been realised without the support of the Member States. Awareness around the concept of PCD among Member States is therefore crucial to the advancement of the European PCD agenda, as are national PCD commitments and mechanisms to effectively implement national development cooperation programmes.

Among civil society organisations within the European Union, more attention is being paid to the concept of PCD. Especially within the European Confederation for Relief and Development; CONCORD, a significant number of organisations are active in contributing to the PCD agenda, by means of the biannual CONCORD spotlight report on coherence6 and by presenting its findings on the national level. Nevertheless many examples of incoherent policies can still be found in various policy fields ranging from agriculture and trade, to security and migration. Much work remains therefore to be done in advocating for Policy Coherence for Development both on the European and national level.

10

CONCORD spotlight on EU Policy Coherence for Development ; A Lisbon Treaty provision and Human Rights obligation, November 2011.

6

Photo: Neni Glock (Angola)

PCD in the Czech Republic: still a long road ahead 11

In recent years the Czech Republic has transformed its system of development cooperation, gradually increasing the amount of resources and adopting additional measures to improve the effectiveness and transparency of aid the country provides. The Czech Republic managed the development agenda during its presidency of the EU Council in 2009 fairly well. Along with progress in development aid came improvements in policy coherence for development (PCD). The concept of PCD was incorporated in several strategic documents and is now better anchored institutionally. Yet, general political declarations, institutional adjustments, and consultations with NGOs have not yet been followed up by concrete goals and practical steps.

The process of transforming the institutional system of international development cooperation (IDC)7 began in 2007 and culminated in 2010. The changes led inter alia to the creation of the Czech Development Agency (CZDA) and the inter-ministerial Council on Development Cooperation (IDC Council). The coordination role of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs (MFA) was strengthened.

The first-ever International Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid Act took effect in July 2010. In May 2010 the government approved the 2010-2017 Development Cooperation Strategy of the Czech Republic as the basic strategic document.

Policy documents

12

As a result, the idea of policy coherence for development now explicitly appears in three government documents: Guidelines on Czech Development Cooperation8 from 2004; Statutes of the Council on Development Cooperation9 from 2009; and the Development Cooperation Strategy of the Czech Republic, 2010-201710. Despite advocacy efforts by NGOs and some parliamentarians, the concept is not mentioned in the new International Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid Act, mainly due to possible conflicts with old legislation strictly defining competencies of the government bodies, the Competency Act.11 In addition to the goals and principles of IDC and the main territorial and sector priorities, the new IDC strategy also includes the commitment to improving policy coherence for development: “In accordance with the principles of the EU, UN and OECD, the Czech Republic will place an emphasis (at both the national and EU level) on Policy Coherence for Development (PCD), which it regards as an important precondition for meeting the Millennium Development Goals. It will therefore ensure that the external impacts of other government policies do not undermine the aims and objectives of development policy (especially in trade, agriculture, migration, environment and 7 See the official document by Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) entitled Transformation of the Czech International Development Cooperation (IDC) System 2008. Available at www.mzv.cz/ public/1a/f0/9f/75884_14945_web_Transformace_ZRS_12._9._08.doc

Guidelines on Czech Development Cooperation www.mzv.cz/jnp/en/foreign_relations/ development_cooperation_and_humanitarian/general_information/development_cooperation/ index.html

8

www.mzv.cz/file/75674/UV_1439_2007_Priloha.pdf Statutes of the Council on Development Cooperation (Annex to Government Resolution No 1439/2007 of 19 December 2007, Article II(1b))

9

“The starting point for these activities will be the mapping of Czech policies and positions in EU policies which affect the development prospects of poor countries. An appropriate forum for discussing the problem areas identified is the Council on Development Cooperation.” Development Cooperation Strategy of the Czech Republic 2010-2017 www.mzv.cz/public/d9/ f6/92/545820_444905_Development_Cooperation_Strategy_2010_2017___final.doc

10

11

www.mzv.cz/public/51/66/1/541617_437009_Act_on_Development_Cooperation.pdf

security).” An essential prerequisite for the strategy to implement such commitment is the “mapping of Czech policies and positions in EU policies which affect the development prospects of poor countries.” The results, PCD priorities, and concrete measures ensuing from them are expected to be discussed in the IDC/Council on Development Cooperation.

Key mechanisms The Council on Development Cooperation, established in 2008, appears the most promising institutional mechanism to enhance PCD. The Council is an inter-ministerial coordination body inter alia “responsible for mutual coherence between the objectives and priorities of development cooperation and other government policy instruments that have or could have a direct or indirect impact on developing countries.” 12 The Council can propose improvements to both Czech and EU policy-making processes relevant to PCD (see below) and to initiate new institutional measures (a Council working group, for example). And yet, despite the fact that Council statutes clearly specify coherence as one of the Council’s main functions, its involvement in consultations and, especially, binding coordination of non-development policies, has so far been rather formal and superficial. This should change as a special PCD working group has been established under the Council.

Other existing government mechanisms that have the highest potential to contribute to improved coherence include the common inter-ministerial consultation proceedings on one hand and the Committee for the European Union (EU Committee), the Ministerial Coordination Groups (RKS) and the Permanent Representation to the EU on the other hand. The Office of the Government could also play a positive role in both EU and national policymaking.

While inter-ministerial consultation proceedings serve as a standard consultation tool between the relevant ministries in national policy-making, the system of formulating Czech Republic’s positions (mandates) for EU decisionmaking provides the greatest opportunity to enhance coherence of EU policies.

