Assessment of

1

• Assessment of
• EC Development Policy
• Study of the Joint
• Council / Commission
• Development Policy Statement
• November 2000

2
The Study Report

• Introduction
• Conceptual framework and methodology
• The international development context
• The DPS in a changing EU context
• Research findings
• Conclusions
• Options for the future

3
Introduction

• Object of study
• to assess extent to which the ECs
  development policy declaration has been put into
  effect to identify bottlenecks which may have
  hindered its implementation
• Added value of an external study?
• Bring in outside ideas and concepts
• Canvas views of wide range of stakeholders
• Trigger a process of reflection ? ideas for any
  future DPS

4
Introduction (2)

• Limits imposed on study by
• Practicalities of
• Isolating cause effect
• Attributing impact
• Extremely wide subject affecting a lot of
  stakeholders
• Tight timeframe
• Data collection difficulties

5
Concepts Methodology

• What is a good policy statement ?
• Suggest an effective policy is
• adequate in content
• provides a strategic framework
• persuasive to the actors
• seen as relevant by other stakeholders,
• So statement should
• structure agenda for a few years
• influence lower level policy,
• interact effectively with other policy sectors
• advocate for sector

6
Concepts Methodology (2)

• How to judge quality of a policy statement?
• Does PS have 7 key features
• Contextual analysis
• Criteria to adjudicate key issues trade-offs
• Analysis of comparative advantages
• Setting of priorities
• Action oriented details
• Accountability mechanisms
• Some form of stakeholder participation

7
Concepts Methodology (3)

• Asked many questions ? 4 groups
• Is the DPS useful? To whom? How? ? Value
• How has it been used? Have its key ideas been
  followed? Consistently? ? Use
• Problems in implementation? ? Bottlenecks
• Is its content adequate? Does it say the right
  things ? Does it compare well? ? Quality

8
(No Transcript)
9
Concepts Methodology (5)

• Sources of information
• Desk study no field work
• EU policy documents
• Case studies 21 countries 2 regions
• CSPs, Evaluations, JARs, MTR conclusions
• Interviews 65 EC, MS, EP, NGOs
• Questionnaires 40 returns (17 EC Dels)
• External papers OECD, MS policies, MS
  parliaments, NGOs

10
The international development context

• In 2000
• Critique from development sector
• ? Need to rebuild credibility
• Reform of EC External Assistance
• Consensus in development thinking
• 1990s UN conferences, build up to UN Millennium
  Declaration, Cotonou

11
International context (2)

• In 2005
• Rise of security issues in external relations
• MDGs now the rallying point
• PRSPs now also a strong focus
• New EU commitments not explicit in DPS
• ODA levels, DDA, harmonization, new initiatives,
  global funds, new partners (eg.AU)
• EU policy debate has continued
• Fleshing out ideas in DPS
• But also some areas do not fit so easily

12
The changing EU context

• The legal context
• In 2000
• Amsterdam Treaty 3 objectives 3Cs
• Regulations most predate DP
• Now EU is on verge of
• New Draft Constitution poverty eradication is
• a Union objective (Art I-3) alongside peace
  security, etc
• the primary aim of EU development cooperation
  (Art III-292)
• New FP new instruments regulations

13
The changing EU context (2)

• The policy context
• Rise of policy mix concept in external actions
• MDGs have a bit supplanted DPS
• Poverty focus still at centre of debate
• Credibility of EC aid largely re-established
• Focal areas idea is accepted but has also
  provoked much debate (inter alia in EP)
• Good governance now has higher profile

14
The changing EU context (3)

• The institutional context
• iQSG has had to champion DPS
• Split of functions in EC services causes
  difficulties
• DGs have different political cultures
• Enlargement new MS now involved in debate

15
The changing context

• DPS change /or continuity?
• By and large DPS principles still valid
• But some updates are needed
• Needs of moment different than in 2000
• Some key questions to resolve
• Focal areas new initiatives?
• Refining approaches to poverty reduction?
• Stronger emphasis on EC comparative advantages?

