Principle of Policy Coherence for Development (PCD)

The principle of Policy Coherence for Development (“PCD”) requires public authorities to con-sider the effects their “non-development” initiatives could have on international development policies.⁵⁸² As development policies of industrialized countries are by definition outward-oriented and concern interests of people living in developing countries, the PCD principle also reflects a principle of affectedness. It is now largely uncontested that non-development policies of richer states in areas such as trade or project finance can have both negative and positive im-pacts on poorer countries and the development objective of poverty reduction. The concept of PCD emerged in the international discourse in the early 1990s, when it became clear that, among the already well-known obstacles, different aspects of globalization – from trade and finance via migration to climate change – can also hamper the effectiveness of development aid.⁵⁸³ As early as 1994, the OECD required, in its Procedural Guidelines on Trade and Environment that “gov-ernments should examine or review trade and environmental policies and agreements with po-tentially significant effects on the other policy area and identify alternative policy options for addressing concerns”.⁵⁸⁴ Impact Assessments can provide a mechanism to implement and pur-sue the PCD.⁵⁸⁵

Even though there is not yet a single, specific definition of what exactly the PCD means, it is widely agreed that states (or international organizations) should, in pursuing their domestic and international policy objectives, at a minimum avoid negative impacts on the prospects of devel-oping countries (“do no harm”) or, in positive terms, also look for ways to exploit the potential benefits between different policies on developmental goals⁵⁸⁶ (“do-good”). The Sustainable De-velopment Goals now call to “promote a universal, rules-based, open, non- discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system under the WTO” (SDG 17.10), and, more generally,

581 Dann, The Law of Development Cooperation (above, n. 4), p. 237, arguing that this is the consequence of a structural principle of development and poverty reduction.

582 On Impact Assessment and International Development: Camilla Adelle, ‘International Development’, in:

Claire A. Dunlop and Claudio M. Radaelli (eds.), Handbook of Regulatory Impact Assessment, pp. 257–267.

583 European Commission, ‘Commission Staff Working Document: EU 2013 Report on Policy Coherence for Development’, SWD(2013) 456 final, 31 October 2013, p. 16.

584 Quoted from (and critically discussed by): Markus W. Gehring, ‘Tools for More Sustainable Trade Trea-ties with Developing Countries’ (above, n. 62), p. 73.

585 Adelle, ‘International Development’ (above, n. 582), p. 257.

586 European Commission, ‘Commission Staff Working Document: EU 2013 Report on Policy Coherence for Development’ (above, n. 583), p. 16.

hance policy coherence for sustainable development” (SDG 17.14).⁵⁸⁷ The importance of PCD has been affirmed by the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation in 2011⁵⁸⁸ and also been promoted by the OECD, e.g. by providing guidelines and methodologies on how to bet-ter implement PCD into the policy-process and by making PCD part of the DAC Peer Review.

The OECD, but also scholars and NGOs, emphasize three elements as particularly important for effective implementation: political commitment, adequate institutional structures to enhance policy coherence, and coordination mechanisms.⁵⁸⁹ Critics argue that, even though the im-portance of PCD is largely unquestioned, political leadership and political focus on PCD-commitments has waned over the last years.⁵⁹⁰ Like in so many other policy areas, political commitment is indeed important, but hard to enforce, even where legal obligations exist.⁵⁹¹ The other elements, however, are also legally relevant. The institutional approach focuses on how different institutions, ministries and departments are involved in the preparation of new poli-cies. To what extent is, for example, the Commission’s DG “Development and Cooperation” in-volved in the legislative drafting process where different policy sectors are concerned? Are they able to comment, at an early stage, on potential effects a draft trade or financial regulation might have on small-scale farming in Sub-Saharan Africa? Instrumental approaches focus rather on the administrative instruments available to implement the PCD principle, and impact assessments, both ex-ante and ex-post in conjunction with respective monitoring and reporting mechanisms, can enhance PCD.

It is important to point out a major difference with the principle of coherence and efficiency, as identified in the law of development cooperation in relation to aid transfer.⁵⁹² This principle requires the alignment with recipients and the coordination among donors for the allocation and use of ODA.⁵⁹³ It is consequently a principle that guides and structures development policies in the narrow sense. The principle of Policy Coherence for Development, on the other hand, has a much broader scope: it does not aim at the coordination among donors, but at the coordination of aid and non-aid policies and the harmonization between non-aid policies and development objectives.⁵⁹⁴ This implies that states should assess the potential impacts their policies in areas such as trade and finance or migration might have on developing countries and people living therein.

