Any donor considered responsible absolutely supports policy coherence for development (PCD). All action within trade, agricultural, environmental etc. policies must consistently support the MDGs´, poverty reduction and sustainable development.

At least on the level of rhetoric we are against trade and customs policies that favor our industry and exports at the expense of products manufactured or cultivated in for example Africa. We are all for ecologically produced local food; But yet we end up exporting our government supported agricultural products and competing with the local farmers and producers in developing countries. We want our aid to be effective, suit the needs of our partner and employ as many local people as possible; And still we send our own experts to the field or choose the projects and sectors we get involved in thinking of the benefits eventually falling on our own industries. Understandable? Perhaps. Policy coherence for development? No.

Reality usually deviates from promises made and speeches held at conferences on global issues and development. The wealthy western, industrialized, developed - or whatever you wish to call them – states say they are committed to supporting developing countries in clean, sustainable development and on the path towards social and economic welfare. And they do, some more, some less. The official development aid (ODA) budgets of very few states reach the level of 0,7 % of GNI. And even if all donors came up with the wished-for funding, aid just isn´t enough. We will need changes in the structures of international trade and politics to build a more balanced, less poor global community. To abide by the guidelines of PCD is a good place to start the structural changes.

A donor´s temptation to start thinking of ways to mould development aid benefit its own economic or political interests is indeed quite understandable. Some say that gaining more than learning experiences from the north-south –co-operation makes it easier to get the tax payers´ support for development aid. But at least according to the yearly polls made by the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs most Finns relate positively to development co-operation simply out of humanity.

In some cases seeing PCD as a two-way street might seem even logical – people living in developing countries are especially vulnerable to climate change, so why not use ODA for controlling it? Though environmental and development goals are inseparably intertwined, we need to use ODA mainly for reducing poverty, improving health care, education, etc. and raise the funds needed for fighting climate change from somewhere else.

PCD must be used as a tool to make development policy more efficient and effective, not an angle through which donors can seek ways to gain economic or other interests from development aid. The abbreviation needs to stand for genuinely coherent policy for development, not by development.

Taru Savolainen
e2