Spotlight on Policy Coherence Report 2009 by
Concord
Coherence is about
ensuring that the external impacts of other EU policies do not undermine the
aims and objectives of EU development cooperation. Coherence is simply common
sense. There is no point in the EU’s pursuing policies that have a particular
goal if it also pursues policies which contradict that goal. Improved
coherence is also very important for ensuring the effective use of Community
resources and good governance, as well as for the credibility of the EU in
general.
The principle of coherence is supported by successive treaties of the European
Union as well as by the European Consensus on Development. Development
cooperation alone cannot meet the needs of developing countries. In
recognition of this, in 2005, the EU identified Policy Coherence for
Development (PCD) as a key concept in achieving poverty eradication and
advancing the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
However, the EU is not under any obligation to prevent its policies from
having a negative impact on the South. In practice it is still possible for it
to make a political decision to go ahead with a policy despite its potentially
negative, indirect and unintended impact on developing countries. So, even
though there is increasing awareness (sometimes, full knowledge) of indirect
consequences, there is still no obligation to intervene ahead of
decision-making and anticipate, research and prevent incoherence.
In addition, there is still no robust legal mechanism that would ensure that
the EU is held to account regarding the commitments it has made to policy
coherence. Nor is there any complaints procedure open to governments, civil
society organisations and local communities that are affected by EU or
member-state policies and which would trigger a revision of harmful policy
provisions and lead to remedies for their negative effects on poor people in
developing countries.
The gap between intentions and reality
Since the introduction of PCD as a key concept in 2005, both the EC and EU
member states have made important commitments to improving the coherence of
national and EU policies. However, despite the increasing awareness of the
potentially harmful external impact of European policies on people in
developing countries, all too often those policies are inconsistent with the
EU’s broader and longer-term economic, social and political interests in the
world.
Doing no harm at home might be in conflict with development prospects abroad.
Doing some good at home will not be enough to prevent the – perhaps unintended
– counterproductive effects of domestic policies on development efforts in
developing countries.
The EU export subsidies for beef, pork and dairy products in the 1990s and in
2009 are a case in point. With its right hand the EU supported livestock
holders and breeders in the Sahel, while with its left hand it was undermining
their position by supporting European farmers and creating unfair competition.
Recently, the EU has adopted policies such as the trade strategy, entitled
“Global Europe, Competing in the World”,i which does not even mention the
needs of developing countries or their right to their own development. New
initiatives, such as the introduction of the Blue Card, risk increasing the
brain drain of highly skilled workers from developing countries, while
permissive corporate accounting regulations facilitate tax evasion from
developing countries. These are examples of short-sighted EU policies that are
having a damaging impact on development policies and projects on the ground.
Why is it that, despite increased awareness of the importance of policy
coherence for development – and the resulting commitments, political
statements, mechanisms and checks – EU policies continue to undermine the
economic, social and human development of developing countries? Perhaps the
answer lies in the fact that when the EU and member states have addressed
policy coherence for development, they have confined it to the narrow,
abstract reality of European policy-making. The irony here is that,
originally, European integration was based on the primary importance of
ensuring economic and social coherence and prosperity across its own
continent.
There are many reasons for the lack of progress on policy coherence on the
ground. In the first place, development objectives have been subordinated to
other, competing, political interests. Both national and EU administrations
struggle with the PCD Policy Framework, and they have not yet agreed on robust
accountability mechanisms on PCD. This report looks at the very different
experiences within member states faced with the challenge of implementing PCD.
Secondly, the wrong priorities are set. European interests clearly prevail
over developing countries’ needs and the development objectives of the EU.
Thirdly, the EU approach to the concept and implementation of PCD has been
purely two-pronged or unilateral. Efforts to improve PCD have been made by
looking at development policy objectives in one single policy area at a time.
The inter-linkages between development and trade policies, for instance, have
been treated in isolation from the inter-linkages between development and
migration. In reality the different policy areas are intricately linked, and
the real picture is
infinitely more complex. Yet at the same time, inter-linkages are often quite
obvious, like the interconnected impacts of climate change and migration
phenomena and health policies, for instance.
Overview
These reasons, among others, have led to a situation where the wellintentioned
PCD work and progress made by the EU since 2005 is built on an incomplete
premise. The actual reality in developing countries, not European policies or
interests, should be the basis for assessing whether the EU’s policies are
coherent with its development commitments. Europe, as “Global Europe”, should
live up to its responsibility in the world by applying its founding principle
of solidarity, together with social and economic cohesion in its policies,
beyond its own borders, thereby promoting a fair sharing of benefits and
burdens in order to achieve sustainable development both at home and abroad.
A new approach to policy coherence for development
Full coherence will never be achieved. Trade-offs between conflicting
objectives is inevitable and some degree of inconsistency is unavoidable. In
real life, compromises have to be made on a caseby-case basis. Nevertheless,
more transparency and accountability are needed. One of the problems is that
no clear benchmarks have been established against which to assess whether,
when there is a conflict of interests, another priority (economic or
political) should
override development considerations. Without defining indicators for assessing
development impact, it will be difficult to demonstrate the anti-developmental
aspects of a particular policy. And if the “hierarchy of values’’ is not
clearly spelled out, EU economic interests are bound to win.