A large number of policies with the most consequential impact on developing countries are formed on the EU level. The coordination of European affairs in the Czech Republic currently occurs on two levels. Ministerial Coordination Groups (RKS) handle these matters on the basic working level, whereas higher (political) level coordination occurs within the Committee for the European Union (at the level of ministers and their deputies). Due to the size of its

In: Statutes of the Council on Development Cooperation (Annex to Government Resolution No 1439/2007 of 19 December 2007, Article II(1b))

12

13

14

agenda, it’s no coincidence that the Committee for the European Union has been dubbed the “Little Government”. Within the MFA the development cooperation department (ORS) recently began talks with the EU policies department (EUPO), which represents MFA in the RKS system, on how to better coordinate selected areas of concern in development cooperation. However, development aspects are virtually absent at the higher political level.

A substantial amount of the EU policy coordination work is also performed by the Permanent Representation of the Czech Republic to the European Union.

COREPER as well as some selected working groups (such as TPC) are perceived as a key coherence bodies among Member States. The Permanent Representation can thus have influence both directly on the coherence of EU policies (through participation in EU Council processes) and indirectly on the coherence of Czech positions for EU decision-making (through commenting on the positions and mandates prepared in Prague). While informal consultations take regular place between various staff of the Permanent Representation there is no formal mechanisms put in place to ensure PCD. In the institutional structure of the Czech Republic, the Office of the Government represents the centre of coordination and is a key body for general coherence both in the making of autonomous Czech policy and in the formulation of positions for EU decision-making. On a more general level, the Office of the Government is also responsible for “establishing policy priorities, developing policy alternatives, conducting policy analyses, and monitoring and evaluating policy implementation,”13with respect to the EU as well.

Nevertheless, the potential of the Office of the Government remains seriously underutilized for PCD. Such extension of its function would effectively require political support for PCD by the Prime Minister, which has never been the case.

There are highly divergent attitudes toward this principle among Czech ministries that play a key role in promoting coherence. It appears that some of these bodies do not yet have an entirely clear impression of the benefits of policy coherence, or they simply remain sceptical. Other government offices such as the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Ministry of Finance, or at least some of their officials, have expressed a growing understanding and willingness to incorporate certain development concerns into their specific decision-making processes.

13 Coordination in the centre of the government: the function and organization of the Office of the Government, Document SIGMA no. 35, OECD 2004, page 5, http://icv.vlada.cz/assets/ pro-skoly/materialy/vlada/SIGMA_Funkce-a-organizace-uradu-vlady.pdf

Obstacles and opportunities Although there is considerable capacity and potential at all of the key ministries: people with motivation, knowledge and long-term experience with development cooperation, the pressure from the European Union (or, potentially, the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee, when the Czech Republic becomes its member) remains probably the key driver of PCD agenda in the Czech Republic.

The process of improving policy coherence for development in the Czech Republic still runs up against a number of institutional, indeed cultural hurdles. The general commitment to the coherence of policies, dialogue and the coordination of divergent public policies (with development policy) remains very abstract and formal. Limited capacity is one of the main obstacles to more effective coordination, consultation and communication in Czech policymaking in general. Yet, it seems that a slightly higher political profile lent to PCD through progressive changes in policy documents and institutions bears its fruits and additional human resources are to be mobilized at the MFA. The burden of PCD work also becomes lighter when priorities are set as it is hardly possible to fully and actively engage in all relevant policymaking processes across the wide range of PCD topics. The MFA therefore decided to zero down its next steps on agriculture and trade, including within the context of the new Development Strategy sectoral priorities, the global food crises, and the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

Additional significant problems include the lack of political will for important administrative changes and the unwillingness to involve a broader range of arguments in decision making, including in relation to reducing poverty.

Other actors Policy coherence for development remains a relatively new concept and moreover one that is extremely complex. Communicating the basic principles, examples and tools of PCD to the public, media and politicians appears a substantially more difficult task than promoting development cooperation, which has growing public support, but still very thin support among main the political parties. The Government is responsible mainly for initiation (including legislative proposals) and implementation of government policies key for PCD. That is why communication, consultations, coordination inside and with the government play the most important role in the Czech environment.

For a number of years, Czech non-profit organisations, including the platform for development and humanitarian organisations (FoRS – the Czech Forum for Development Cooperation) and Glopolis, have also advocated for the improvement of policy coherence for development in the Czech Republic

15

through small but concrete measures. These activities include monitoring, research and the publication of analyses of selected policies, poor country studies as well as the overall institutional framework for policy coherence for development in the Czech Republic and the EU, including specific recommendations for key actors. They focus mainly on the organisation of educational seminars, publications in the media and an ongoing dialogue with relevant departments of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, other ministries as well as top government officials and parliamentarians. Civil society is for instance represented at meetings of the inter-ministerial Council on Development Cooperation.

Challenging the political culture

16

It is the impression of both the civil society organizations as well as international experts that the Czech Republic’s state administration, not just the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, needs to move beyond general, although important, political declarations and consultations towards concrete goals and practical steps. Establishment of a special PCD working group under the inter-ministerial Council on Development Cooperation, mobilizing additional capacity at the development cooperation department of the MFA, identifying thematic priority, and improving coordination processes within the MFA are important steps.

