Policy Coherence for Development and the EU: A feasible model for development?  Challenges faced by European Member States Dr. Damien Helly, Deputy Head of Programme EU External Action Camões, Lisbon Thursday, 18 June 2015

1. Dr. Damien Helly, Deputy Head of Programme EU
External Action
Camões, Lisbon
Thursday, 18 June 2015
Policy Coherence for
Development and the
EU: A feasible model for
development?
Challenges faced by European
Member States

2. I. Rationale for PCD
II. Prevalent definitions of PCD
III.Progress and Challenges thus far…
IV.Case Study: “Use of PCD Indicators by a
Selection of EU Member States”
V. Conclusion: What is necessary going
forward?
CONTENTS
Page 2ECDPM

3. I. Rationale for PCD
II. Prevalent definitions of PCD
III.Progress and Challenges thus far…
IV.Case Study: “Use of PCD Indicators by a
Selection of EU Member States”
V. Conclusion: What is necessary going
forward?
CONTENTS
Page 3ECDPM

4. Why do we need to promote and ensure PCD? The rationale
is provided by:
• Globalisation and liberalisation: the end of domestic
policies and the need to achieve poverty eradication
and sustainable development;
• Economic costs of incoherent policies;
• A means to enhance development effectiveness;
• A policy tool advocated by both EU Member States
and the OECD to facilitate progress towards shared
goals
I. The rationale for PCD
ECDPM Page 4

5. I. Rationale for PCD
II. Prevalent definitions of PCD
III.Progress and Challenges thus far…
IV.Case Study: “Use of PCD Indicators by a
Selection of EU Member States”
V. Conclusion: What is necessary going
forward?
CONTENTS
Page 5ECDPM

6. ECDPM Page 6
II . Prevalent definitions: PCD
= …
EU
“The EU seeks to minimise contradictions
and to build synergies between policies
other than development cooperation that
have an impact on developing countries,
for the benefit of overseas development”
OECD
“The pursuit of development
objectives through the systematic
promotion of mutually reinforcing
policy actions on the part of both
OECD and development countries”.
Two-fold implication: seek horizontal and vertical policy
synergies between development cooperation and other policies
to in order to address existing incoherencies
1. Originates from a north-south paradigm with responsibilities
for better PCD placed on developed countries for the benefit
of developing countries
2. Make sure all policies are development-friendly
3. Ensure the proactive promotion of development objectives in
other policies: exploit synergies > win-win

7. ECDPM Page 7
PCD is thus described as a process of integrating multiple
development aspects at all stages of policy-making
with various objectives
OECD, 2014
• Addressing the negative spillovers of domestic policies on long-term
development processes.
Reminder: at EU level, 5 policy areas for PCD promotion are emphasised:
1) Trade and finance
2) Climate change
3) Food security
4) Migration
5) security
• Increasing governments’ capacities to identify trade-offs and reconcile
domestic policy objectives with internationally agreed-upon objectives
• Foster synergies across economic, social and environmental policy areas to
support sustainable development

8. I. Rationale for PCD
II. Prevalent definitions of PCD
III.Progress and Challenges thus far…
IV.Case Study: “Use of PCD Indicators by a
Selection of EU Member States”
V. Conclusion: What is necessary going
forward?
CONTENTS
Page 8ECDPM

9. ECDPM Page 9
Progress includes:
1. Awareness raising on the importance of PCD:
“development friendliness” of non-development policies =
more impact on development (including making developing
countries responsible for contributing towards poverty
reduction) than (declining) aid (Busan)
2. Increased peer pressure (OECD, EU, NGOs, policy
research institutes,..) has moved up PCD on development
agenda: exchange of experiences, best practices,
institutional arrangements etc
3. Reaching out beyond the (converted) development
community: Agriculture, Trade, Economic Affairs,
Migration, etc.
4. More sophisticated measuring of PCD (“evidence”): case
studies, commitment to development index…
III. Progress and Challenges

10. General challenges include…monitoring
Conceptual challenge: difficult to grasp…
Some think it is better not speak of PCD but rather of
“synergies for development”, etc.
Political and practical challenges in PCD monitoring:
• how to connect PCD approaches to post-2015 debates in
the UN about SDGs?
• the specific PCD concept is not well known / endorsed
outside niche of development actors and EU/OECD actors
active in post-2015 discussions
• there are disagreements within governments on what
‘coherent policies’ entail
• PCD priorities vary from one country to another
ECDPM Page 10

11. I. Rationale for PCD
II. Prevalent definitions of PCD
III.Progress and Challenges thus far…
IV.Case Study: “Use of PCD Indicators by a
Selection of EU Member States”
V. Conclusion: What is necessary going
forward?
CONTENTS
Page 11ECDPM

12. IV. CASE STUDY
“Use of PCD indicators
by a Selection of EU
Member States”
Discussion Paper 171,
January 2015
ECDPM Page 12