Sustainable development and the fulfilment of human rights are important
objectives of EU development cooperation. As such, these principles should be
the basis for any other EU policy affecting development countries. Sustainable
development cannot be achieved if the rights of a significant part of the
global population to social and human development are being denied. The EU has
a global responsibility to all the citizens of the world not to undermine, but
to
honour their right to development. This report proposes introducing the
interests and rights of the people in developing countries as the basis for a
new approach to PCD.
Spotlight on the EU policies most crucial to development:
Nearly all policy areas have an external impact, and all of those that do are
closely and densely interlinked. This report focuses on five policy areas that
are currently critical. Taking into consideration the global and EU agendas in
2008-2009, in the conjunction of crises that are affecting people across the
world, this report focuses on the inter-linkages between EU policies in the
fields of climate change, trade, agriculture, migration and finance.
One example is climate change. It is well known that in different regions and
countries climate change is causing degradation of land, scarcity of water and
other resources, a rise in sea level and an increase in natural disasters. And
the phenomenon is accelerating.
When faced with dwindling food security and worsening health, population
groups have no choice but to move to a safer place, and internal displacements
are already occurring in countries affected by desertification, for example.
In the near future the migration patterns of people within a region and across
continents are likely to change owing to climate vulnerability, with
environmentally-induced migration increasing dramatically. Yet, the current
conditions for legal entry into the EU may remain as restrictive as they are
now, and climate-induced migrants might not receive protection under
international law as they fit into no existing categories.
Considering the consequences of climate change for land and water resources,
EU support to agriculture and rural development as part of its development
cooperation has to take into account the changes in rainfall distribution and
soil productivity and the implications of this for food security.
EU trade objectives focused on securing access to raw materials and
agricultural commodities, as enshrined in the “Global Europe, Competing in the
World” strategy, do not take into account the development objectives of many
developing countries in terms of their own food production needs as they
confront climate risks. In fact, the increased demand for manufactured inputs
for EU industry means extracting scarce natural resources and energy from
developing countries in order to maintain Europe’s own economic
competitiveness, energy security and consumption patterns. The
EU’s export-driven growth and production model leads to nonequitable and
environmental, social and economic unsustainability which threatens to destroy
our ecosystems. Until now, the EU policies in agriculture, trade and climate
change have proven to be untenable and not conducive to the sustainability
shift necessary in the 21st century.
The EU’s response to the economic and financial meltdown shows that the crisis
has not been regarded as a chance to promote a more green and ethical recovery
and make far-reaching changes in its modes of consumption, production and
energy. The fact that climate change is barely mentioned in the May 2009
Council conclusions on helping developing countries to cope with the
[financial] crisisii raises many questions about how seriously the EU is
taking the issue of climate change and development. The absence of a single
reference to the necessity to support low-carbon technology and investment is
a telling example. Indeed, the potential for economic recovery based on
investment in a clean-energy economy – by using stimulus policies for
advancing technology programmes that both reduce emissions and foster energy
efficiency and the sustainable management of natural resources – is
dramatically missing. Nor do the Conclusions acknowledge the negative impact
of other EU policies that are detrimental to development, such as those which
facilitate capital flight and unfair tax practices in developing countries.
O v e r v i e w Forward and recommendations
Policy Coherence for Development is an important tool that, if implemented
effectively, could have a markedly beneficial impact on sustainable
development, respect for human rights and poverty reduction. Here we identify
some of the changes needed in order to improve the coherence between EU
policies.
• PCD should entail the active coordination and moulding of policymaking
processes with the aim of identifying and prioritising synergies between EU
policies that are likely to have a positive impact on sustainable development
and human rights.
• Pro-poor and sustainable development policies should prevail over
short-term, narrow or elite European interests; they should be the basis for
EU policy. Policy-making processes should be transparent and accountable. A
policy-making process that is more participatory from the early stages onwards
could prevent decision-making at the highest EU level – the Commission, the
Council, and the European Parliament – from being held hostage to vested
interests, while policy outcomes would depend less on fickle, volatile
political will and interests.
• In order to achieve policy coherence in line with the rights of people
living in developing countries, broad-based consultations and democratic
debates should be an integral part of policymaking processes.
• PCD need to include binding commitments on anticipation and the
ramifications of any lack of coherence that may occur. A complaints mechanism
should be introduced in order to improve accountability and coherence.
• PCD should become more evidence-based and should include independent ex-ante
and ex-post research on the impact of EU policy on poverty reduction in
developing countries. Sustainability impact assessments should be conducted by
independent bodies from the EU and from the country or region concerned.
They should be fully transparent and should include the views of different
groups affected and their representative bodies.
• Major challenges to PCD are the multiple linkages between different policy
areas, which should be made explicit in order to give a better understanding
of the complexities of policy solutions.
• New working tools should be developed and a budget allocated for their
implementation. These tools could include benchmarks for assessing whether
another priority is overriding a development objective, a screening exercise
following the experience of the establishment of the IPCC, new guidelines for
conducting a sustainability impact assessment that not only takes into account
the impact of the proposed policy initiative, but also shows the
inter-linkages with other thematic policy areas.