In order to achieve tangible policy changes, however, these will need to be followed also by sustainable changes in inter-ministerial coordination processes, in organisational and personnel capacities of both the MFA and other government bodies, in the processing of information across the public administration, and in other strategic documents. Increased coherence of policy making requires the inclusion of a broader circle of participants in the discussion and consultation as well as greater public support for development cooperation in general and its non-development policy aspects in particular.

In the long run, however, the impact can only be multiplied and sustained if changes occur also in the administrative culture and political will of the country leadership.

Photo: IMVF (Guinea-Bissau)

The Netherlands still PCD front runners?

17

The Netherlands has been a front runner when it comes to PCD for years. Already back in 2002, a PCD unit was set up within the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs acting as a spearhead in promoting PCD through screening research and by encouraging close cooperation among ministries.

However, the current government does seem to have difficulties in living up to its promises when it comes to enhancing PCD.

Also among Dutch NGOs for many years there has been a great awareness when it comes to the interlinkages between for instance, agriculture, trade, migration and development. Many Dutch NGOs work on topics in areas such as natural resources, labour migration, food security and agriculture, international trade agreements etc. Besides, Dutch NGOs are very much involved when it comes to policy making in the field of development cooperation by triggering debates, writing position papers and creating awareness among politicians. Members of the Dutch parliaments (MPs) and civil servants working on development cooperation are therefore in general quite well aware of the concept of Policy Coherence for Development.

Even though The Netherlands has been committed to PCD for almost 10 years, no legal commitments have been made, and reporting mechanisms are only now being installed14.

No legal commitments

18

Even though PCD has been institutionalised within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, legal commitment to PCD is as of yet lacking, this besides the commitment of the Netherlands to the Lisbon Treaty art. 208 and MDG 8, which indirectly results in a commitment to PCD. However, the current State Secretary for Development (Mr. Ben Knapen) has frequently mentioned PCD as one of his objectives, and several motions from parliament seek to hold him to this commitment.

In 2010 the Scientific Council for Government Policy published a much-debated report on reforming the Dutch development policy15. In it, the Council specifically refers to PCD and gives several recommendations on how to improve the government’s approach to coherence. Right off the bat, the Council argues that despite good intentions regarding PCD, concrete results fall behind. This is mainly attributed to the fact that coherence, almost per definition, concerns conflicts of legitimate interests16.

With a staff of four the coherence unit within the Foreign Affairs Ministry aims to ensure the interests of developing countries are represented in various policy fields. The Council criticised this approach in its report, arguing that the concentration of this unit within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs makes it more difficult for the interests of developing countries to be represented in 14

www.oecd.org/document/63/0,3746,en_2649_34603_48945407_1_1_1_1,00.html

Since 2010, the Dutch Development Cooperation policy is undergoing a major revision, that is based on the Advisory Council for Government Policy’s report ‘Less Pretension, More Ambition.

Development policy in times of globalisation’ and culminated with the letter to the House of Representatives of November 2011 presenting the spearheads of development cooperation policy.

15

16 Lieshout, van. et al (Scientific Council for Government Policy) “Less pretension more ambition” P 229

relevant policy processes in for instance the Ministry of Economics, Agriculture and Innovation17. The report therefore suggests establishing coherence units or contacts at various departments who can signal issues and build knowledge.

In the Policy agenda for 201218, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs states that the five priority areas for global public goods are trade and financing, climate change, food security, migration, and peace and security, and « that this brings the government’s policy agenda in line with the five EU priorities for policy coherence ». Development Cooperation is reaffirmed as an integral part of Dutch foreign policy. In that context, the document states that «European and national government policy must do as little possible harm to the interests of developing countries. In interministerial consultations, the government does its utmost to continuously monitor policy coherence for development. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ expertise on policy coherence for development will be bolstered».

Dutch parliament plays catalysing role There are two crucial resolutions that have been passed in Dutch parliament which provide for concrete steps towards more Policy Coherence for Development.

The Council report suggests carrying out independent annual reports on the government’s efforts towards PCD. This recommendation was picked up by two parliamentarians from the Christian Democrats (CDA) and the Labour Party (PvdA), who managed to get a resolution, passed on this subject. The resolution requests the government to present the parliament its vision of globalisation and PCD, as well as to publish annual reports on its efforts towards enhancing PCD. The government has offered to publish a report on their progress on PCD at the beginning of 2012. However, at the time of writing, the Parliament is still waiting for this report.

Then another resolution, handed in by the Green Left party (GroenLinks) was adopted by the Parliament in April 2011. It requests the government to calculate and publish the negative effects of Dutch policy on the effectiveness of development aid in the Dutch partner countries. In the resolution it was called to calculate the ‘public bads’; we know the budget we are spending on development aid (0.7 % of the BNP), but we hardly know how much money is flowing out of developing countries by Dutch policies which frustrates development. This resolution tries to tackle this problem.

Lieshout, van. et al (Scientific Council for Government Policy) “Less pretension more ambition” P. 231

17

18

www.minbuza.nl/en/appendices/the-ministry/policy-agenda-2012.html

19

The Greens are keen on this topic: at the end of 2011, they again tried to get a resolution adopted by the parliament, to request the government to allocate budget to calculate the global ‘public bads’, in terms of trade barriers, tax evasion- and avoidance and agricultural subsidies. This resolution was rejected, because the right wing coalition voted against this resolution.

Awareness of PCD is highest among those MPs concerned with development.

In debates and resolutions on actual coherence policy fields like tax, trade and raw materials, exact PCD wording is rarely mentioned. One successful resolution on the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) requested government, in light of its commitment to PCD, to put the consequences of the CAP for developing countries on the agenda of the next EU CAP meeting. This can be considered an exception, and while MPs will stand up for the interests of developing countries, they usually do not specifically refer to PCD in this fashion when doing so.

