In its report the WRR makes a number of proposals for reorganizing Dutch government institutions involved in development and other elements of foreign policy. In particular, the Council proposed to establish NLAID, a new agency with country offices, in response to the need for Dutch development aid to be ‘more country-specific’. Elsewhere, however, the WRR also argued that the Netherlands needs to adopt a ‘broader perspective’ (another pillar of the report), but without recommending a new institutional architecture for global policies, despite the major changes that have taken place in this respect in recent decades.

 
Before examining the proposed NLAID, it is perhaps appropriate first to look in more detail at the institutional consequences of taking a global view.

Global governance (including new ways of managing global public goods), policy coherence and building up a global civil society are the three arms of what can be described as global development. But what does this mean in practical terms? What new architecture will be needed? Most important, adopting such a global view may mean that the primary focus on the needs of the poor and excluded may be lost, so how do we avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water?

Global public goods

In the case of global public goods, what is important is, in principle, the collective (worldwide or regional) interest, which may well conflict with certain short- and long-term interests of certain actors (governments, as well as NGOs, trade unions or businesses). Of course, the global environment is the clearest example of this.

Any detailed strategy must distinguish between the different kinds of public goods. The WRR identifies those ‘from which non-payers also benefit’ (such as climate policy), ‘weakest link’ goods (such as combating infectious diseases) and ‘club’ goods, from which only a select group benefit (such as communication satellites). In the case of global public goods it is necessary to focus on reinforcing the multilateral system – the WRR rightly states that critical reflection is needed – on creating new global mechanisms, such as a ‘socio-economic security council’ and forms of Earth Systems governance, or more ad hoc solutions such as the creation of networks around certain issues.

Global governance should be viewed in a way that better reflects new ideas and practices, writes Janne Nijman: ‘Without exploring the “global network” dimension … “global governance” becomes too poor a concept. I do not mean inter-state or inter-governmental networks, but non-governmental or hybrid global networks … in which different actors participate for the unique contribution they can make to an issue, or to (an aspect of) the protection of a global common good. Think, for instance, of a global network around sustainable energy in which energy (distribution) companies participate together with academics, NGOs, perhaps even international and state agencies.

Several contributors comment on the fact that the WRR pays scant attention to the role of the World Bank and other multilateral bodies, although the WRR does criticize the knowledge monopoly of the World Bank and even proposes setting up regional ‘world banks’ to create more ‘pluriformity’.

The development sector must have a clear vision of the Dutch strategy with regard to the multilateral system. For example, would traditional Dutch Atlanticism – the Netherlands as the bridgehead to the UK and the US – still have the highest priority in a multipolar world? Perhaps in terms of international security, but does the same apply to global development?

And is it not the US – in cahoots with China – that is frustrating far-reaching climate agreements? The WRR notes that the Netherlands is trying its best to acquire a seat at the G20, for example, but ‘in the longer term that approach would seem to be untenable’. Elsewhere, the Council contends that as far as Dutch policy is concerned, the aim is to choose ‘strategic global public goods’ with which to safeguard the development dimension. In this, five elements are of interest: scale (achieving a balance between national, regional and global public goods); the role of the Netherlands as a catalyst; new financing mechanisms; accountability for choices that are made; and a coordination point where priorities can be established.

Policy coherence for development

There is a fundamental difference between policies to safeguard global public goods and policy coherence, where the focus is not on the collective interest, but on opposing interests. Here, there are often contradictions within (donor) countries and thus within Europe, as well as between different sectors, population groups and grassroots supporters. The issue of policy coherence is therefore politically highly sensitive. That is also why, despite being a dominant theme and a priority for successive development ministers over the past two decades, it has never really been a success. The approach has always been fairly technical, based on negotiations between civil servants from various ministries in search of win–win situations, for fear of losing political support.

The WRR has also looked for an official solution, but argues that policy coherence must be implemented at a more ‘political-strategic’ rather than operational level. The Council proposes setting up a ‘bridgehead’ for development coherence within each relevant ministry, ‘with a coordinating role for a strong unit at Foreign Affairs’. But Willemijn Verkoren fears that this proposal does not go far enough, because too little attention is paid to its political nature. ‘The attempts to create more coherence are impeded by fundamental political conflicts of interest. The report … provides a number of poignant examples of Dutch interests that are contradictory to development aims: the trade in illegally cut wood, medicines, migration, military export credits and weapons. Another example could be the ‘fragile states’ agenda ... in which the (security) interests of rich countries often take precedence over development priorities. Policy coherence is then treated as a purely technical issue.’