13. 1. Background
2. Methodology and limitations
3. Who monitors: monitoring mechanisms
4. What is monitored: PCD priority policy
areas
5. Comparing Member States PCD indicators
6. Examples of indicators and chains of
causality
Case study: contents
Page 13ECDPM

14. 1. Background
• Aim: to inform endeavours by governments seeking to
develop indicators to guide PCD efforts
• Selection of 8 EU MS; Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Finland,
Luxembourg, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, to offer
a variety of PCD experiences
• Decided early on it makes little sense to look at indicators
in isolation
• Examination of explicit PCD monitoring mechanisms
including indicators and related targets and objectives
adopted by governments
ECDPM Page 14ECDPM case study, January 2015

15. 2. Methodology and Limitations
• The research was undertaken and mostly completed in
October 2014 – synthesis more recent.
• Based on earlier studies of ECDPM, additional desk-work and a
small number of interviews.
• Focus on monitoring-mechanisms and indicators measuring
PCD progress in general adopted (or commissioned) by
governments – not in relation to specific partner countries.
• If you have any additions, updates or clarifications we are
most interested in hearing them… continual work in progress…
ECDPM Page 15ECDPM case study, January 2015

16. ECDPM Page 16ECDPM case study, January 2015
3. Who monitors:
Monitoring Mechanisms (MMs) (1)
Examples of recent efforts made to strengthen PCD monitoring:
• Luxembourg = under discussions to create PCD MM in the Inter-
ministerial Committee on Development Cooperation
• Belgium = new political agreement on an institutional mechanism,
whereby an inter-departmental PCD commission at federal level will
decide on the focus areas for Belgian PCD action
• Luxembourg= NGOs collaborate with government in monitoring PCD
Ireland= engaging with academics on PCD monitoring activities
• Germany= identified specific sectors for PCD targets (BMZ
sustainable agriculture strategy)
• Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden = officially defined a whole-of-
government PCD monitoring framework with indicators (June 2014)

17. ECDPM Page 17ECDPM case study, January 2015
3. Who monitors:
Monitoring Mechanisms (MMs) (2)
Danish PCD Action Plan was published in June 2014:
• inter-ministerial Special Committee on Development Policy
Issues led the formulation of the plan
• contributions made by Danish civil society, Parliament, the
council for Development Policy and research institutions
• Action Plan is a rolling document to be reviewed annually
Thus….Clearly ‘national preferences’, ‘consensus around key PCD
‘themes / policy areas’ and ‘EU direction’ all provide influence

18. ECDPM Page 18
PCD Mechanism “Official” cross-
government PCD
indicators
1. Belgium Yes Not yet
2. Denmark Yes Yes
3. Finland Yes Not yet
4. Germany Yes Not yet
5. Ireland Yes Not yet
6. Luxembourg Yes Not yet
7. Netherlands Yes Yes
8. Sweden Yes Yes
3. Who monitors:
Monitoring Mechanisms (MMs) (3)
Information correct as of October 2014 – any updates welcome if there have been further developments

19. The five EU PCD priority areas (trade and finance, climate
change, food security, migration and security) have informed
national PCD agendas.
• NL areas identical to EU
• DK covers all but migration
• FIN overlaps except climate change
• SWE leaves out food security but adds ‘oppression’
• GER - BMZ reports focus on all but trade and finance and
adds biodiversity
 Clearly ‘national preferences’, ‘consensus around key PCD
themes’ and ‘EU direction’ all provide influence
 Incorporating EU PCD priority areas = allows MS to use EU
system as a catalyst tool to achieve progress
ECDPM Page 19
4. EU & national PCD priority policy areas

20. ECDPM Page 20
5. Comparing Member States PCD indicators (1):
the example of climate change
Denmark
• An ambitious EU
position for COP21
that sets higher
thresholds in the
international
negotiations for a
binding protocol
• Language on
SE4ALL and energy
reflected in relevant
EU documents as
part of post-
2015/SDG process.
EU delegations
further engaged in
promoting SE4ALL
goals
Ireland (from study)
• ODA spent on
environmental
protection
• Average annual
growth rate of GHG
emissions/PPP GDP
• Performance in
meeting Kyoto
Protocol targets
• ODA expenditure on
climate change, as a
% of 2008 GDP
• ODA expenditure on
desertification in %
of 2008 GDP
The Netherlands
• In all partner
countries climate
and environment
aspects are part of
the MASPs
• CDKN will be
advising 60
developing countries
in the coming period,
with support from
the Netherlands and
the UK
• REDD initiatives are
aligned to the EU
FLEGT initiative
• Developing
countries have
specific emission
targets
Sweden
• Work to establish an
ambitious and
effective
international climate
regime after 2012
• Continue to press for
an ambitious climate
policy in the EU and
seek to ensure that
the EU lives up to its
current commitment
on emission
reductions and
climate change
adaptation
Quick observations: DK focuses on EU-level, Ireland (from study)
focuses on inputs, Sweden’s are not very specific specific.