It can therefore be said that awareness of PCD among Dutch MPs is mixed.

Those concerned with development are highly aware of PCD, and frequently ask government to take action to make its coherence efforts more concrete.

Policy areas that currently receive the most attention regarding PCD include trade, agricultural subsidies, climate, migration and patents (trade). But more awareness could be raised among the non development oriented policy makers.

20

PCD according to the Dutch right-wing cabinet Although the Minister replied it is impossible to implement this resolution to calculate the public bads, a recent policy document called ‘the globalisation agenda’19 which was send to the Parliament by the government (in November 2011) says that they want to explore how to calculate in a qualitative and quantitative way what the negative consequences are of Dutch policies. That is a step forward. In order to show what the advantage is of coherent policies, they are preparing a pilot study in the first half of 2012, which identifies three Dutch partner countries, in which they will explore in-depth what are the financial effects of Dutch policies for these countries.

The government chose to coincide their main focus issues with the key priority areas from the European Union (1. global trade regimes and international financial markets; 2. climate change and sustainable management of resources; 3. food security; 4. migration; and 5. fragile states, security and conflict). However, this is not yet internalised within the work programme of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The intention of the government is to desig-

19 www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/notas/2011/11/04/beleidsnotitie-deontwikkelingsdimensie-van-prioritaire-internationale-publieke-goederen.html.

nate a contact person who is responsible for PCD matters, in every relevant Ministry. Their role is to prepare together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs annual reports on the progress on PCD/ global public goods and they will be responsible to implement the ‘globalisation agenda’.

Because this cabinet is not putting development cooperation very high on its agenda, only a secretary of state is in charge of development policy. This had a major consequence, because a secretary of state does not have a full cabinet status. And although the government is emphasising that PCD is a matter of the whole government, the value attached in political sense is low. This really illustrates the essence of PCD: in the end it all about political will.

21

PCD in The Netherlands (2011) DAC-OECD Peer Review Key Findings:

22

– The Netherlands’ approach to policy coherence for development has good foundations, but it is not yet fully owned by a broader range of government offices. Other donors can learn from the Netherlands’ experiences with whole of government approaches.

– The Netherlands has not yet internalised the five EU priority areas of PCD in its own work programmes. They are very much in line with the Netherlands’ new thematic priorities for its development co-operation and would provide the kind of framework for setting cross-departmental goals that is currently missing. Related to this, the Netherlands intends to develop a globalisation agenda which goes beyond development co-operation to tackle global challenges like the sustainable management of raw materials, energy scarcity, global pandemics, climate change, cross-border crime and international trade agreements.

– There are risks associated with the Netherlands’ reforms of its development co-operation. The main risks are combining private sector development with the promotion of Dutch commercial interests and the risks of undermining earlier Dutch investments or those of its partners by withdrawing from countries and sectors.

Recommendations:

Along with high-level political commitment, progress towards policy coherence for development depends on integrating the concept into all government departments, guided by clear priorities for implementation.

Building on the progress that the Netherlands has made in development beyond aid, the DAC recommends that all Dutch government departments sign up to a policy coherence plan of action that has clear priorities and deadlines. It would be useful to put in place a clearly-prioritised and time-bound programme as part of its new globalisation agenda to ensure that relevant Dutch and European Union policies support (or at least do not undermine) their development policies. This programme should translate the Netherlands’ commitment to development into plans for action, and should include strategic cross-governmental goals.

Photo: IMVF (Guinea-Bissau)

Portugal on the road to PCD effectiveness: Too Much Theory, Too Little Practice 23

In recent years, Portugal has taken concrete steps to formally integrate PCD in its legislation and development cooperation strategies. However, this has remained mainly on paper, with few concrete steps taken to actively operationalise the concept and the strategic guidelines.

There is also a widespread lack of knowledge on what PCD is and how to implement it, among policy-makers, officials and civil society, which makes it difficult to foster debate on this issue, particularly in a context of internal economic crisis.

Portugal’s contribution to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) requires an integrated and systematic approach that enhances the commitments made by the Portuguese Cooperation, as stated by the Strategy for Development Cooperation approved by the Portuguese Government in late 200520. In its quest to contribute to a better and more stable world, Portuguese Cooperation currently faces a range of development challenges in the international context, which is increasingly calling for greater effectiveness, efficiency and transparency of Official Development Assistance (ODA) and for increased efforts to promote Policy Coherence for Development (PCD).

The Strategic Vision for Portuguese Cooperation endorses the “importance of ensuring coherence between national policies affecting developing countries and development cooperation policy”, and recognises that a lack of coordination and incoherences across a set of development relevant policies can have high economic and social costs for the populations of developing countries as for donor countries. It thus stresses that ODA alone is not sufficient to ensure the promotion of development. It is essential that, alongside ODA, other financial flows and policies with significant impact in developing countries are taken into account.

Progress at international level 24

PCD in Portuguese development and cooperation policies takes on a more relevant role with the approval of the Strategic Vision for Portuguese Cooperation, which states that “the pursuit of development goals depends not only on development policy and activities, but also on the impact that decisions in other policy areas can have on developing countries”.

