Memorandum submitted by Mr Robert Picciotto,
Director of the Global Policy Project
POLICY COHERENCE FOR DEVELOPMENT
The meaning of coherence
Coherence connotes logic, consistency and reliability.
The concept combines diversity and synergy. It has a precise meaning
in physics and philosophy. Not so in economics. In government,
policy coherence is the alignment of policy objectives with instruments
and resources to achieve a clear set of goals. More prosaically
it has to do with putting one's house in order.
Policy coherence for development (PCD) aims
at achieving positive changes in the conditions that poor countries
face in the world. It is a worthy ideal but one should not be
naive and ignore the political constraints decision makers face
in a pluralistic society. Alan Winters has observed that the "here"
in policy coherence is hard to find because, in a democracy, policies
must satisfy competing interests and multiple constituencies.
Within a national jurisdiction, policy coherence
has two dimensions. First, individual policies must be internally
consistent (tying bilateral aid illustrates an internally incoherent
policy of this type: it raises the cost of goods and services
provided to poor countries by 15-30%). Second, all relevant policies
(eg trade, agriculture, finance, FDI, environment, migration,
etc) must "cohere". This calls for a "whole of
government" approach in policy formulation.
When it comes to PCD two additional and far
more demanding sets of challenges must be faced. First, all major
OECD countries should pull in the same direction whether in security
or economic matters. Second, the policies of the poor countries
themselves must be aligned with the objectives that the development
assistance community has endorsed. In particular, aid provided
to a country that has no commitment to poverty reduction is likely
to be wasted.
This means that four types of coherence must
be achieved together (internal, whole of government, OECD-wide
and north-south) to achieve PCD. This is extraordinarily demanding.
Indeed, it is foolhardy and, given limited administrative resources,
wasteful to aim at perfect coherence for development. Here as
elsewhere, priorities must be set.
Coherence and politics
OECD's definition of PCD has relatively modest
aims: "PCD means working to ensure that the objectives and
results of a government's development policies are not undermined
by other policies of that same government which impact on developing
countries, and that these other policies support development objectives
where feasible."
Thus, doing no harm and seeking synergies through
informed and transparent decision-making is what PCD requires.
In working towards PCD, legitimate differences must be respected.
Some of the most intractable policy coherence issues arise from
conflicts among principles and the necessity of trading one off
against the other. The balancing of such principles in concrete
situations is what politicians are paid to do.
So, PCD is about politics but it is about principled
politics in a world in which other people's problems are increasingly
our own. All politics used to be local. They are now "glocal":
it is getting harder and harder to disentangle the local from
the global. PCD makes political choices more explicit and ensures
that policy options that are both in the national interest as
well as supportive of global development are selected while decisions
that hurt the poor of the world and only benefit the rich in rich
countries are set aside.
To be sure even if the majority benefits from
a reform some poor people in rich countries may be negatively
affected by policy reforms but if the overall benefits to society
are positive (as in trade reform) remedial and compensatory measures
should be designed to ensure that the policies selected are politically
feasible and sustainable.
Rich countries have long preached to poor countries
that they should make hard choices and adjust their policies to
achieve poverty reduction. It is simply a case of practicing what
one preaches but it is also a case of being realistic and looking
for Pareto optimum solutions where no one gets hurt and the poorest
and most neglected benefit to make the world a better and safer
place.
Rationale of policy coherence for development
PCD is important for the security and the prosperity
of OECD countries as well as for altruistic reasons. First regarding
security, horizontal inequalities, social fragmentation, corruption
and criminality make up the combustible combination of factors
that leads to violent unrest and the spread of terrorism. The
number of failed and failing states is large which means a proliferation
of platforms for international crime, terrorism and a breeding
ground for infectious diseases and other "problems without
passports".[4]
Economic growth in OECD countries is increasingly
dependent on growth in poor countries that account for a third
of export sales and half of oil supplies. The underlying factors
are of a long-term nature. At the turn of the century, the world
population was 6.2 billion. By mid-century, it will approach 9
billion. Virtually all of the growth will be in developing countries
where the population will rise from 5.1 billion to 7.7 billion.