587 Before the SDGs were adopted, MDG 8 reflected a similar commitment, which explicitly called upon states to “develop further an open, rule-based, predictable, non-discriminating trading and financial sys-tem” in order to reduce poverty.

588 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-Operation (2011) margin no. 9: “In this process, it is essential to examine the interdependence and coherence of all public policies – not just development policies – to enable countries to make full use of the opportunities pre-sented by international investment and trade, and to expand their domestic capital markets.”

589 Galeazzi, Greta, et.al., ‘Insights from Developments in National Policy Coherence for Development Sys-tems: Key Cross Cutting Issues and Dilemmas’, European Centre for Development Policy Management, in:

Discussion Paper, No. 144, April 2013, 6 ff. with a slightly different terminology: Policy commitments, Institutional mechanisms, and Knowledge input and assessment mechanisms.

590 Ibid.

591 It would be interesting to observe whether the new Belgian law that obliges Belgian policy makers to consider developmental impact of domestic policies has a measurable impact on the political decision-making process.

592 Dann, The Law of Development Cooperation (above, n. 4), 284 ff.

593 Ibid., p. 291.

594 European Commission, ‘Commission Staff Working Document: EU 2013 Report on Policy Coherence for Development’ (above, n. 583), p. 16; Adelle, ‘International Development’ (above, n. 582), p. 257.

The legal character of the principle depends on the legal sources upon which it is constituted. On the international scale, binding legal commitments are rare. However, PCD is now part of EU constitutional law: Article 208 TFEU stipulates that the “Union shall take account of the objec-tives of development cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries”. It means that development objectives must be taken into consideration in all EU policies, whenever these are likely to have an impact on developing countries.⁵⁹⁵ Whereas theoretically all EU policies can have impacts on developing countries, the Council has identified five global challenges that should have priority for PCD: Trade and finance, Climate Change, Food security, Migration, and Security.⁵⁹⁶ The EU Economic and Social Committee states that PCD re-quires to “reform the instruments, bodies and policies pertaining to global governance of food security and trade” to bring trade policies in line with the right to food.⁵⁹⁷ It is before this back-ground that the EU-Commission underlines the importance of impact assessments as a tool to align policy proposals along the PCD principle, and that the Council welcomes the “strengthening of the development dimension of the impact assessment tool as important instruments to im-prove PCD and the regular screening of the Commission Legislative and Work Programme from a PCD perspective”.⁵⁹⁸

Legal commitments on the state level are less explicit, even though state representatives are not hesitant to make nice-sounding political commitments on the international stage and to put these declarations of intent down in writing.⁵⁹⁹ However, some countries have enacted binding legal obligations. One example is Spain, which has already in 1998 included a commitment to policy coherence for development into its law of development cooperation. The statute states that the principle laid out therein “will inform all policies applied by public administrations within the framework of their respective competencies that may affect poor countries”.⁶⁰⁰ The Swedish development cooperation law contains a similar commitment since 2003,⁶⁰¹ and the most recent example is Belgium. In 2013, the Belgian Parliament enacted a new law on devel-opment cooperation, and one of the six overarching objectives is to achieve the maximum coher-ence between the different branches of Belgian politics and development objectives in order to ensure the efficiency of Belgian development cooperation.⁶⁰² However, as with many broad legal principles in the ambit of international relations, the judicial enforceability of this principle re-mains weak.

595 See also: European Union, The European Consensus, 2006/C 46/01, 9 and 35 ff; Council of the European Union, Council Conclusions on Increasing the Impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change (2012), doc. 9369/12, para 20.

596 Council of the European Union, Council Conclusions on Policy Coherence for Development (18 November, 2009), doc. 16079/09 margin no. 11; affirmed by Council of the European Union, Council Conclusions on Increasing the Impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change (above, n. 595) margin no. 22.

597 European Economic and Social Committee, Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on

‘Trade and Food Security’ (above, n. 22), 1.1.7

598 Council of the European Union, Council Conclusions on Policy Coherence for Development (above, n. 596) margin no. 4.

599 For an overview: Galeazzi, Greta, et.al., ‘Insights from Developments in National Policy Coherence for Development Systems: Key Cross Cutting Issues and Dilemmas’ (above, n. 589), 8 f.

600 Kingdom of Spain, Ley 23/1998, de 7 de julio, de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo [1998]

Article 4; translation in OECD, ‘Development Assistance Committee (DAC) - Peer Review 2011 (Spain)’, p.

37.

601 Galeazzi, Greta, et.al., ‘Insights from Developments in National Policy Coherence for Development Sys-tems: Key Cross Cutting Issues and Dilemmas’ (above, n. 589), p. 8.

602 Kingdom of Belgium, Loi relative à la Coopération au Développement [2013] Article 8.