1. Meeting of National Focal Points for PCD 9 February 2012 Karen Jorgensen Institutional mechanisms for PCD Lessons from DAC Peer Reviews

2. 1 - Background What do peer reviews do? a specific chapter on « development beyond aid » how do institutional mechanisms for PCD work and produce results? 3 building blocks political commitment co-ordination mechanisms monitoring, analysis and reporting contribute to the monitoring of the 2010 OECD «Recommendation of the Council on good institutional practices in promoting PCD » 2

3. 2 - Background What do peer reviews NOT do? thorough thematic analysis by area (trade, climate change, etc.) impact assessment 3 building blocks give a good framework for analysis, but do not allow to see what is fed into the mechanisms and how they have produced results. 3

4. 3 – The policy coherence cycle (3 building blocks) 4

5. 4 – General trends / Building block 1 Growing political support to and awareness of PCD most DAC members have made a political or legal commitment to PCD administrations are mostly aware of the issue However: need for a clear strategic framework and action plan with priorities and goals the concept of PCD is not yet fully understood and owned by all PCD needs to encompass ALL policies in government in a broad approach Political commitment, backed by clear objectives and an action plan, is the starting point for any serious PCD action and results. Raising awareness with all development actors is crucial. 5

6. 5 – General trends / Building block 2 Increasing number of institutional mechanisms in place Most countries have (created) cross-government, inter-ministerial committees However: no explicit mandate or cross-government plan for PCD often about co-ordination, not explicitly about PCD mechanisms are not always operational, and we do not know whether they effectively lead to policy coherence for development An adequate institutional setup is necessary, but not sufficient to ensure PCD. So far, very difficult to assess impact and results of two first building blocks. Even with political committment and co-ordination mechanisms in place, does that mean policies are more coherent? 6

7. 6 – General trends / Building block 3 Insufficient capacity for monitoring, analysis and reporting Identified as a weak point in most peer reviews: Need for clear processes and mechanisms for monitoring and analysis Administrations not drawing sufficiently on external analysis (universities, think tanks, CSOs) PCD needs to be monitored and analysed throughout the whole administration (not only in development agencies) No clear feedback loop from Embassies and partner countries Not clear how available analysis translates into policy-making Good analysis, producing evidence of impact of incoherent policies, is needed to create the magic missing ingredient: political will 7

8. 7 – Conclusions Are the three building blocks on institutional mechanisms helping to achieve results? The three bulding blocks seem to be necessary but not sufficient prerequisites. Political commitment is not yet fully translated in operational plans and mechanisms, that would in turn translate into PCD-friendly policy- making Difficult to gather evidence; no clear results visible yet. PCD has a donor focus: on the coherence between aid and non-aid policies. 8

9. 8 - The way forward #What the DAC peer reviews can do; what else is needed? #12 lessons on PCD #After Busan #New development strategy 9

10. Thank you www.oecd.org/dac/peerreviews