Ethical considerations are also at stake. Since the end of the
cold war, the gap in per capita annual income between rich
and poor countries has grown from about $17,000 to $24,000.[5]
This is not what globalization with a human face was expected
to deliver.
PCD is not only an academic concept. It is a
legal obligation. It is embedded in the Maastricht treaty. In
the 1990s the EU decreed (#176 of the ECT) that it "shall
take account of the objectives of its development policy in the
policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing
countries". The Cotonou agreement (Article #12) states that
the Commission must inform ACP countries in good time about regulatory
proposals that may affect their interests. If the Commission rejects
ACP proposals it must provide a justification.
Finally, PCD has become an operational priority
for the EU. Together with coordination and complementarity it
makes up the trilogy of "the triple C" currently being
evaluated under a European collaborative evaluation initiative.
The importance of systematic consultations with developing countries
was reaffirmed in the 2002 Action Plan of the Commission about
the Regulatory Environment. The draft constitution for Europe
has a clear reference to compliance with the MDGs and the pursuit
of good global governance.
Role of OECD
The OECD PCD agenda seeks to encourage its members
to present to its politicians the development consequences of
their decisions in the hope that they will think twice before
adopting policies that may have deleterious impacts on poverty
reduction.[6]
Thus, the framers of the PCD horizontal initiative
expect that concrete evidence and compelling analyses will help
promote win-win outcomes, avoid flagrant policy contradictions,
minimize the probability of negative impacts on development and
amplify the voice of the global poor in the corridors of power,
especially when new policy initiatives are debated, designed and
approved.
The objective is to ensure that each OECD country
pursues policies that support or at least do not undermine the
development process in poor countries. Building political support
for PCD among stakeholders so that OECD countries actually initiate
adjustment of a wide range of policies that affect developing
countries would help accelerate progress towards the MDGs. For
the OECD Secretariat, this will entail delivery of analytical
underpinnings for informed policy-making, providing a platform
for policy dialogue and monitoring of PCD performance.
In particular, as proposed by the DAC Chair,[7]
beyond the traditional focus on making development assistance
more effectivetype (i) coherencethe OECD should
be encouraged to (i) tool up to promote the creation of analytical
capacity on coherence issues, (ii) support research on the impact
of rich countries' policies on poor countries, (iii) commission
"just in time" coherence analyses, conduct political
economy assessments geared to strengthening public support for
increased aid and other development friendly policy reforms and
(iv) strengthen PCD monitoring and independent evaluation.
Globalization and PCD
Policy coherence for development has emerged
as an important issue of international relations because of the
increased interconnectedness of national economies and societies.
On a per capita basis, exports from developing countries
generate over 30 times as much revenue as aid12 times in
the case of the least developed countries. Remittances from migrants
are at least twice as large as aid flows. FDI inflows to developing
countries stood at $156 billion in 2002 ($172 million in 2003)
compared to aid flows of about $58 billion. The World Bank estimates
that the TRIPS agreement will raise the current licence payments
that poor countries pay to rich countries from $15 billion to
about $60 billion, thus wiping out all aid contributions.
Thus, given globalization, non-aid policies
now matter more (given their relative weight) than aid policies.
Bangladesh illustrates the need to shift towards a development
cooperation paradigm that goes beyond aid. Ten years ago Bangladesh
earned $1.6 billion from foreign aid, $2 billion from exports
and $0.8 billion from remittances. By 2001, aid had shrunk to
$1.4 billion; exports had gone up by more than six times (to $6.5
billion) and this despite eroding terms of trade (10% over the
past two decades). Furthermore, remittances have gone up by more
than twice to $1.9 billion and foreign direct investment ($222
million) is seven times the level of 10 years before.
Examples of policy coherence
The policy conditions of accession to the EU
constitute a good example of macro policy coherence for development.
This model of engagement has proved successful in achieving economic
development in the poorest members of the Union. This demonstrates
that shared objectives, distinct accountabilities and reciprocal
obligations are critical ingredients of policy coherence. Policy
coherence is achieved more easily in relatively small and homogeneous
groups that are better able to overcome dilemmas of collective
action (free riding etc).