As a sign of a growing visibility and concern with PCD in Portugal, the Council of Ministers approved, in November 2010, a resolution specifically on PCD21, in which it is stated that “Policy Coherence for Development is an essential tool for furthering the objectives of Portuguese foreign policy”. The resolution also advocates “the need to establish formal mechanisms for coordination and monitoring”, gives evidence of the importance of inter-ministerial dialogue and calls for the creation of an “inter-ministerial working group, coordinated by the foreign affairs, responsible for developing an internal work programme on PCD (...) and preparing a report on PCD every two years.” This working group should be supported by the Portuguese Development Agency – the Portuguese Institute for Development Support (IPAD) from 2003 to Decem20 “A Strategic Vision for Portuguese Development Co-operation” Portuguese Council of Ministers resolution 196/2005, of 22 December 2005 [http://www.ipad.mne.gov.pt/images/ stories/Publicacoes/Visao_Estrategica_editado.pdf] 21

Resolution from the Council of Ministers 82/2010, of 4 November 2010.

ber 2011, now Camões Institute- and strengthen the following mechanisms of coordination and evaluation: a network of PCD Focal Points (within the Committee for Inter-ministerial Co-operation) and “inter-sectoral groups across ministries addressing specific subjects of PCD, where appropriate”.

However, since the new Portuguese Government took over in mid-2011, there are no signs of concrete action to implement this resolution and these mechanisms are not yet in place.

At the institutional level, in addition to the Committee for Inter-ministerial Co-operation, there have been also several meetings from the Development Cooperation Forum (which involves civil society representatives), the Interministerial Commission for Climate Change and the Inter-ministerial Group for Security and Development, along with other informal consultation groups.

Some informal bilateral meetings that were regularly promoted by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Development Cooperation with other sectoral ministries (education, health, environment, justice, defence), between 2007 and 2010, have proven useful in helping ministries to work together on some key policy issues that affect partner countries’ development.

At the strategic and policy level, we should also stress the following efforts towards the promotion of PCD: the National Strategy for Sustainable Development; the National Strategy on Security and Development; the Plan for the Integration of Immigrants; the National Plan for Equality, Citizenship and Gender; and the National Action Plan for the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security.

Some of these documents include specific development cooperation priorities and measures, which can contribute for increased synergies between different policy areas, for greater coherence between internal and external action and, also, for an enhanced development focus in decision-making.

Progress in the international arena During the Portuguese Presidency of the Council of the European Union in the second half of 2007, Portugal has actively participated in the promotion of PCD and pushed for the adoption of several key documents in this area.

Four important documents were approved then: the Council Conclusions on Policy Coherence for Development, the Council Conclusions on Coherence between EU Policies concerning Migration and Development, the Council Conclusions on Security and Development (holding the first ever joint EU Defence and Development Council of Ministers), and the Council Conclusions on a Global Alliance on Climate Change between the European Union and poor developing countries most vulnerable to climate change. Portugal also contributed to the discussion and dissemination of the EU’s Work Programme and to the preparation of the Commission’s biennial reports on PCD.

25

During the Portuguese Presidency of the EU, the Joint EU-Africa Strategy and its first Action Plan (2008-2011) were also adopted, in which the objective of improving coherence between different policy areas that can contribute to development is clearly stated. A considerable amount of the EU policy coordination work is also carried out by the Portuguese Permanent Representation to the European Union (REPER); however, while informal consultations take regular place between staff of the Permanent Representation and officials based in Lisbon, there is no formal mechanisms put in place to ensure PCD in the definition of Portuguese positions in the EU or other multilateral bodies.

Portugal also actively participates in OECD/DAC initiatives and working groups and endorsed the OECD Ministerial Declaration on Policy Coherence for Development (2008).

Main constrains and difficulties

26

With the approval of several legislative and strategic documents, PCD is now part of the lexicon of sustainable cooperation policies, and the channels of communication between agencies, ministries and civil society are open to increase dialogue and boost progress on these matters.

However, despite the wording in official documents and the good intentions to promote PCD, there is still a lack of knowledge at ministerial level and among parliamentarians and officials regarding PCD and implementation mechanisms for its effectiveness. First, there is clearly a widespread confusion about the PCD concept, which many stakeholders find complex, difficult to operationalise in concrete actions and to incorporate in their daily work. The concept is sometimes identified as a synonym of “coherence between policies”, PCD in the NGDO world Only 5% of the Portuguese NGDOs consciously address the issue of PCD in their development projects. Some projects aim to identify incoherences in EU development policies and to define new ways of action, in the framework of development education projects. In their daily work, these organisations work in close collaboration with Southern NGDOs, and seek to reflect the impact of EU decisions in Southern countries, through publications and their dissemination in new social networks.

However, there is widespread lack of knowledge among NGDO staff of what is PCD, its mechanisms and objectives. This generalized lack of information – from the political and administrative levels to the implementers – translates into a lack of traction and implementation of PCD at all levels. It is necessary to train NGOs and ministerial staff, and to actively inform policy makers, in order to foster civil society’s participation in this debate.

leaving “development” out of the equation. Secondly, there is a clear need for more systematic evidence about the benefits of coherence and the costs of incoherence, in order to raise awareness among policy- and decision-makers, particularly among those who are not directly involved in development cooperation. The role of Parliamentarians in this context has been limited to a few members that regularly include development cooperation in their individual work priorities, but the global development or Portuguese cooperation policy are not regularly discussed with a specific or systematic focus (these themes are usually linked to economic issues or integrated in broader discussions on foreign policy).

