Presentation: Eva Christina Nilsson

Conference on Policy Coherence for Development Call for Coherence´ 2-3 October 2006 Helsinki

Role of NGOs in policy coherence development

Eva Christina Nilsson Aprodev Vice President of Concord

1. I would like to talk about three things: common sense, the gap between theory and practice, and political will.

2. Policy coherence for development is a subject that has been on the agenda for quite some time. Already back in 1992 the Council requested the EU to produce a report on the issue of coherence. We have seen many initiatives throughout the years. It´s still on the agenda. We have seen a move, small, but still a move. This gives us courage to continue to push for policy coherence for development. As civil society we have experienced several times how issues that are politically incorrect at one moment have become part of the political agenda at the next moment. The issue of debt cancellation is one example. Of course, policy coherence has not only been pushed by civil society. Many government initiatives have been taken.

3. Why is it still on the agenda when it´s very much a matter of common sense? How can we allow for one political area to contradict another political area? There is no point in the EU or governments pursuing policies that have a particular goal if they are also pursuing other policies which contradict that goal. The one hand needs to know what the other is doing and the two hands have to help each other in order to work against poverty. Better coherence is also important for an effective use of resources and good governance of public interests as well as for the credibility of the EU and national governments. When development cooperation both by governments and by civil society is undermined by other political areas it just doesn´t make sense what we are doing. We no longer want to play the role of taking care of damages inflicted by other policies. And we are not interested in hand-outs.

4. Policy coherence is not an academic or an intellectual issue. It´s not a technical or administrative matter. It is about the possibility to work in a direction towards a vision that poverty can be eradicated, unjust structures can be combated, people can have influence over their own lives and human beings having the right to a life of dignity. So we have to keep in mind what this is all about.

5. Coherence has very much to do with values. What kind of values dominate? If a change is going to take place we need a vision about a just society. This vision has to be based on sound and ethical values. Coherence is a strong instrument to move us in such a direction.

6. Full coherence is not possible. Incoherence will always excist. Why? Life is too complicated to make it possible. There are real or perceived conflicts of interests between different groups. There can be unequal power relations between those promoting the interests of poor people and the lobby of, for instance, commercial interests or arms industry in the EU. A lack of knowledge of the impact of EU polices might be another reason. Incoherence may also be the result of the EU´s complex decision making structure. Trade-offs between conflicting objectives are inevitable and a certain level of incoherence is unavoidable.

7. One thing that makes coherence difficult in practice is that it is not always clear what should be coherent with what. In the EU context we get many signals that development cooperation is there to support security or foreign relations. Why has the EU put so much development money in countries around the Mediterranean? Why have development money been used for military troops in Africa? Of course realising that a lot of areas are important for development, it is only when coherence is interpreted as non-development policies being coherent with development policies that coherence becomes a strong tool.

8. However, an open and transparent discussion about what interests and what values are at the forefront is necessary. If a hierarchy of values are not clearly spelled out, development interests are likely to loose. As citizens we get the impression that the strongest win. Coherence has to build on clear values and conscious political decisions. Otherwise we are promoting contradictions in politics and an invisible hierarchy of values.

9. In its European Consensus the EU places eradication of poverty on top, and highlights that "the EU shall take account of the of the objectives of development cooperation in all policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries, and that these policies support development objectives".

The wording is partly repeated from the Maastricht Treaty Article 178 when it says "shall take account of". This is a bit tricky. The EU is not obliged to avoid a negative impact of its policies on the South. Self-interests might always be the first priority.

10. The European Consensus goes on to refer to coherence highlighting that "it´s important that non-development policies assist developing countries´ effort in achieving the MDGs". Here is another reason for using common sense. The member states of the UN have signed the Millennium Declaration. The Declaration has been converted into 8 goals. It sounds like common sense to go for what you have already signed up to. The year 2015 is getting closer and closer and yet many people continue to die everyday as a result of poverty. There is a real sense of urgency in the matter, which can be difficult to feel in our blood and heart when we have a comfortable life.

11. We have a lot of nice phrases. We have a lot of good documents. As a Swede I feel very proud of the bill that the parliament decided upon in December 2003 on a policy for global development. The overarching goal for Sweden´s policy for global development is a just and sustainable world. All political areas should contribute to that goal. Two perspectives are important, the poor peoples´ perspective and a rights perspective. It´s a very good base for a more coherent policy.