A recent example of PCD in action is the way
the EU recently dealt with the dossier of non-tariff measures
in international trade. This is notable because DG Trade, DG Dev
and DG Agriculture tend to operate as silos. In this case, it
proved possible to arrange for (i) systematic inter-service consultations
within the Commission, followed by external consultations, explanatory
memoranda and a careful review of the special and differential
treatment provisions prescribed by the WTO for developing countries;
complemented by (ii) provision of capacity building support to
developing countries through a trade-related technical assistance
program; and (iii) a systematic evaluation of these programs.
Examples of incoherence
Fishing subsidies by OECD countries absorb $15-20
billion a year, benefit large companies more than poor fishing
communities and deplete fish populations on which poor countries'
coastal fisheries depend and aid projects often focus on. The
agricultural trade policies of rich countries that use $1 billion
a day provide many other examples. Agricultural subsidies in OECD
countries are equivalent to the entire gross domestic product
of sub-Saharan Africa and they benefit the few at the expense
of the many not only in the developing world but also in the OECD
countries themselves.
Consider aid for agriculture projects in Africa.
They have succeeded in producing very high yields in the irrigated
areas of West Africa. But the subsidies paid to grain farmers
in OECD countries (combined with the availability of cheap grain
imports procured through food aid) have depressed domestic prices
and constrained domestic production. This is a case where aid
policy and trade policy do not add up.
Cotton provides another spectacular example:
the US spends $11 million a day on cotton subsidies compared to
$3 million a day on all aid to SSA. Neither are dairy development
projects in poor countries in a position to succeed given the
competition with EU exports that are sold at half their production
costs.
The best can be the enemy of the good. Civil
society activists have been pressing the World Bank to stop funding
energy projects in developing countries except for renewables.
The paradox is that OECD countries (home to 15% of the world's
population) account for 63% of carbon dioxide that has accumulated
in the atmosphere since 1900.
Climate change threatens the most severe and
widespread impacts on developing countries. A doubling of CO2
emissions is likely to cause economic losses of 1.6-2.7% of GDP
for developing countries. Small island economies are especially
vulnerable. Africa's food security is likely to be set back. Severe
flooding threatens many parts of the world, especially Asia.
Research and evaluation
A vast policy research and evaluation industry
has grown within the development business. It is mostly centered
in the north with most of its intellectual guns pointed south.
Millions of pages are churned out to tell developing countries
what they should do to improve their lot. By contrast, the attention
paid to PCD in the north has been modest and the resources allocated
to building research capacity in poor countries have been negligible.
A start towards a systematic assessment of development
impact assessments for rich countries has been made. Following
workshops I organized in Cairo and Paris in 2003, Japan has launched
a program of PCD research focused on East Asian countries in collaboration
with the OECD Development Center.
In addition, the Global Development Network
(an organization dedicated to building up policy research capacity
in developing countries) has launched a fund-raising effort to
promote impact assessments of development policy incoherence.
A specific program involving developing countries' researchers
will be presented to donors at the GDN annual conference in Dakar
next January. I hope that the UK will provide leadership to get
it funded in full. It is a very worthwhile program.
On the evaluation front, massive resources have
been mobilized to track the progress of developing countries towards
the millennium development goals and to evaluate developing country
policies and programs. Almost three fourths of the MDG performance
indicators point south. In all low-income countries, country based
poverty reduction strategy papers are mandated to guide the allocation
of aid resources. These strategies are subject to public disclosure
and to systematic review by the World Bank and the IMF.
No similarly integrated effort is underway to
evaluate the development effectiveness of rich countries' policies.
They have escaped systematic scrutiny even though they determine
the amount and quality of aid, debt reduction, foreign investment,
trade, migration, access to intellectual property and global environmental
trends on which sustainable development depends.
More and better aid
Aid alone will not tackle global poverty. The
baseline for all the MDGs is 1990. Most MDGs have been set for
2015. Halfway to the deadline, we know that progress is too slow
to achieve most of the goals.[8]
Only a third of developing countries are on track. Regional differences
are striking. The zones most in need of development (most of Africa
and large parts of South Asia) are lagging if not regressing.
At current growth rates, East Asia alone is likely to achieve
the agreed income and poverty reduction objectives.