An accurate analysis of the Portuguese development cooperation system – its main dynamics, ways of functioning and how it is organised - can explain why there are still a number of constraints that prevent the “Portuguese system from putting effectively into practice a systematic logic of PCD”22. Some of these constraints can be summarized as follows: – The importance and leverage of Development Cooperation among public policies is very low in Portugal, and hence its limited capacity to influence change in other sectoral areas.

– Portuguese ODA is spread across a large number of public institutions and ministries. Although the MFA is responsible for coordination, most of the funds remain in the Ministry of Finance and several ministries regularly sign bilateral cooperation protocols with partner countries in their sectors, without a clear orientation or coordination capacity from the Portuguese Development Agency. This institutional dispersion of resources and actors makes coordination even more necessary to ensure greater effectiveness of Portuguese development cooperation.

– There is no unified budget for development cooperation. Portuguese national budget is organised according to a vertical (ministerial) rather than a horizontal rationale (objectives/programmes), which makes it almost impossible to have a cross-cutting development focus.

– There is a huge lack of information and poor communication between different actors involved in cooperation regarding development debates in general and PCD in particular23.

According to the OECD, Policy Coherence for Development requires: political commitment and policy statements that translate those commitments into action plans; mechanisms of political coordination to resolve conflicts or

In “ A Coerência de Políticas para o Desenvolvimento em Portugal”, Patrícia Magalhães Ferreira, Public Session “PCD in Portugal”, 19 January 2011, Assembleia da República, Lisboa [http://www.coerencia.pt/_files/CPDPatriciaMagalhaesFerreira.pdf]

22

23

Idem.

27

28

inconsistencies between policies and maximise synergies for development; and monitoring, reporting and analysis systems on the impact of donor policies24. Portugal is lagging behind particularly in the last two elements.

On the one hand, there is a need to strengthen institutional capacity and co-ordination mechanisms with a mandate, tools and authority to abide by the legal commitments towards PCD. Despite some inter-ministerial contacts and information exchange on specific issues (gender, security and fragile states, migration), there is not a whole-of-government approach or a systematic search for PCD. PCD deserves deeper attention and a growing awareness of national structures other than the development cooperation agency, in order to be effectively implemented.

On the other hand, the OECD also points out the lack of capacity or resources to ensure the systematic gathering of information and evidence about the impact of Portuguese sectoral policies in third countries, and the absence of a monitoring and analysis system on policy coherence. Additionally, the review suggests that Portugal should improve PCD analysis during the development of Indicative Cooperation Programmes (the main programming instrument of bilateral aid), and that ministries and embassies should work together, under the coordination of IPAD, in order to gather regular information about the impact of Portuguese policies and activities in partner countries. One of the concrete outputs foreseen in the Portuguese PCD Resolution that can increase monitoring and transparency, is the preparation of a biannual report on PCD, which can be an important tool for awareness raising of several stakeholders at internal level.

However, this has to be part of a broader commitment to PCD, which seems to be lacking in the new Government’s priorities. The unwillingness to involve a broader range of arguments in decision making, including in relation to reducing poverty, is currently linked not only to the lack of financial resources, but also to a qualitative “downgrade” of Portuguese Development Cooperation. The fusion of development cooperation and the promotion of Portuguese language in a new Institute (IPAD as now been merged with Camões Institute) or the increase in concessional loans and tied aid (linked to the promotion of Portuguese economic interests abroad) are some of the worrying signs. In the forthcoming years, it will certainly be a challenge for Portugal to ensure it continues to meet its international commitments and effectively applies what has internally approved at strategic and legislative level.

OCDE Development Assistance Committee, Peer Review 2010: Portugal, Main Findings and Recommendations [http://www.oecd.org/document/43/0,3746, en_2649_34603_46501931_1_1_1_1,00.html]

24

PCD in Portugal (2010) DAC Peer Review Key Findings:

Portugal has made a particular effort to improve the extent to which all its policies – whether domestic or international – are supportive of development objectives. Its existing inter-ministerial co-ordination mechanisms – notably the Committee for Inter-ministerial Co-operation (CIC) – have proven useful in helping ministries to work together on some key policy issues that affect partner countries’ development, particularly in the areas of migration and security. However, such an approach has not yet been used in a systematic way.

Portugal should apply the new law on PCD to address each of the three “building blocks” for PCD. This would put it ahead of many other donors in addressing this challenge.

Recommendations:

To build on its good progress in establishing a clear overall framework for its development co-operation, Portugal should: – Use the planned update of its Strategic Vision as an opportunity to: (i) set out how it will reduce the fragmentation of its programmes and make use of different aid modalities; (ii) plan how to improve mainstreaming of gender equality and environment; (iii) encourage engagement with and support from civil society and parliamentarians; (iv) reiterate that language instruction, when funded by ODA, should only be used to promote development.

– Revisit its approach to engaging the private sector in development.

– Develop a communications strategy which sets out how Portugal will pro-actively engage key target groups, demonstrate development results and build a wider base of public support for Portuguese development co-operation.

– Apply the new law on PCD, including by (i) strengthening the institutions or co-ordination mechanisms with a mandate, tools and authority to promote PCD; and (ii) establishing systems to monitor, analyse and report on the development impacts of Portugal’s policies on partner countries.

29

30

Photo: Neni Glock (Angola)

Starting PCD discussion in Estonia 31

Since 1998 Estonia has systematically engaged in development cooperation. The Principles of Estonian Development Cooperation, approved in 2003, do not mention coordination or coherence, but with the increase of Estonia’s ODA more attention will have to be paid to these issues, in order to increase effectiveness, positive impacts and sustainability of the development cooperation policy.

