Policy coherence for development
Definition
Policy coherence for development is achieved when policies across a range of issues (for example trade, migration, security) support, or at least do not undermine, the attainment of development objectives. There are two types of policy coherence of particular importance to DFID:
- coherence across UK government policies;
- and coherence within multilateral institutions such as the
European Commission (EU).
Why is it important?
Policy incoherence weakens the efficiency and impact of aid. This occurs
through lost opportunities for complementarity and when policies contradict each
other. For example, subsidised EU beef exports undercut the same meat producers
in Burkina Faso, Niger and Mali being supported by EU development programmes.
Harnessing the benefits of non-aid policies for development would substantially
improve progress towards the Millennium Development Goals.
Facts and figures
- Official Development Assistance (ODA) is dwarfed by other financial flows to developing countries. In 2002, developing countries received $58bn in ODA, as against $88bn in migrant remittances, and $147bn in net foreign direct investment.
- Low-income countries earn eight times more per year from exports than they receive in aid. A 50% cut in trade protection policies globally would lead to a real-income gain of $150bn per year for developing countries.
- Migration brings remittances, but results in brain drain: Africa spends an estimated US$4bn annually recruiting 100,000 expatriates to replace nationals working outside the region.
DFID/UK position
DFID sees policy coherence as key to development, as stated in the UK's 2000
White Paper on International Development and Globalisation - Eliminating World Poverty:
Making Globalisation Work for the Poor
(647
kb). There is now greater policy coherence within Whitehall across a range of
sectors, including conflict management, remittances and debt relief, recruitment
of National Health Service (NHS) staff, and trade and extractive industries.
DFID is also engaging on policy coherence in fragile states through theOrganisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Development Assistance
Committee, and is supporting new work in the European Commission including the
development of an EU action plan on policy coherence. However, a greater push is
needed to bring development to the fore of UK policy, to ensure a better
understanding of the net impact of UK policy at the country level, and to
promote greater coherence internationally. DFID is reviewing how to take this
forward.
International perspectives
- The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and European Commission are both well-placed to promote policy coherence, given their Member States and engagement in sectors including aid, economics, trade, environment and agriculture. The OECD is promoting policy coherence for development through seminars and research. The EC is supporting a new rolling EU work programme on policy coherence, which will include actions to improve coherence in 12 non-development sectors, strengthen horizontal mechanisms such as policy impact assessments in the Commission, and share best practice within Member States.
- Several countries have taken steps towards greater policy coherence for development. For example, the Netherlands has a unit which ensures coherence across government policies, and the Swedish government reports annually to parliament on how its policies impact on development.
- Developing countries are vocal on policy coherence, particularly on the
impact of international trade and agriculture policies on development. They
raise these issues individually and in larger groups such as the G77
andG20.
Issues to address
Donors have progressed slowly on policy coherence for development due to:
- Too few mechanisms to systematically detect and resolve policy conflicts, and the difficulty of balancing legitimate domestic and global interests when such conflicts become apparent
- Insufficient political pressure for change, both at the domestic level (with limited public awareness on the impact of different policies and trade-offs made by government) and internationally (with limited fora for low income countries to hold rich ones to account)
- Complex decision-making systems, for example in the EU, where multiple
domestic interests compete alongside multilateral agendas, special interest
groups and developing partners
Further information
Last updated: 7 March 2006