Aid flows now account for only about 0.90% of
the national income of developing countries and 0.23% of the national
income of developed countries. This is well below the ratio of
0.33% consistently achieved until 1992. It is about half the level
achieved in 1967 (0.65%). 70% of all aid is bilateral aid. Of
this, only 30% is available for expenditures geared to development
projects and programs. The rest goes for technical assistance,
debt relief, emergency and disaster relief, food aid and aid administration.
Only five out of 21 OECD countries currently
meet the United Nations target of 0.7%. Another three have given
a firm date by which they will reach the target. This will not
be sufficient to achieve the MDGs. Conservative World Bank estimates
suggest that even if improved policies have been adopted by developing
countries and growth is accelerated, a doubling of current aid
levels will be needed.[9]
Debt relief remains a priority. It helps a great
deal: the 27 HIPCs that have reached the decision point have seen
their debt service/export ratio fall from 17% in 1998 to 9% in
2004 and their poverty reduction expenditures jump from $6 billion
to $11 billion. But other poor countries are in dire straits.
As a share of GDP, external debt still stands at 56% in East Africa;
70% in West Africa and 31% in Southern Africa. The high dependence
of Africa's trade on primary commodities means that the pressure
to export to meet debt service obligations depresses world market
prices for Africa's exports, a vicious circle that is extraordinarily
hard to break. Equally, curbing imports hinders development and
poverty reduction. Thus, debt sustainability measured in terms
of a debt to export level has unintended consequences
Halving global poverty by 2015 or even later
will require more than simply increasing the volume and effectiveness
of aid. Even if aid goes up to $76 billion by 2006 as projected
by DAC it will not do the trick. The rules of the game of the
global economy will have to be adjusted. This would be in the
interest of rich and poor countries alike.
Beyond aid
The most serious constraint to global poverty
reduction is the protectionism that characterizes the dealings
of rich countries vis a" vis poor countries. The poorest
countries have seen their share in world trade cut in half over
the past two decades. This is not surprising: tariffs on agricultural
products from developing countries average 14% and tariffs on
labor intensive products from developing countries are 8%. This
compares to average tariffs of 3% on manufactured products from
developed countries. Bangladesh paid import duties of $331 million
to the US in 2001an average of 14%. France paid about the
same amount in import duties with exports 13 times as large.
Liberalized trade in services and ultimately
less restrictive migration policies are vitally important to developing
countries. Given that goods, capital and ideas have become more
mobile and that rich countries face an unprecedented demographic
transition, migration makes eminent economic sense. Remittances
are five times the amounts of aid to Latin America and the Caribbean.
They account for a fifth of Jordan's national income. They are
the largest foreign exchange earner of El Salvador, Honduras and
the Dominican Republic.
Between one-quarter and one-third of migration
flows move through illegal channels. Tacit tolerance of illegal
migration is widespread, as it fills genuine labor needs in destination
countries. However, it induces petty corruption, opens up profitable
smuggling opportunities for criminal networks, perpetuates unfair
treatment of migrants and discourages their integration into the
fabric of the host country.
Neither the United States nor Europe can be
considered "full". There are more deaths than births
in 43% of the 211 regions that make up the European Union. Even
if immigration is taken into account, one out of four regions
in Europe is facing population declines. Many towns and villages
in eastern Germany, the south-west of France, Italy and Spain
are shrinking or even disappearing altogether.
Current immigration policies obstruct the entry
of asylum seekers; interdict entry by unskilled migrants and ration
immigration deliberately towards well-trained professionals and
skilled workers in high demand. Such discriminatory immigration
policies are cumbersome to implement and they induce a "brain
drain" and a "skill drain" from poor to rich countries.
Thirty per cent of Mexico's PhDs and three quarters of Jamaicans
with higher education live in the United States. Albania has lost
a third of its qualified people.
Security and PCD
OECD should be considering a broadening of its
PCD agenda to cover security issues. The end of the cold war brought
some proxy wars to an end but new wars started and the carnage
continued. Since the end of the cold war, the world has seen 58
armed conflicts in 46 locations, most of them in developing countries.
Conflicts have lengthened and spread as local warlords loot natural
resources, secure external financial support from like-minded
groups and access the booming illegal weapons trade. Insecurity
is widespread.