32

Since 1998, when development cooperation was first planned and initial projects were implemented, this sector has been an increasingly important foreign policy instrument for the Republic of Estonia25. Estonian objectives and priorities for development cooperation policy are outlined in the Principles of Estonian Development Cooperation, approved by the Parliament in January 200326. These principles do not refer to coordination or coherence as goals, but Estonian documents on this sector strongly support a holistic approach to global development, i.e. all policies potentially influencing developing countries should be considered together to ensure the strongest development impact. The document also mentions that “Estonia observes the UN Millennium Development Goals adopted in 2000 and the principles for humanitarian and development aid established by international organisations, primarily by the UN, the OECD and the EU”.

As stipulated by the Government of the Republic Act, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs co-ordinates Estonia’s development co-operation programmes; other governmental agencies implement specific projects in the scope of their competence. The Development Cooperation Commission - which assesses the projects based on Estonia’s principles of development cooperation, on the possible effects of the project on the development of the beneficiary country and on the cost of the project – includes representatives from several Ministries. However, it does not have PCD as an explicit part of its mandate. In addition, no mechanisms or instruments were yet defined to promote or monitor the implementation of the principles defined in 2003, including the above mentioned “holistic approach”.

Being a very recent donor and a new EU member, the adoption of the Strategy of Estonian Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Aid 2011-201527, in January 2010, was a major step at strategic and policy level.

The stated strategic objectives of Estonian development co-operation are (1) to contribute to reducing global poverty and human development in developing countries, (2) to support peace and stability, the granting of human rights, the development of democracy as well as the promoting of good governance practices in developing countries, (3) to promote economic development, including support for economic reform, integration into the global trade network and agriculture, fostering environmentally friendly and sustainable development and (4) to enhance development cooperation capacity of the Estonian public, private and third sectors, increasing the population’s awareness of development cooperation and introducing global education.

25

Estonia was first mentioned as a donor country in the OECD-DAC 1999 report.

26

Available at www.vm.ee/?q=en/node/8323

Strategy For Estonian Development Cooperation And Humanitarian Aid 2011–2015 www.vm.ee/sites/default/files/Arengukava2011-2015_ENG.pdf 27

To attain the goals defined in the Strategy, it is mentioned that Estonian development cooperation’s share in the foreign policy and its coherence with policies in other areas will be enhanced. The document refers mainly to multilateral action, including two measures: (i) active EU partnership and participation in EU’s decision-making and coordination mechanisms, contributing in the field of the coherence of policies and effectiveness of aid; and (ii) supporting the coherence between the EU policy areas by ensuring the coherence of Estonian positions in the shaping of other policy areas having an effect on development cooperation, such as the trade policy, security policy, etc. In this context, one important issues in the development cooperation agenda has been the link between trade and development and fair trade issues, debating how should the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and EU be approached in order to ensure coherence between trade policy and development cooperation.

One positive sign of the growing importance of coordination and coherence issues in Estonia development cooperation policy is the adhesion to the OECD’s declaration on Policy Coherence for Development, in June 200828.

Civil society organisations are also playing an important role in Estonian development cooperation, as active agents of development education and awareness raising at internal level. Being a very recent issue, most of the debates on PCD in the country have been stimulated by civil society, which is increasingly asking for more transparency, poverty focus and policy coherence in Estonian Development Cooperation’s policy. Some of the conclusions and recommendations discussed in these initiatives point out the need to find ways of curbing down the high amount of tied aid in Estonian development cooperation; the urgency of raising awareness among the public about the impact of poverty in the world; and also the need for an increased focus on policy coherence by defining better ways of monitoring sectoral policies and assessing the impacts of development cooperation.

28 Estonia became the OECD’s 34th member country on 9 December 2010; it was invited by OECD countries to open negotiations for membership in May 2007.

33

34 Photo: Neni Glock (Angola)

Conclusion Development policy alone doesn’t determine the outcome of our development efforts. Most developed countries, and EU Member States in particular, have recognised – most of them in recent years – that Policy Coherence for Development is a key driver for responding to global development challenges in a more effective and sustainable manner. However, there is no “one size fits all” recipe or standard model for promoting PCD at national level.

Among EU Member States, the progress has been mixed. In most countries, public policies on security and defence, trade, agriculture or environment are rarely approached through a poverty reduction or global development lens, particularly when there are conflicting interests between these policies or between national interests and those of developing countries. And when they are approached with a PCD perspective, it is usually on an issue-by-issue basis, or motivated by some specific event or political agenda. Even in countries that have a long and positive record on promoting PCD and that have tried to implement a whole-of-government approach to international development (such as Sweden or The Netherlands), more can be done to translate political commitment on PCD into practice.

In general, not enough weight is given to development perspectives within public policies, mainly because development is not at the top of the agenda for most governments, this being aggravated in times of internal financial and economic crisis. However, the growing impact of internal policies in external relations, the increasing non-ODA financial flows to developing countries, or budgetary constrains in Europe make coordination and coherence issues even more necessary in an uncertain context.

Enhancing PCD requires not only the adequate institutional framework, instruments and capacity, but also political commitment. In fact, if only one conclusion could be drawn from the different chapters in this publication, it would be that PCD is not a technical fix and that political will and leadership is its most important driver, without which any mechanisms will be rendered useless or ineffective. The incentives – or lack thereof – within governments to make this issue relevant in policy implementation are therefore key to this process.

