“Austrian Platform” Study Trip Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
“Austrian Platform” Study Trip Report By Delia Elena Lazar 2011 Day 1 – October 3rd 2011 1. Blandine Bauniol – Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) - CONCORD PCD – uses and interpretations of the concept: currently embedded in the Lisbon Treaty („any EU policies likely to have impact on other countries should take into account the development objectives‟); interpretation: must do not harm at least European Commission has attributed a special unit in DG DEVCO to PCD: officers are screening most relevant EU policies and proposals to see if there is any negative impact on development) see DEVCO A3: Coherence of EU policies for development, EU aid effectiveness However, some principles of the PCD were laid in previous treaties OECD also uses this concept to measure the impact of other policies on development Increasing awareness and capacity on PCD would mean increasing the political will, which should stand at the core Conclusion: PCD is a nice, wide concept, which needs to be better clarified Work on PCD in CONCORD: PCD is a new topic and area of work CONCORD has been previously focusing on development policies and aid but since 2009 PCD has been included and became a priority for the next ten years CONCORD publication in 2009: Spotlight on Policy Coherence (http://www.dochas.ie/Shared/Files/4/spotlight_on_policy_coherence.pdf) Every two years, the Commission issues a report on PCD (next to appear in Nov-Dec 2011) and how Member States have applied the PCD principles // CONCORD tries to prepare an alternative report on this topic (counter-report); next to be launched on November 7th 2011, with chapters including: agriculture, migration, natural resources and human security. CONCORD also prepares a special website dedicated to PCD, for more awareness and raising visibility on the concept Other PCD-related initiatives: Special rapporteur on PCD in the European Parliament (EP): Birgit SCHNIEBER- JASTRAM, EVP Germany Commission‟s proposals are now issued with the impact assessments (which include PCD question/request about negative impact on development policies) CONCORD tries to lobby so that PCD is guaranteed each time when internal policies have external impacts. 2 2. Meagan Baldwin, Head of Policy, CONCORD – “Future of EU development policy” CONCORD policy work is made around two main strains: (a) EU development policy; (b) identity policy (organization, CSOs etc.). The most recent development includes bringing them together in one expanded unit. - CONCORD is divided in several working groups (e.g. food security group, reference group on Trade; task force on climate change etc.) sharing between them the resources; it is a member-led organization - 3-4 main priorities are set for the year; for 2011 these include: MFF process (getting an EU budget; how much does development get?) Food security, agriculture within PCD Aid effectiveness (CSO effect, aid effect etc.) - CONCORD role: try to impact, to influence policies Questions and Answers: a. Possible 2012 priorities: post MDG agenda, MFF (headings will be known, discussion on instruments will follow), citizen mobilization (bottom-up perspective). b. There is a disconnection between Brussels and the rest of the world which needs to be challenged; organizations outside Brussels should understand that Member States are the one deciding (cannot influence Council‟s conclusions); however, it is mainly Brussels- based organizations that understand the decision-making process and it is here where organizations like CONCORD should intervene c. Since the creation of the EEAS, the role of presidencies has changed: there is a shift from the power of presidencies in deciding the agenda to the power of the HR/VP. It is C. Ashton who currently leads the agenda and has the overall responsibility for PCD. d. Legal instruments for development: - Lisbon Treaty – binding for Member States; - EU consensus on development – politically (not legally) binding - Legislation consistent with the Treaty - Ombudsman in EP – for PCD. 3 3. Zdenka Dobiasova – DG DEVCO, A3, Policy Coherence for Development Viktor Sukup – DG DEVCO, R7 Seconded National Expert (SCN) on Aid effectiveness and Austrian affairs Short introduction: before June 2011, there were two DGs dealing with development: AidCo (funds) and Dev (thematic and strategic planning) they have merged and formed DG DEVCO. Zdenka Dobiasova is responsible with PCD in DG DEVCO: external impact of EU internal policies (side effects on third countries). PCD agenda: - European Commission (EC) prepares legal text – the Communication on PCD, which may be adopted or not in the Council; major policy initiatives are made in co-decision process (EC proposes and decision is taken by EC + EP) - PCD concept is relatively new; complicated subject in policy making; EC is active in following the recommendations of OECD - The basics are laid in Lisbon Treaty: „take into account‟, which is rather vague; interpretation given: in the policy-making process, the EC has to take into account evidence of no side effects on third countries (or limited effect). - From 12 policy areas that affect developing countries, EC has established five main challenges is currently working on: 1. Trade and finance (CSR, taxes, IPS – intellectual property system, aid for trade etc.) Main responsible are DG TRADE and DG DEVCO; planned documents: Reform of Trade policy; Trade and development Communication. 