16
Research findings analysis

• Value of the DPS ?
• DPS is seen as valuable
• Sums up state of debate in authoritative way
• Particularly valuable at political policy level
• Strong buy-in by the development community
• Poverty focus at the top of the agenda
• Principle of concentration acknowledged

17
Research findings analysis (2)

• Value of the DPS ?
• But
• Lack of reference to MDGs a handicap though
  compatibility is recognised
• Has not helped much with cross-cutting issues
• No impact on complementarity
• Limited value in coherence except with trade

18
Research findings analysis (3)

• Use made of the DPS
• Used first as a political tool
• Primary reference in most policy documents
• Also used a bit in programming
• Patchy use at regional level
• However DPS principles are more widely used
• (Although some originate in TEU)

19
Research findings analysis (4)

• Poverty reduction
• General consensus on objective but different
  perceptions of approach importance
• Yet so far only limited policy discussion
• More debate on approaches to poverty probably
  needed
• Recognizable concern in all regions but is not
  always the first priority
• Link with MDGs would help

20
Research findings analysis (5)

• Comparative advantages of EC
• Clearly an issue for respondents
• Seen at level of both
• Instruments grant funding, dialogue, etc
• EC experience in sectors
• Most cited comparative advantages
• Political neutrality, areas of Community
  competence, volume of aid, focal point for EU
  coordination, European values/vision, global
  reach, excellence in certain areas

21
Research findings analysis (6)

• Comparative advantages of EC
• Most cited comparative advantages were already
  identified in EC COM 2000 but not
• Areas of Community competence, excellence, focal
  point for EU coordination, partnership approach,
  EU as a global player
• ?The debate is not really moving forward
• ? Context has evolved EC as a global player
  competence in trade more recognized

22
Research findings analysis (7)

• Comparative advantages of EC
• Possibly use 3 categories
• Objective characteristics of the EC as a donor
• ? Volume of aid, global reach, grants, range of
  instruments, EC own experience and competence
• Points dependent on political will of EU MS
• ? EC focal point for coordination/collective
  action
• Relative and subjective characteristics
• ? EU political neutrality, European values

23
Research findings analysis (8)

• Focal areas
• Principle of concentration generally accepted
• Focal areas found in various forms across
  regional programmes
• Traceability difficult data lacking
• Question of concentration versus ownership
• Loose definition of six sectors and no clear link
  with poverty

24
Research findings analysis (9)

• Mainstreaming
• Principle accepted, indeed predate DPS
• But implementation is widely seen as problematic
• Not just a problem for EC
• Human rights and environment appear to be more
  successful
• Capacity resources issues
• New cross-cutting issues?

25
Research findings analysis (10)

• Bottlenecks to implementation

• Variable levels of ownership in services
• Particularly among some RELEX staff
• DPS also seen as too ACP-centric by some
• Ownership in EP could also be higher
• Insufficient indicators, targets and guidelines
• Lack of communication

26
Research findings analysis (11)

• Quality of DPS
• Contextual analysis
• good in 2000 still relevant now, but
• ? needs to be updated
• Criteria to adjucate between key issues
• there in theory (focal areas) but not strictly
  applied
• not adequate in todays policy mix debates
• ? should be improved in 2005
• Analysis of comparative advantages
• insufficiently developed in 2000
• MS reluctance to discuss
• ? to be addressed in 2005

27
Research findings analysis (12)

• Quality of the DPS
• Setting of priorities
• perceived as a strong achievement of DPS,
• ? yet still a key question for 2005
• Action-orientation
• DPS stayed at policy level
• Accountability mechanism
• Annual Report good improved monitoring
• ? can still be improved
• Stakeholder consultation
• too short in 2000 limited to Brussels circles
• lack of buy-in by EP
• ? important to do better in 2005