Herman Mulder also thinks that the WRR should have gone further. Noting that the term ‘coherence‘ is limited to the public sector, Mulder feels the report ought to have been more ambitious with regard to the world of business. ‘The need and enormous potential of the “green economy” is not referred to. Neither are international standards and values for the international business community …. The need for transparency is mentioned only in passing.’

The WRR proposes a practical way to increase coherence, in the form of ‘development impact reports’, similar to environmental impact reports. Several contributors applauded the suggestion that the development impacts of each intended policy measure be assessed and published.

With regard to policy coherence for development, the WRR asserts that what is taking place is ‘a search process, here and elsewhere’. However, coherence has been discussed for decades, so the search process ought to focus on the question of why it never got off the ground. Perhaps we are now paying the price for the fact that there is only limited political pressure from society, and from development organizations. The public are unfamiliar with the political and socio-economic conflicts of interest that lie behind the term coherence; instead they have been inundated with information about the Millennium Development Goals, for example, or with campaigns by charities to provide immediate assistance to poor people affected by war or disasters such as the earthquake in Haiti, the Asian tsunami or the conflict in Darfur.

Besides improving technical coherence at the official level, stronger social movements are needed in the Netherlands to increase political pressure for real coherence. This would also be in line with the WRR vision that NGOs should function more as government watchdogs.

Extending this line of reasoning, one could argue that since development aid can act as a catalyst, more investment is needed to broaden political support for coherence.

A minister for coherence?

The Council contends that ‘the portfolio of the current minister for development cooperation should be upgraded to a package of tasks with two distinct components: managing NLAID and formulating a Dutch globalization agenda which considers a number of global problems in context and develops a Dutch perspective on them.’ Elsewhere, it proposes that the ‘line ministries take responsibility for international public goods in their own specific field of activity’, with the Ministry of General Affairs (headed by the prime minister) coordinating policy on global public goods, supplemented as necessary with ‘a special advisory council for global development’ or a ‘newly developed entity’.

There is widespread support for upgrading the post of minister for development cooperation. Various options have been considered. Ton Dietz favours a ‘Council for Global Development, Environment and Security as the coordinator of coherence, directly under the prime minister and with a minister for global sustainable development as its political head’. It links up several ideas that are circulating about a ‘council for policy coherence’ – a version of the existing Social and Economic Council (a tripartite consultation body of employers’ organizations, trade unions and government-appointed experts) that advises the government on key issues. Such a council would consist of representatives of various ministries and civil society organizations and appointed experts. The secretariat would then not be the responsibility of the minister for global (sustainable) development, since he or she will have to defend independently the interests of the poor on any such council.

Danielle Hirsch and Paul Wolvekamp also favour a ‘broadly mandated ministry for international sustainable development that would guarantee policy coherence’. Paul Hassing believes that a ‘minister for coherence and development aid’ is inevitable in the next Dutch government.

A separate ‘broad-based’ ministry should cover global (sustainable) development and human security. Other ministries should take care of their own global strategies. A special coherence council should address coherence issues and choose between the different global interests of the various ministries and other actors, among which the global development ministry. NLAID or the embassies should be the offshoots of this global development architecture and not separate entities.

Meine Pieter van Dijk talks of ‘a minister for globalization issues’ who will also have to try to create unity at the European level on trade and environment issues, since such matters are primarily arranged at that level. Paul Engel also believes that what is at stake is policy coherence at European level. ‘Why is the “substantial agenda for change” not extended to the Dutch commitment in Europe?’

Paul Hassing interprets a focus on the role of Europe as a choice for another ‘political model’: ‘The EU regards the mutual development the public and private sectors are undergoing as equal, with the role of civil society being to keep both sectors focused by drawing attention to democracy, human rights, security and the reliability of services. Is it not time to start promoting this political model rather than drawing the World Bank’s attention to the shortcomings of its political stance?’

Photo credit main picture: eVolo / C. Calihan, C. Johnson