12. As civil society we are eager to see how words are put into practice. Governments and the European Commission cannot continue to have a split personality, to be a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. There is a strong feeling among people that there is a big gap between stated objectives and intentions and the reality. It is difficult for people to understand how it is possible to give with one hand and take with the other. As civil society we would like to see much more delivery. It is a matter of credibility. The EU, in desperate need for public support, needs to show that it can deliver. That EU has common sense. It´s time to enable coherence.

13. Right now we are seeing how the Commission is publishing a new Communication on Good governance. This is another example of incoherence. The notion of good governance is going to be used widely in the Cotonou Agreement. Transparency, accountability, real ownership and respect and promotion of all human rights should guide the debate on governance both within the European Union and in relation to its policies towards developing countries. However, here we see the lack of ownership and meaningful consultation and participation of European and ACP civil society as well as of countries, which are co-signatories of the Cotonou Agreement. The development of the Communication on Good governance has been done unilaterally by the Commission and has led to the marginalisation of these key stakeholders in the process and thus contradicts one of the core principles of governance. This procedure is totally embarrassing for the Commission. It´s high time to go from words to action.

14. But the Commission can never do better than their members. That means that work begins at home. The objectives of EU development co-operation policies cannot be achieved without a radical improvement in the coherence at the level of the Member States. Incoherence at Community level is a mere reflection of contradictions in Member States´ positions. And several countries have begun to do their homework. Sweden is only one example. Finland is another. Good intentions are slowly being put into practice.

15. The implementation is a key question. As the European Consensus says: To make this commitment a reality, the EU will strengthen policy coherence for development procedures, instruments and mechanisms at all levels, and secure adequate resources and share best practice to further these aims.

In order to implement coherence, concrete mechanisms and procedures are needed.

a/ Different interests will always exist. These different interests might also be very legitimate. These interests will continue to be conflicting. So how do you solve that? There has to be some kind of priority, a hierarchy of values. Otherwise you will easily get the impression that the strongest player will win, be the Ministry of Finance or a well-organised lobby group. The decisions made out of this hierarchy of values have to be political decisions. When the conflicts of goals have been solved it´s time to talk about synergy effects. Solved conflicts can led to good synergy effects. When you talk in terms of synergy effects, as the government of Sweden has decided to do, you are formulating an ethics of passiveness/omission which is good. These ethics means that if you are not doing anything at all you can not reach synergies - so you have to do something. But it is impossible to avoid dealing with conflicts of interests and goals.

b/ Mechanisms have to ensure that something happens if the proposals are incoherent with development policies. A bill on coherence is in function only when the civil servants know that the decision they are preparing has to be seen in light of coherence. A coherence unit can play a crucial role. When will the Commission get such a unit with a clear mandate?

c/ Analyses of the consequences of a decision have to be thoroughly carried out. How is the decision working against poverty eradication and how is it promoting poverty eradication?

d/ The government of Sweden produces a yearly report for parliament on coherence. This one is important. What is needed is also an independent evaluation, some kind of auditing mechanism.

15. This is really about political will, political will which goes beyond policy documents. If there is no political will it is impossible to move forward. It will be impossible to put mechanisms in place. There has to be a strong ownership by all in the Commission and in the national governments. It can not only be an interest of development ministers. I have never heard our Prime Minister in Sweden talk about the bill, about a just and sustainable development as the overarching goal for Sweden's policy for global development with the two perspectives: the rights perspective and the poor people´s perspective. It´s never referred to in the political discussion, almost only by the development minister. And so you run the risk of slipping back to the attitude that development aid is the instrument for poverty eradication. Where is the political will that goes beyond pure self interest?

16. A short time ago Concord met with President Barosso and asked him to take a leading role in order to develop coherence within the Commission. The dialogue with him will continue. If coherence is going to be put into practice it has to be owned by the highest level of the Commission and of the government.

17. Concord, as a confederation of 1600 development organisations in EU member countries, has put coherence very high on its agenda for the next years. Public pressure is increasing. In order to do this better we have forged a partnership with the Evert Vermeer Foundation on coherence. We want to do our job better. We have to ask for more common sense by the Commission, by our governments. We have to ask for delivery. Words are not enough any longer. We have to ask for political will, also from the highest level. Concord member organisations have a close link with partners around the world who are experiencing the consequences of incoherence, both by the Commission and our governments. We have to continue to ask for increased coherence because this is a matter of all human beings having the right to a life of dignity.

2005 was a landmark year in the fight against poverty. The EU agreed on an “European Consensus on Development”. However, as I pointed out before serious gaps remain between the stated policy and the actual practice. Today, I would like to stress the Call for coherence to civil society, governments and parliamentarians in the EU and in the South to join forces in order to raise more awareness, to increase the political will and to make the changes necessary to ensure that the actions match the rhetoric.