Making policies work



Monitoring the effects of the CAP: General research on PCD and a review of institutional options


ECDPM. 2012. Monitoring the effects of the CAP: General research on PCD and a review of institutional options. (ECDPM Presentation).

Share Button

To import or to produce? Agricultural trade and politics for the development of local food and agricultural sectors in developing countries under new framework conditions. 

German Development Institute (DIE), the NGO Brot für die Welt and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), 3 December 2012, Bonn. 

Quentin de Roquefeuil and Brecht Lein made a presentation at this meeting. The meeting discussed opportunities and threats of agricultural trade instruments as well as alternative measures to promote national production.

Presentation transcript

1. Monitoring the effects of the CAP: General research on PCD and a review of institutional options
ECDPM 3 December 2012

2. A need for “development-friendly‟ policies
• Long term trend: ODA is outgrown by other financial contributions and loses relevance as a central indicator for OECD countries‟ contributions to development
• OECD Strategy on Development promotes evidence-based analysis of costs and benefits of (in)coherent policies and indicators to monitor
• Decades of OECD discussions on making policies development-friendly, but no systematic monitoring beyond process
• Busan: “…it is essential to examine the inter-dependence and coherence of all public policies – not just development policies…”
• UN Task Team post-2015: “a high degree of policy coherence at the global, regional, nationalECDPM and sub-national levels will be required.” 

3. ECDPM study for DE&NL government
1. Objective: examine political and technical feasibility of an institutionalised (i.e. formal) system to compare countries on how their full range of policies contribute to development
2. Interviews with government officials, researchers and NGOs, as well as case studies of different comparative indices in and outside development cooperation: PSE, PISA, CDI, MDG, aid effectiveness
3. Main findings:
• Existing indicator processes work when countries see monitoring as being in their interest…
• …only feasible when key concepts and objectives are agreed and understood
• Despite decades of discussion that’s not yet the case

4. Recommendations:
• Findings suggest a twin-track approach, consisting of (1) continuing current efforts in the OECD to develop overall strategies and progress in thematic areas, and (2) pushing for acceptance of PCD objectives and targets in the debate on the post-2015 framework (particularly if they include Sustainable Development Goals)
• Progress is best made incrementally, with a specific focus on promoting research on the effects of non-aid policies

5. The EU‟s work on “Policy Coherence for Development‟ (PCD)
• Appeared first in the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht: other policies have to take the EU‟s development objectives into account
• Skip to May 2012, when EU Ministers for Development Cooperation noted “(…) the need for a more evidence-based approach and for improving coordination mechanisms and implementation within the EU institutions and the Member States” – And that:
• “PCD is essential for the credibility of the EU as a global actor, and hence, a strong EU leadership on PCD issues at high levels of all parts of the EU and in Member States is important”
• A good basis to write a paper on to what extent this can be applied to the CAP

6. ECDPM research on CAP monitoring
• Recent ECDPM paper related to CAP monitoring for ODI (Keijzer and King 2012)
• Review of institutional options for potential PCD monitoring, assessing political feasibility and impact.
• Ranks option according to five criteria (Feasibility, impact, likelihood, cost, timeliness)

7. Monitoring of the CAP: status quo
• Currently monitoring of the CAP does take place, but strictly internal (although subject to WTO scrutiny). • BUT several windows of opportunities to include external aspects: – Amendments tabled in COMAGRI – EU PCD efforts – OECD PCD reflections – Some MS support – New advisory group on internationalECDPM aspects of the CAP Page 7

8. Monitoring Option 1: Specific external objectives in legal text.
• Idea is to include specific “beyond EU” goals to the CAP‟s legal text. Monitoring would follow.
• Pros: Most thorough and constraining, in sync with policymaking.
• Cons: Politically unlikely (DG Agri, MS, agric. lobbies).
• Promoted by NGOs, but not taken up by EC, EP or Council.
• Significant impact, but politically unlikely.

9. Monitoring Option 2: Legal text, but no objective
• Tabled in the EP. NL supports the idea in council, backed by several other MS.
• Pros: More realistic than option 1. Could link up to new international advisory group, and feed into broader PCD monitoring.
• Cons: What would happen to the findings? Would broad reference to PCD, without specific mention of what is to be achieved actually improve the status quo?
• Politically more realistic. Impact depends on wording and take-up of findings. 

10. Monitoring Option 3: Part of Wider EU led PCD
• Don’t mention it in the legal text, but make sure CAP is reflected in the EU’s PCD review in a satisfactory way.
• Pros: “Whole of government approach” (Tariffs +SPS!). Food security is a priority area of EU PCD.
• Cons: Can be diluted by choosing “uncontroversial” indicators. Ghettoization of PCD in DEVCO, and consensus required.
• Politically feasible. Impact depends on theECDPM indicators and institutional setup. 

11. Monitoring Option 4: OECD or Civil Society led monitoring
• External monitoring, supported by DG Agri.
• Pros: Could be linked to PSE currently published by OECD, covers more countries and policies. More independent than 3?
• Con: Opposition to PSE/development linkage in the DAC. Like option 3) depends on whether indicators “dilute” the CAP and if the findings are taken up.
• Politically feasible, and impact could be significant.

12. Our scores
• Option 1 (legal text + specific objective): Impact: 9/10, Likelihood: 2/10.
• Option 2 (legal text, no objectives): Impact: 6/10, Likelihood: 5/10.
• Option 3 (EU PCD): Impact : 4/10, Likelihood, 4/10.
• Option 4 (OECD): Impact: 5/10, Likelihood, 6/10.

13. Avenues for future research
• Monitoring and the WTO: is realistic to propose the monitoring of green box support (i.e. income support)?
• Focus monitoring on the types of support that are being phased out anyways to overcome political resistance. -> Would “Going with the grain” monitoring be more politically acceptable (and have more impact)?

14. References:
1. Keijzer, N., King, M. (2012) Monitoring the effects of the Common Agricultural Policy in developing countries. Research Report. London: Overseas Development Institute.
2. Klavert, H., Keijzer, N. (2012) A review of stakeholders‟ views on Common Agricultural Policy reform. Research Report. London: Overseas Development Institute.
3. Keijzer, N., and J. Oppewal. 2012. Learn to walk before you run? A review of methodological approaches for evaluating coherence in the field of international cooperation. Maastricht: ECDPM Discussion Paper 132.
4. King, M., Keijzer, N., Spierings, E., Matthews, A., (2012) Measuring Policy Coherence for Development. Study commissioned by The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. Maastricht: ECDPM. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Food SecurityEU Policy Coherence for Food SecurityPresentationsAgricultureCommon Agricultural Policy (CAP)