21. ECDPM Page 21
Difference between: Mix
and match approach
• Outcome Indicators
• Policy Outputs
• Policy Inputs
• Policy Stance Indicators
See page 8 for definition
5. Comparing Member States PCD indicators (2)

22. • Outcome indicators: focus on outcomes defined as socio-economic variables
– measure real trends that may be only partly influenced by policy
instruments
• Policy outputs: capture concrete changes in efforts designed to make policy
more ‘development friendly’ - are directly under influence of policymakers.
• Policy inputs: useful when hard to quantify or summarise the output of a
policy in a single indicator – usually monitor donor expenditure on a
particular policy area
• Policy stance indicators: arise because of the nature of decision making in
multilateral agencies – require that publication of pre-negotiation positions
to capture country positions rather than agreed outcome
Source: King, M. and Matthews, A. (2012) Policy coherence for development: Indicators for Irelands.
Dublin: Institute for International Integration Studies, Trinity College.
https://www.tcd.ie/iiis/assets/doc/IIIS%20PCD%20Indicator%20Report%202012.pdf
Defining PCD indicators
Page 22

23. Member States’ PCD agendas address different concerns…
• Still context and country specific
• Driven by national goals and specific concerns of individual
foreign policies
• Developed in different administrative and political environments
• Used different methodologies
• Member States developed their own explicit chains of
causality to underpin indicators
 Individual indicators = linked to a chain of desired
development outcomes/actions and policy reforms.
ECDPM Page 23ECDPM case study, January 2015
5. Comparing Member States PCD indicators (3):
why are they different?

24. *Chains of causality have been developed by the authors based on official
documents but have not been officially endorsed
– See also page 15 of Discussion Paper
ECDPM Page 24
5.Examples of chains of causality (1) in the area of
trade and finance in Sweden *

25. Denmark
ECDPM Page 25
See also page 14 of Discussion Paper
5.Examples of chains of causality (2) in the area of
trade and finance in Denmark*

26. ECDPM Page 26
5.Examples of chains of causality (3) in the area of
trade and finance in the Netherlands*

27. • PCD monitoring remains a challenge, and the adoption and use
of PCD indicators is still in its infancy
• Significant amount of methodological confusion around
PCD monitoring – especially when it comes to indicators:
- some are too general to provide meaningful guidance
-most monitoring frameworks lack clarifications on roles and
responsibilities of the different actors involved, to deliver on the PCD
ambitions defined
• There is a need to develop explicit chains of causality to
underpin indicators, containing a mix of information on policy
outcome, output and input.
• The monitoring framework can cover national, EU and
international policy initiatives
ECDPM Page 27ECDPM case study, January 2015
6. Take away points from our study (1)

28. • Strategically defining a small number of thematic focus areas
is important to guide PCD efforts and ensure accountability
including in PCD indicators (perhaps less is more?)
• Some of this confusion/lack of specificity = bi-products of the
fact that:
- it is still an emerging policy area due to practical reasons
- policy-makers do not want to bind themselves to
frameworks/indicators that they think will be difficult to
deliver upon and to display progress on
- monitoring frameworks are often the result of
cumbersome but important inter-departmental drafting
and consultation processes
ECDPM Page 28ECDPM case study, January 2015
6. Take away points from our study (2)

29. I. Rationale for PCD
II. Prevalent definitions of PCD
III.Progress and Challenges thus far…
IV.Case Study: “Use of PCD Indicators by a
Selection of EU Member States”
V. Conclusion: What is necessary going
forward?
CONTENTS
Page 29ECDPM

30. • More research on PCD monitoring is essential- looking into causal
chains, country-specific indicators and the like
• Developing indicators = a political process to be informed by expert,
independent analysis and methodological rigor
• Identify political momentum on the basis of solid political economy
analysis in limited number of areas where concrete progress is
feasible based (taxation, illicit capital flows, global common
challenges = food security, natural resource management…)
• Continued ownership and sufficient capacity to assess progress
against a rolling PCD monitoring framework is required going forward
• Ultimately, development of PCD indicators and monitoring
systems = determined by governance structures and
priorities of individual countries as guided by their multilateral
commitments
V. Conclusion: So, what is necessary
going forward?
ECDPM Page 30

31. Designing an overall approach?
1. Responding to political momentum – how to ensure an adaptable
framework? Is it possible to have generic enough frameworks/indicators?
2. How to link the new post-2015 SDG framework with PCD monitoring?
3. How far is PCD seen as compatible with South-South cooperation and
national policymaking systems?
4. Pros and cons of a whole-of-government involvement vs. a ‘development
compliance unit’?
5. How to build capacities to follow through on PCD approaches?
Defining indicators?
1. How do we develop best practices/standards for what is defined as an
indicator?
2. Roles and responsibilities of actors involved – who owns the indicators?
3. Do we need integrate indicators at different levels? National vs. partner
country level?ECDPM Page 31
V. Conclusion: Some questions to
think about…in Lisbon

32. Thank you
Questions and comments
welcome!
Damien Helly– dhe@ecdpm.org
www.ecdpm.org
www.slideshare.net/ecdpm
Page 32