Compared to a total United Nations budget of
about $10 billion, global military expenditures amounted to $956
billion in 2003. Further increases are likely. A large share of
current expenditures is directed to cold war threats that are
no longer present while resources needed for new security challenges
including conflict prevention and engagement with fragile states
are severely under-funded. Thus, global military expenditures
are at least 16 times larger than aid expenditures. The UK spends
seven times more on the military than on aid ($527 per person
for the military compared to $75 dollars for aid). The US spends
40 times more.
Given that most of the new wars are fed by resource
scarcity and the war on terrorism is a long twilight struggle
for hearts and minds, a dollar invested in aid may be a better
investment in security than a dollar invested in defense. Over
a billion people and a third of the absolute poor live in conflict
affected and conflict prone countries where governance is weak,
poverty is rampant and economies are depressed. Among the 70 plus
low-income nations that qualify for IDA credits at least 25 are
affected by conflict. Poor countries that are conflict affected
or conflict prone pose security risks as well as critical development
challenges.
Current aid allocation processes do not take
account of the enormous benefits of conflict prevention. Based
on six case studies, Bradford University has estimated that the
cost benefit ratio of investment in conflict prevention is over
3:1 for the international community and 10:1 for the world as
a whole. These investments are high risk (only 58% of them are
successful) but the ratios are excellent because estimated conflict
prevention costs average about $23 billion while a major conflict
costs much more to the country concerned (average: $188 billion);
to its neighbors (average: $57 billion) and the international
community (average: $122 billion) for a total cost of $367 billion.
There is also a humanitarian dimension. A century
ago, most conflicts were between states and 90% of casualties
were soldiers. Today most wars take place within states and 90%
of the victims are civilians. The incidence of local wars trebled
in the second half of the century. Women and children are especially
victimized. Over the past decade 10-15% of countries have been
involved in civil wars. About 35 million people have been driven
from their homes by conflict and repression. About 300 million
small arms are in private hands (more than half the world total
of 550 million). Some 300,000 children have been compelled to
bear arms and fight in 36 countries. Land mines perpetuate the
violence of past conflicts causing 15,000-20,000 victims a year.
Measuring PCD
As currently framed and resourced, the OECD
peer group review system does not deliver rigorous assessment
of PCD performance at the country level since it does not respond
to uniform standards and remains heavily dependent on the degree
to which individual OECD governments willingly contribute information
and analyses on PCD issues.
So we need a more rigorous and independent evaluation
system and also better statistics. Reliable data are lacking (eg
on migration) and we still lack a sound research base that would
allow systematic comparisons between the relative development
impact of policy measures and how to trade off one against the
other.
Still a lot can be done with existing knowledge
as demonstrated by the Center for Global Development in Washington
in its "ranking the rich" project. The CGD "commitment
to development" index rates the development friendliness
of each of the following OECD countries' policies: aid, trade,
investment, migration, environment, security and technology. While
the exercise is very worthwhile, I have two reservations about
it.
First, the commitment to development index (CDI)
uses rich countries' contributions to United Nations peacekeeping
operations as a proxy for the quality of security policies pursued
by rich countries. This is misleading considering the massive
arms trade flows originating in the same countries.[10]
The proliferation of such arms greatly contributes to the deadly
impact and the ferocity of civil wars in developing countries.
Second, the technology index includes the contribution
of rich countries to research and development on the grounds that
they are public goods that benefit poor countries as well as rich
countries but it fails to assess the negative impact on poor countries
of the rigorous application of patent protection under the TRIPS
agreement of the WTO that rich countries have imposed on poor
countries.
UK's Performance
Last year's CDI ranked the UK in the middle
of the league tables11th out of 21. This year, largely
as a result of methodological adjustments, it is in fourth place.
In parallel the US jumped from next to last to seventh place.
These latest adjustment in rankings are not easy to defend and
have been greeted with scepticism. They have also induced unwarranted
complacency on both sides of the Atlantic.
My overall assessment is that the UK has done
relatively well in PCD and that its performance is improving.
It has provided strong intellectual leadership at the cutting
edge of the development debate, especially in the area of debt
relief. But it can still do better. Both in 2003 and in 2004 the
Netherlands was the leader of the OECD pack. There is no reason
why the UK should not aim to replace the Netherlands at the top
of the PCD list.
