Institutional mechanisms for PCD Lessons from DAC Peer Reviews

1. Institutional mechanisms for PCDLessons from DAC Peer Reviews Meeting of National Focal Points for PCD 9 February 2012 Karen Jorgensen

2. 1 - Background What do peer reviews do? • a specific chapter on « development beyond aid » • how do institutional mechanisms for PCD work and produce results? • 3 building blocks • political commitment • co-ordination mechanisms • monitoring, analysis and reporting • contribute to the monitoring of the 2010 OECD «Recommendation of the Council on good institutional practices in promoting PCD »

3. 2 - Background What do peer reviews NOT do? • thorough thematic analysis by area (trade, climate change, etc.) • impact assessment 3 building blocks give a good framework for analysis, but do not allow to see what is fed into the mechanisms and how they have produced results.

4. 3 – The policy coherence cycle (3 building blocks)

5. 4 – General trends / Building block 1 Growingpolitical support to and awareness of PCD • most DAC members have made a political or legalcommitment to PCD • administrations are mostlyaware of the issue • However: • need for a clearstrategicframework and action plan withpriorities and goals • the concept of PCD is not yetfullyunderstood and owned by all • PCD needs to encompass ALL policies in government in a broadapproach Politicalcommitment, backed by clear objectives and an action plan, is the starting point for anyserious PCD action and results. Raisingawarenesswith all developmentactorsis crucial.

6. 5 – General trends / Building block 2 Increasingnumber of institutionalmechanisms in place • Most countries have (created) cross-government, inter-ministerialcommittees • However: • no explicit mandate or cross-government plan for PCD • often about co-ordination, not explicitly about PCD • mechanisms are not alwaysoperational, and we do not know whethertheyeffectivelylead to policycoherence for development An adequateinstitutional setup isnecessary, but not sufficientto ensure PCD. So far, verydifficult to assess impact and results of two first building blocks. Evenwithpoliticalcommittment and co-ordinationmechanisms in place, doesthatmeanpolicies are more coherent?

7. 6 – General trends / Building block 3 Insufficient capacity for monitoring, analysis and reporting • Identified as a weak point in most peer reviews: • Need for clear processes and mechanisms for monitoring and analysis • Administrations not drawing sufficiently on external analysis (universities, think tanks, CSOs) • PCD needs to be monitored and analysed throughout the whole administration (not only in development agencies) • No clear feedback loop from Embassies and partner countries • Not clear how available analysis translates into policy-making Good analysis, producing evidence of impact of incoherent policies, is needed to create the magic missing ingredient: political will

8. 7 – Conclusions Are the three building blocks on institutionalmechanismshelping to achieveresults? • The threebulding blocks seem to benecessary but not sufficientprerequisites. • Politicalcommitmentis not yetfullytranslated in operational plans and mechanisms, thatwould in turn translate into PCD-friendlypolicy-making • Difficult to gatherevidence; no clearresults visible yet. • PCD has a donor focus: on the coherencebetweenaid and non-aidpolicies.

9.   8 - The way forward • What the DAC peer reviews can do; what else is needed? • 12 lessons on PCD • After Busan • New development strategy

10. Thank you www.oecd.org/dac/peerreviews