In many EU countries, there is still a widespread lack of knowledge on this issue and on how to operationalise the PCD concept in concrete measures.

PCD is still very much locked in development circles, being promoted in the first instance by development ministers/secretaries of state and development agencies, leaving the most important stakeholders – the ones involved in sectoral policies that can have a significant development impact – out of these debates. In addition, there is also a lack of knowledge and awareness on the

35

benefits of coherence and the costs of incoherence and lack of evidence-based PCD assessments. These and other factors are key to deepening the coherence between government policy (defined in strategic documents and legislative initiatives) and practice.

Another important aspect highlighted in the chapters of this publication is the important role that civil society and parliaments can have on promoting PCD: firstly, by raising public awareness and therefore sustaining broader support to boost political action; secondly, by participating in monitoring, analysis and reporting, which is fundamental to identify incoherences and maximise synergies, so that policy learning is continuously improved.

Policy coherence requires special attention and active participation of all actors to ensure real results, including from the developing partner countries, whose role in these processes has been so far very limited. In fact, within the broader donor community, PCD is still in an early and experimental phase; it is therefore essential to develop coordinated actions to discuss the concept in international fora, mobilise a more broad-based political constituency at home, and include developing countries in this process.

36

For more information…

OECD Documents OECD Ministerial Declaration on Policy Coherence for Development 4 June 2008 - C/MIN(2008)2/FINAL Recommendation of the Council on Good Institutional Practices in Promoting Policy Coherence for Development 29 April 2010 - C(2010)41 Better Policies for Better Lives: Recommendations for Policy Coherence 2011, OECD Building Blocks for Policy Coherence for Development OECD, 2009

EU Documents EU 2011 Report on Policy Coherence for Development (see also the EU 2007 Report and the EU 2009 Report) Policy Coherence for Development Work Programme 2010-2013 Treaty of Lisbon (entered into force on 1 December 2009) The European Consensus on Development 20 December 2005 2009 EU Council conclusions on Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) 2974th External Relations Council meeting, Brussels, 17 November 2009 (see also the External Relations Council Conclusions on PCD adopted in 2007 and European Council Conclusions of June 2008) Policy Coherence for Development - Establishing the policy framework for a whole-of-the-Union approach.

Communication from The Commission to The European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee, and The Committee of the Regions, COM(2009) 458 final, Brussels, 15.9.2009A twelve-point EU action plan in support of the Millennium Development Goals Communication from The Commission to The European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee, and The Committee of the Regions, COM(2010)159 final, Brussels, 21.4.2010 An Assessment of the Balancing of EU Development Objectives with other Policies and Priorities Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union, European Parliament, March 2011 EU Policy Coherence for Development and the ‘Official Development Assistance plus’ concept European Parliament resolution of 18 May 2010 See also the related Report by Franziska Keller, EP Committee on Development

37

Member States Documents Portuguese legislation and reference documents A Strategic Vision for Portuguese Development Co-operation, Council of Ministers resolution 196/2005, December 2005 Policy Coherence for Development, Council of Ministers Resolution 82/2010, November 2010 (in Portuguese) National Strategy for Security and Development, Council of Ministers Resolution 73/2009, July 2009 (in Portuguese)

Netherlands legislation and reference documents A matter for everyone- investing in development in a changing world, October 2007 The development dimension of international public goods: a practical agenda, November 2011 Focus Letter, March 2011

Czech Republic legislation and reference documents Guidelines on Czech Development Cooperation, 2004 Statutes of the Council on Development Cooperation (Annex to Government Resolution No 1439/2007 of 19 December 2007, Article II, 1b) 38

Development Cooperation Strategy of the Czech Republic 2010-2017 International Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid Act, 2010

Estonia legislation and reference documents Strategy for Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid 2011-2015.

Basic legislative acts of Estonian development co-operation Principles of Estonian development co-operation, 2003

For further Analysis‌ Promoting Policy Coherence for Development. Exploring new opportunities for measurement Presentation, Niels Keijzer , PCD focal points meeting, OECD, 9 February 2012 Spotlight on EU Policy Coherence for Development: A Lisbon Treaty provision, A Human Rights obligation CONCORD, 2011 EU Policy Coherence for Development: from moving the goalposts to result-based management?

Niels Keijzer, ECDPM Discussion Paper 101, August 2010 Policy Coherence for Development: A Practical Guide Evert Vermeer Foundation, 2007 Evaluation Study on the EU Institutions & Member States’ Mechanisms for Promoting PCD ECDPM, Particip, ICEI, 2007 Policy coherence for development: The world beyond aid Frederik Haver Droeze, deputy director of the Coherence Unit of DGIS at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Netherlands Policy Coherence for Development in the EU Council: Strategies for the Way Forward.

CEPS Paperbacks, 12 July 2006

Webpages Policy Coherence for Development :: European Union European Parliament / Committees: Development:DEVE International Platform on Policy Coherence for Development, OECD Homepage on PCD, OECD African Union ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly Fair Politics: Make development work GLOPOLIS Coerencia.PT (Portuguese Website) People to People Estonia European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM) European NGO confederation for Relief and Development (CONCORD)

39

Development is a core shared responsibility‌ What will be our role?

European Comission

This publication is co-financed by the European Union. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Commission.

More information on www.fairpolitics.eu www.glopolis.org www.coerencia.pt www.ptpest.ee/enid51.html www.platongs.org.cv