28

• Quality of DPS? A simplified vision

29
Conclusions

• An important necessary document
• Needs to integrate the evolution of the European
  and international development context
• Limited ownership undermines its usefulness
• Need more differentiated approach to poverty
  reduction
• Poverty reduction concentration principles
  better known than DPS itself
• Familiarity with the DPS varies hugely

30
Conclusions (2)

• Implementation of cross-cutting issues has not
  worked
• Comparative advantages of EC inadequately dealt
  with in 2000 debate moving slowly
• Needs further research and debate
• 3 categories of comparative advantage
• Objective characteristics of the EC
• Points dependant on political will of EU MS
• Relative and subjective characteristics
• (probably the most difficult to exploit)

31
Conclusions (3)

• Areas where EC can give value-added
• Own experience eg. regional
  integration
• Large grants needed eg.
  infrastructure
• Areas of EC competence eg.
  trade
• EC policies with external impact eg.
  fisheries
• Existing expertise eg. roads, budget support
• Critical areas for poverty reduction that large
  donors cannot ignore eg. social
  sectors
• Critical mass required eg. budget
  support

32
Conclusions (4)

• The principle of concentration is widely accepted
• EC cooperation is now seen as more focussed
• EC contribution must be seen as complementary to
  MS to fully justify EC concentration
• Lack of progress on complementarity biggest
  disappointment
• Stakeholder consultation in 2000 limited

33
Conclusions (5)

• In sum
• ? DPS valuable as a focal point,
• ? Gives a sense of purpose direction
• ? Has pushed certain principles
• For future need to
• ? Take into account changing context
• ? Work towards an inclusive statement

34
Options for the future

• Reminder Features of a good policy
• Adequate in content
• Structure the agenda for a few years
• Provides strategic framework
• Interact effectively with other policies
• Persuasive to actors
• Influence lower level policy
• Seen as relevant by stakeholders
• Advocate for sector

35
Key questions for next DPS

• A more differentiated approach to poverty focus ?
• How to relate better to external actions policy
  mix debates?
• More clarity on comparative advantages?
• What of focal sectors concentration?
• Complementarity An EU statement?
• Process timeframe

36
What should we aim for?

• Choice of options on a spectrum

from ? ? ? to
Detailed, more operational document
High-Strategy paper focusing just on principles
37
Option 1 mid-spectrumUpdate current DPS

• As a minimum
• Incorporate MDGs
• Have discussion on how to handle focal areas
• Improve argument on comparative advantage ?
• Add more on some new issues
• eg. conflict prevention / security?
• Could be done quite quickly ... ... ... but
• Hardly ambitious
• Perpetuate previous shortcomings?

38
Option 2 top of spectrumHigh-level policy

• Key principles poverty focus, MDGs
• Clear linkages to other policies
• External policy mix security, trade, etc
• internal policies agriculture, fisheries,
  etc.
• Might even enable an EU statement ... ... but
• Has to be owned by several DGs
• Will need longer discussion with stakeholders
• Still relevant to operational actors?

39
Option 3 low on spectrum Detailed statement

• Give operational actors detailed guidance
• Multi-annual work programme results-based with
  clear indicators,
• Perhaps combine with regional level policies
• but
• Only good for development community
• How would it sit with regional programmes?
• Likely to conflict with ownership principle

40
Option 4Combine options 23

• Have both high-level strategy detailed plan
• Relevant to both specialist development debates
  with wider audiences
• Could accomodate regional plans partner country
  priorities on detailed level
• but
• More complex, two-speed preparatory process
• Sequencing which one first?

41
Process timing

• The process is valuable in itself likely to
  impact on implementation so give it time
• Need broad timeframe, but not open-ended
• EP is important, despite / because of concerns
  about micro-management
• Dont forget evolving general political context
  MDGs, Financial Perspectives
• Communication has to be improved
• Consider public status of document