Select Committee on International Development Minutes of Evidence


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 effective—type (i) coherence—the 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 aid—12 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 2001—an 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 tables—11th 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 GNI—but 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 agencies—not 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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 16 December 2004