2. Food Security – CAP reform, fisheries, agrofuels, biodiversity, effects of climate change, water issues etc. 3. Climate change – mitigation & adoption; energy, transport, energy trade systems (ETS) 4. Migration – brain drain, remittances, diaspora dialogue 5. Security – shift from humanitarian aid to sustainable development process ; natural disasters. PCD reading materials: - European Consensus on Development: http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/eu_consensus_en.pdf - Consultations: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/public-consultations/index_en.htm - Council Conclusions of 17 November 2009 on PCD : http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st16/st16079.en09.pdf - PCD Programme 2007-2013: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/policy-coherence/index_en.htm - EU 2009 Report of PCD: 4 http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/SEC_PDF_2009_1137_F_ACTE_PC D_EN.pdf - MEP Franziska Keller report, 2009: “EU PCD and Official Development Assistance plus concept”: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=- //EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A7-2010-0140+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN Decision-making procedure in the EU institutions: 1) First phase: how to know what other people are doing and invite them to meetings and negociate? You are helped by the EC work programme 2012 (list of initiatives planned for next year) screening to see where to intervene preparation meetings for each policy (in the service – internal; then public documents for public consultations on the website: http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/index_en.htm. See the role of NGOs here: it is now that they can have their first intervention, they can get an item on the agenda; it is here the EC needs NGOs input; afterwards, the EC has to publish the results of the public consultation. 2) Second phase – Regulatory Impact Assessment is a compulsory, analytical document (problem, objective, options to address, evidences of possible consequences etc.) elaborated on the basis of Impact Assessment Guidelines (to see the standards the EC has to use). This is the phase of the inter-service working groups (various DGs in EC interested in the topic) the result is a „position paper‟ for the „internal cuisine‟ if passed by the jury, it is published. If the Impact Assessment passes, it then goes to inter- service consultation (last stage before the adoption of the Communication) then to the College of the EC (Commissioners) for political approval if they adopt it, it is published as 3 documents: Communication/Directive, Impact Assessment and Opinions of the Board. 3) All package goes to the Council and the EP and here the civil society can intervene as well: sensitizing the MEPs and national governments 4) Evaluation of policies: Impact Assessment is an ex-ante evaluation; have to be more active on post-policy evaluation and here the window is open again for external input. Mechanisms providing feedback: EUDELs, NGOs (can come with studies, written feedback etc.). EC tries to do studies, but better use materials from think-tanks, NGOs etc. Role of civil society, NGOs: - Create the demand (with the MEPs, consultations with national governments); - Raise the issue with EU institutions (send letter to the Commissioner); - Insist in the prioritization of issues (via YourvoiceinEurope) - Screen the new arising issues - Tell the story of the EU negative policies impact (getting the stories out in the media, academia etc.). 5 Day 2 – October 4th 2011 1. Elise Vanormelingen, Policy coordinator for MFF at CONCORD, on Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) MFFs, previously called Financial Perspectives, are 7 year budgets. Currently, the one for 2014- 2020 is being negotiated; it shows priorities of EU action. When discussing MFF, we discuss three levels: 1) How much to spend? 2) What for? Priorities are defined in budget headings (currently 5) Current headings: (1) Cohesion policy – 45% - for less developed EU regions (2) Agricultural and rural development – 42% (3) Citizenship – 1% (4) External action – 6% - includes development, CSP, military, EU as a global partner etc. (5) Total administration – 6%. 3) How