By Paul Engel and Jeske van Seters - 7th December 2011
While welcoming the agenda for change as an important step forward in modernising European development policy and increasing its impact, we feel it is high time that it takes the development effectiveness debate beyond aid
Paul Engel and Jeske van Seters
The agenda for change is an important step in modernising and increasing the effectiveness of European development policy, write Paul Engel and Jeske van Seters.
In October, the European commission presented its agenda for change to increase the impact of European development policy and called on EU member states to endorse the proposed agenda.
The proposal to focus more on support for human rights, democracy and good governance, as well inclusive and sustainable growth for human development, is welcome. Suggestions to step up EU donor coordination to deliver on aid effectiveness commitments are welcomed also.
The agenda represents a clear move towards greater specificity of the commission as a donor, which seems in line with the role it plays in Europe at large.
We also welcome efforts to increase the impact of EU development policy within a global context. Yet despite all these efforts, the agenda very much remains an ‘aid agenda’, focusing on development cooperation in relative isolation at a time when it is widely recognised that other policies might have a greater impact on developing countries.
Of course, the communication does recognise the importance of coherence and the need to choose the right mix of policies to fight poverty and face global challenges.
However, clear proposals as to how such policy coherence for development (PCD) will be strengthened are lacking and key areas such as agriculture and trade remain unmentioned. More attention to leadership, knowledge and capacity is needed to strengthen PCD.
PCD is to a large extent a political rather than a technical matter. Leadership is required from the development commissioner to engage with his peers within the college of commissioners as well as with the high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, to ensure that development objectives are taken into consideration in the policy making process, alongside other – sometimes conflicting – EU values and interests.
Taking account of the impact of non-development policies on developing countries presupposes knowledge about those impacts when such policies are designed. Currently some of the most notorious policies are reformed, such as the common agricultural policy, common fisheries policy.
Several recent studies have indicated that the knowledge available on the precise effects of these EU policies on developing countries is too little, too diffuse and too inconclusive to provide insight in all relevant areas of positive and negative impact.
Leadership and knowledge building needs to be accompanied by sufficient capacity, in EU institutions and national administrations alike, to promote PCD. However, capacity to work on PCD seems to have been reduced rather than strengthened with the creation of the directorate-general for development and cooperation (DEVCO).
The unit working on PCD, is now also tasked with working on aid effectiveness issues, and thematic units have been scaled down.
To conclude, while welcoming the agenda for change as an important step forward in modernising European development policy and increasing its impact, we feel it is high time that it takes the development effectiveness debate beyond aid.
The European Union’s development policy needs to move from grant management to strengthening policy coherence for development in practice.
Paul Engel is the director of the European centre for development policy management (ECDPM). Jeske van Seters is a policy officer at ECDPM.