Out of 21 countries, the UK ranks ninth in the
aid league table. In 2002, UK aid was 0.31% of its GNI compared
to EU average of 0.35% and Denmark's 0.96%, Sweden's 0.83%, Netherlands'
0.81% and France's 0.38%. To be sure, UK plans substantial increases
in aid commitments. By 2006 it will have reached 0.4% of GNIbut
this will still be below the EU average of 0.42%.
The UK ranks fifth in trade (as do some other
members of the EU); fourth in investment; fifth on the environment
and 12th in migration. UK's rating on trade is better than average
because its measured protection is less than 10% compared to an
average of 12% and its revealed openness is 10% compared to an
average of 12%. The investment rating is good because the UK has
been a leader in promoting policies that support healthy investment
in developing countries.
On the environment, the UK ranks well largely
because of its high gasoline taxes, low fishing subsidies and
better than average emissions of greenhouse gases. The UK rating
on migration is weaker largely because its net migrant rate per
1,000 population is about eight compared to 26 for Australia,
24 for Canada and Ireland, 13 for Denmark, 11 for Germany and
New Zealand.
As in the UK, the Dutch aid minister has Cabinet
status but in addition, the Netherlands has already delivered
an annual report on its contribution to MDG8. It has set up a
coherence unit in the foreign ministry to track the policy formation
process across the entire government and it has provided strong
leadership to the informal network of coherence contact points
across the EU. In terms of laying strong legislative foundations
for PCD, Sweden stands out. Its development legislation makes
clear that global development is the responsibility of all government
ministries and agenciesnot just the ministry for foreign
affairs where the aid function is lodged.
PCD Reporting
Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands have produced
reports on their contribution to MDG8, which captures the obligations
of rich countries. The UK Government is committed to producing
one this year. How might such a report help the UK Government
to move towards greater policy coherence for development? It depends
how well it is done and what use is made of it. If it is conceived
as a public relations exercise it will add little value. If it
is an independent evaluation that is embedded in policy making
and constitutes an important element of the accountability framework
it will be highly useful. Specifically, it would make sense for
the civil society and academia to play an explicit role in ensuring
that the annual assessment is done objectively.
Furthermore, the National Audit Office and other
independent evaluation bodies should be encouraged to strengthen
their oversight of the UK's contribution to MDG8. For example,
an independent review of the PCD content of PSA targets would
be highly valuable. The scorecard approach should be supplemented
by policy evaluations that benchmark UK performance against the
performance of other developed countries.
Finally, as the UK gets ready to assume the
leadership of the G8 and the EU, it should gear itself to play
a leadership role in inducing international organizations (the
OECD, the EU, the WB etc) to come up with more rigorous and independent
reports on PCD and to involve developing countries and the civil
society in the process.
The preparations for the 2005 MDG stock taking
exercise by the United Nations, the EU and other partners provides
a unique opportunity to raise the political profile of PCD especially
with respect to Africa. 2005 is also the year when the EU proposes
to review its Policy on Trade and Development and to issue a Development
Policy Declaration. PCD could be the centrepiece for both exercises.
Upgrading PCD Processes
There is no doubt that the UK has made major
global contributions to PCD through its advocacy of debt reduction
and trade liberalization and the intellectual leadership of DFID
in policy work and international forums.
The upgrading of DFID's Secretary of State position
to Cabinet status has been very helpful to the cause of coherence
given the Inter-departmental Working Group on Development chaired
by DFID, the involvement of DFID in the Ministerial Committee
on FA and Defense and its participation in subcommittees dealing
with trade and defense, and other more informal methods.
But to keep up the momentum, even more solid
foundations need to be laid. First, the UK Government may wish
to strengthen the legal foundations of PCD and consider emulating
the Swedish model of a global development bill. Second, the executive
branch should be encouraged to construct a comprehensive policy
framework that addresses all the major transmission belts of globalization.
Some of the pillars of this architecture already exist, notably
on trade and development. Security and development is another
area where the UK is ahead of the game (especially given that
it has set up multi-departmental conflict prevention funds and
is now apparently setting up an integrated post conflict reconstruction
unit). Of course, a White Paper on globalization was produced
a few years ago.
