Addressing the hunger-poverty nexus: what policy coherence means for the 2030 Agenda James Mackie, ECDPM UN HLPF 2017 – Side Event: Finland, Netherlands, Switzerland, ECDPM & CFS New York, 12 July 2017

1. Addressing the hunger-poverty nexus:
what policy coherence means for the 2030 Agenda
James Mackie
UN HLPF 2017 – Side Event: Finland, Netherlands, Switzerland, ECDPM & CFS
New York, 12 July 2017

2. Outline
1. Objectives of research*
2. Approaches to integrated policy making
3. PCSD can learn from these different approaches
4. Lessons from PCD experience
5. Recommendations
*ECDPM, Discussion Paper 210, Policy coherence & the 2030 Agenda,
March 2017, www.ecdpm.org/dp210

3. Challenge of the 2030 Agenda
• Concept of Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development (PCSD)
• Key element of the SDG framework (SDG 17:14)
Past experience of integrated policy making
• European history of promoting Policy Coherence
• Focus has been on Policy Coherence for Development (PCD)
• Thematic approach has been most productive
Two questions
• How does PCSD differ from PCD?
• Can we build on past experience for working with PCSD?
1. Objectives of research

4. 2. Approaches to integrated policy making
Identified 4 different approaches
1. PCD tradition: Policy coherence for development
• Other policies should not undermine core policy / Unidirectional
2. Issue-based mainstreaming
• Integrate specific concern in core policy / Unidirectional
3. Multi-sector approaches: Nexus approach – SDGs similar
• Address concerns of several sectors simultaneously / Multi-
directional
4. Whole-of-government: collective cabinet responsibility
• Unified strategy to which all ministers adhere / Multi-directional

5. 3. PCSD promoters can learn from all these
Some examples
• Coherence promotion
• PCD ‘champions’ or ‘policy entrepreneurs’ has worked well
• Focus on a limited number of issues – Nexus + PCD
• Implementing authority
• All 4 approaches: need for clear authority at right level:
• To give leadership, and sense of direction
• To encourage synergies and adjudicate on trade-offs
• Knowledge and information
• Various tools useful: impact assessments, peer reviews,
PCD Reports, dialogues with different actors and
independent scrutiny

6. 4. Lessons from PCD experience
• Policy coherence is highly political
• It takes time and commitment
PCD System – tools to make it happen
• Multi-stakeholder process to build commitment
• Declaration of intent – policy statement to focus effort
• Internal government systems to promote work across
silos and encourage dialogue
• Policy ‘champion’ or focal point to push concerns
• Knowledge inputs: data, impact analysis, studies
• Transparency and Accountability: regular reports, M&E
• Debate: parliaments, stakeholders, CSOs

7. 5. Recommendations
• PCSD does not replace PCD, but rather needs to build on it
• PCSD: seek to combine policy coherence for different goals –
needs multiple sector champions
• Make PCSD your own – political commitment is vital, look at
political economy for different actors and incentives
• Build a PCSD System with interdependent parts
• Framework – legal/policy statements, clear locus of authority
• Mechanisms – consultation systems, group of champions,
• Knowledge systems – data, analysis, monitoring
• Accountability – peer review, reporting, independent scrutiny
• Communicate on added value of PCSD – concept needs support

8. Thank you!
jm@ecdpm.org
www.ecdpm.org
Paper: www.ecdpm.org/dp210
European Centre for Development Policy Management