1. Promoting Policy Coherence for Development Do institutional mechanisms matter? 11.11.11 workshop, Brussels, 26 April 2012 Niels Keijzer

2. EU largest economy, both largest provider and receiver of Foreign Direct Investment An ageing population, yet also a huge consuming power EU consumption of extractive resources is particularly dependent on imports: 83% of oil, 47% of natural gas, 59% of coal, 85% of iron ore and bauxite, 100% of some rare metals EU livestock requires 12 million hectares outside Europe for feed Two thirds of the fish that is consumed in Europe is imported from outside the EU. The EU is responsible for about 16% of the global environmental footprint The EU’s influence in the world Page 2

3. Working definition: Policy Coherence for Development seeks to represent the interests of developing countries in the process of reviewing existing and formulating new policies… …with the aim of improving the contribution of these policies to the achievement of international development objectives. Existing EU and international commitments do not put forward a concrete level of ambition or targets. Doing so is complex both politically and technically: Promoting Policy Coherence for Development Page 3

4. Page 4

5. 1.Broad political commitment to, and action on PCD, across countries and parties 2.Administrative and policy coordination mechanisms for screening relevant policy decisions, creating synergies and resolving incoherencies 3.Adequate systems for monitoring, analysis and reporting Council agreed in 2006 that the EC should monitor these ‘mechanisms’ Agreement on what is needed to promote PCD (OECD 2010) Page 5

6. Such mechanisms do not operate in a vacuum (ECDPM 2007) Page 6

7. Mechanisms correspond to different kinds of characteristics: 1.Level of formality – i.e. formal or informal. 2.Nature of competence – political or technical mandate. 3.Policy scope – specialist/confined or general. 4.Degree of specialisation – created to promote PCD or ‘upgraded’ existing mechanisms. Although new mechanisms have proven their worth (e.g. temporary unit NL ministry of foreign affairs), studies expected upgraded mechanisms to be best… They underline that PCD should be part of normal business Is it best to use ‘new’ or ‘second-hand’ mechanisms? Page 7

8. What should be expected? changed sector policies, improved reporting on PCD, increase d levels of awareness… ECDPM 2007: “In the absence of a clearly stated view of what type and level of impact is realistic to seek to achieve, (…) progress will continue to be hard to measure.” Misconceptions, e.g. if there is a unit of 3 persons responsible for PCD, the other 997 development officials can concentrate on ODA? In any case that may change in the post-MDG discussions and any financial targets after 2015 – as shown by the figures: So do such mechanisms help? Page 8

9. ODA caught up (adapted Brookings, OECD): Page 9

10. Since all countries are different – on what basis can they learn from their approaches to promoting PCD? Much can be achieved through mechanisms such as the EU policy process coordination process (Denmark, NL)…how to deal with capacity gaps and turnover among development officials? PCD is about improving ‘inter-sectoral’ thinking, yet parliamentary committees still function as ‘silo’s’…relevant experiences from other countries? How to make sure embassies and NGO field offices can systematically function as ‘antennae’ for monitoring effects of policies? Conclusions and suggestions for further discussion Page 10

11. Thank you Contact: Niels Keijzer - nk@ecdpm.org