But the policy framework needs updating to take
account of the emerging security challenges that are casting a
cloud over the entire development enterprise. Valuable work is
underway on security and development in the PM's office and DFID.
The Commission for Africa is also probing the interface between
security and development. Coherence would be facilitated if a
White Paper combining these different perspectives and integrating
security and development concerns could be prepared.
Third, a multi-year policy strategy plan should
be formulated. It might cover sequentially and on a rolling basis
aid, migration, foreign investment, intellectual property and
the environment. It should involve all relevant branches of government
and buttressed by a research program. Your own work program (backed
up by an independent evaluation capacity) might then be connected
to this calendar of work thus giving it additional leverage.
Fourth, the country assistance strategy papers
produced by DFID should systematically go beyond aid to incorporate
all policy instruments at the command of the UK Government. Inclusion
of PCD aspects in the PRS process should also be encouraged and
the CSPs of the World Bank should become better connected to its
global monitoring report. Finally, the UK Government should push
for PRSPs that include material about all relevant donor countries'
policies not just aid and debt reduction programs.
Fifth, it would make sense to further strengthen
analytical capacities and processes devoted to PCD in order to
screen all policy decisions that may have an impact on global
development, participate actively in interdepartmental consultations
and further strengthening the UK's role in international standard
setting and multilateral policy with respect to aid, trade, migration,
intellectual property, foreign investment, security and the environment.
Sixth and finally, the UK should increase its
contribution to raising awareness and build research and advocacy
capacity within developing countries about PCD issues.
Role of Parliament
Parliamentary scrutiny is central to PCD. First,
Parliament might request that all legislative proposals of the
executive branch address PCD issues explicitly in explanatory
memoranda. Second, Parliament might require impact assessments
where likely effects on developing countries are major along the
lines of the two-step approach (preliminary and detailed where
warranted) as proposed by the European Commission in its 2002
Action Plan.
Third, Parliament might emulate the two-track
approach of the EU by requiring future aid programs to make explicit
provision for technical support and capacity building needs in
developing countries that are particularly affected by defective
global policies. Fourth, you should encourage the other committees
of Parliament to incorporate PCD in their deliberations as appropriate.
Fifth and finally, the UK Parliament might encourage existing
international parliamentary networks to include PCD in their work
programs.
October 2004
4 Annan, K A (2002), Problems Without Passports,
Foreign Policy, September-October 2002, Washington DC. Back
5
World Development Indicators Data Base, 2002. Back
6
An example of inadequate PCD is the announcement of EU Ministers
on 22 March 2004, that they would cut off aid to countries not
cooperating in the fight against terrorism (International Herald
Tribune, 23 March 2004). This laid bare the potential contradiction
between aid focused on global poverty reduction and aid driven
by geopolitical considerations. Back
7
Development Assistance Committee, 2003 Development Co-operation
Report: Chapter 1: Overview by the DAC Chair, Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development. 23 October 2003. (DAC/2003/24).
Paris. Back
8
The development record is not all bleak. Average life expectancy
has increased by 20 years in the last 40 years. Illiteracy has
been halved in the last 30 years. During the 1990s the share of
people living on less than $1 a day has been reduced from 29%
to 23%. This means that 125 million fewer people are living in
abject poverty. Almost 80 countries have created the capacity
to educate all their primary school age population. Seventy-two
countries (with 58% of the world's population) are on track to
eliminate gender disparities in schooling. There has been progress
in reducing maternal deaths in all regions except sub-Saharan
Africa. Eighteen developing countries have halved the proportion
of people without access to safe water and another 32 are on track
to meet the target. Back
9
According to Nicholas Stern, "the cost of achieving the
goals is likely to run to at least an additional $50 billion from
rich countries" (Development Committee Spring Meeting Press
Conference, 14 April 2003). Back
10
According to the US Congressional Research Service, Conventional
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1994-2001, the value of
official arms transfer agreements to developing countries amounted
to $16 billion in 2001. The United States accounts to over 40%
of these agreements; Russia and France rank next with 23% and
7% of the agreements respectively. Conventional arms used in local
conflicts contribute to about 300,000 deaths annually in developing
countries. Back
|