1. Key dilemmas for advancing PCD Dr. Paul Engel, Director, ECDPM 13 th June 2013 Insights from developments in national PCD systems

2. Three operational ‘building blocks’: 1.Policy statements of intent for promoting and implementing PCD; it’s political. Key components of PCD in action ECDPMPage 2 Setting and prioritising objectives Coordinating policy and its implementation Monitoring, analysis and reporting 2.Institutional and administrative mechanisms supporting policy coordination to realise PCD; it’s systemic. 3.Knowledge-inputs and assessment capacity; it’s knowledge intensive.

3. PCD at the national level ECDPMPage 3 Source: Concord Denmark, 2012 I. Policy statements and commitments III. Knowledge inputs & assessment II. Institutional and administrative mechanisms to: II. Institutional and administrative mechanisms to: Strengthen coherence Address incoherencies Political context Pressures from non-state actors Knowledge communities Approach to governance

4. Study commissioned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. Concentrate on six countries: Belgium, Finland, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden. Scope: Update of 2007 ECDPM, ICEI & PARTICIP GmbH work on EU institutions & member states’ mechanisms for PCD. The report is not an an evaluation of best practices. Limited in terms of scope, resources and time. Confirms the main findings: No ideal one-size-fits-all approach; Systems are rarely static: PCD outcomes part of a continuously changing and dynamic political and policy debate. Approach and methodology ECDPMPage 4

5. Widespread confusion remains between PCD and ‘policy coherence’: o Coherence or coordination? o Coherence within MFA ≠ PCD Policy coherence is not necessarily positive for development, and several ministries strive for ‘their' coherence. Communicating PCD: ‘fair politics’? 1. Communicating the concept of PCD ECDPMPage 5

6. Ensure a common understanding ECDPMPage 6 Agree on Policy Coherence for what; which development objectives need to be served? Value of whole-of-government statement. Set the standards and indicators to measure progress and make an implementation plan. Seek out high-level political sponsorship on specific thematic issues to create momentum for PCD. Clarify at which level PCD is being promoted.

7. Mandate of PCD mechanisms is primarily to raise awareness of PCD issues and exchange information – PCD mechanisms are not ‘binding’. Importance of Cabinet level: most relevant decisions and trade-offs are not taken in PCD mechanisms. Effectiveness depends on the degree to which PCD is a shared responsibility (Netherlands). ECDPMPage 7 2. Integrating the development perspective in the decision-making

8. Integrate PCD checks into the inter-ministerial policy consultation process. Develop a ‘PCD reflex’ – ex-ante impact assessments to inform PCD checks (Netherlands, maybe Belgium). Promote inter-departmental dialogue through a network of PCD focal points. Incorporate PCD in the training of public officials and promote staff exchanges between government departments/ministries. An inter-departmental ‘advance calendar’ of PCD issues (annual or 6 months period). Ensuring PCD is a shared responsibility ECDPMPage 8

9. Policy-makers interested in promoting PCD should consider ways in which to: 1.Ensure ‘PCD checks’: i.e. PCD impact is systematically assessed throughout policy and institutional coordination processes and results and decisions are documented (rather than treated on an ad-hoc or case-by-case basis); 1.Promote research on impact (or lack of it) of national and international policies on development objectives and developing countries and feed it back to the policy- and decision-making. 3. Building an evidence base ECDPMPage 9

10. Few instances of impact assessment currently in place (Netherlands, perhaps Belgium); Little knowledge and practice on assessing the impact of national and international policies on developing countries (Ireland, Netherlands, Finland); Limited role of Parliament in evidence-based PCD scrutiny but important for achieving political momentum; Civil society contributing to filling some knowledge gaps and raising awareness. Despite interest knowledge currently the ‘weakest link’ in national PCD systems. State of the art with regard to knowledge-inputs ECDPMPage 10

11. Shared understanding of the objectives pursued by PCD remains as essential as sustained political support for the concept; Invest in (and contribute to international initiatives) to assess the effects of (inter) national policies on developing countries and progress towards PCD; Without investment in research-based evidence, and policy processes properly informed by such evidence, the PCD cycle cannot be kick-started nor can it be effective. Concluding Remarks: Basic ingredients ECDPMPage 11

12. ECDPM & OECD (Upcoming 2013). Methodology for Country-level Impact Assessments of PCD on Food Security. Galeazzi, G., Knoll, A., Krätke, F., Lein, B. Rosengren, A., Sherriff, A. (ECDPM 2013). Insights from development in national policy coherence for development systems: Key cross cutting issues and dilemmas. (ECDPM Discussion Paper 144). Keijzer, N., and J. Oppewal (ECDPM 2012). Learn to walk before you run? A review of methodological approaches for evaluating coherence in the field of international cooperation (ECDPM Discussion Paper 132). King, M., N. Keijzer, E. Spierings and A. Matthews (ECDPM & IIIS 2012). Measuring Policy Coherence for Development, Final Report. ECDPM & IIIS (Trinity College Dublin). Keijzer, N. (ECDPM 2010). EU Policy Coherence for Development: from moving the goalposts to result-based management? (ECDPM Discussion Paper 101). Engel, P et al. (ECDPM 2009). External Evaluation of the Policy Coherence Unit of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (ECDPM Discussion Paper 91). ECDPM, ICEI and PARTICIP GmbH (2007). Evaluation of the EU Institutions & Member States’ Mechanisms for Promoting Policy Coherence for Development. ECDPM & ICEI (2005). Scoping Study on EU mechanisms to promote PCD. ECDPM’s works on PCD ECDPMPage 12

13. Thank you! www.ecdpm.org Page 13