by Federico Guerrieri

This is a synthesis of “Spotlight on Policy Coherence”, a 2009 report which is has been written by Concord Europe with the intention of forming the baseline for future analyses of the positive and negative impacts of (in)coherent EU policies on the ground.

MIGRATION

Migration should be a means by which to achieve personal aspirations. Often, however, it becomes the only option. In order to understand the causes and consequences of migration, and design appropriate, coherent measures, it is essential to distinguish between migration out of necessity, forced migration and migration out of choice.
The debate on migration and development in the EU is more oriented towards preventing migration to Europe, and creating incentives for countries of origin to manage and control migration in the so-called interest of European countries, than towards extending to third countries’ nationals the freedom of movement that EU citizens enjoy. Migrants continue to be viewed through the narrow lens of economic and demographic benefits and assessed on the basis of what they can bring to Europe, rather than seen as helping to bridge the scandalous gap between Northern and Southern countries.

EU member states are increasingly using development aid to promote their geopolitical interests, including the objective of controlling migration flows and reducing irregular migration. Under the cover of “good governance” activities, more and more aid tends to be allocated as a priority to countries of origin and countries of transit with high emigration flows towards Europe, in order to help them reinforce their border controls.

EU trade, agriculture and fisheries policies that aim primarily at meeting demands from Europe have helped endanger the livelihoods of many small farmers, fishermen and other entrepreneurs in many developing countries. This may have pushed some of these persons to embark on a migration journey they had probably never before considered, as we have conteded in a recent post. The EU must acknowledge its responsibility, and focus on finding long-term solutions to economic and social exclusion and precarious livelihoods in developing and disaster-prone countries, rather than stigmatizing individuals who are left with no other option than to migrate irregularly.

The positive aspects of migration and the contributions made by migrants to the socio-economic and cultural development of their countries of origin and of destination should be explicitly promoted and recognized, respecting fundamental rights of migrants at all stages, favoring family reunions and taking into accounts the effect of climate change. Finally, the EU should promote a common immigration policy.

CLIMATE CHANGE

The EU recognizes climate change as one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century. Climate change is not just an environmental issue, it also affects social justice, poverty and human rights. Water scarcity, food insecurity, and reduced agricultural productivity will lead over 200 million people to be displaced by 2050.

Mitigation policies must be designed to respect people’s right to development now and in the future. Richer countries with a history of high emission, the report contends, must therefore make deep cuts in their emissions. Western countries have an obligation to provide compensation for the damage caused during their own industrialisation, in order to protect the right to development of poorer countries and people.

As of yet, however, the European Union still lacks coherent policy about the levels of financing it is willing to provide to developing countries, and also about its position on technology cooperation.

TRADE

EU trade policy has major implications for developing countries around the world. Little importance is given to poverty reduction or development, while the focus is only on raising the competitiveness of European companies.

At the same time the European Union leaves no opportunities for less developed countries to protect their companies. Trade liberalization opened to international competition the internal markets of developing countries either too quickly or too extensively, undermining the rural sector and rural livelihoods. Many countries have been left with weakened national food production capacity, making them more vulnerable to volatility in international food prices and supply, thereby reducing their food security.

Although the EU argues that regional integration is one of the main objectives in its trade negotiation with regions of developing countries, in many cases the trade agreements promoted frustrate regional integration efforts and have proven to be a stumbling rather than a building block.

The EU, the report concludes, should be more responding to sustainable development and its international commitments and the Trade Sustainability Impact Assessments (TSIAs) should be radically revisited to make sure they do not prioritize competitiveness at the expense of sustainability objectives.

AGRICOLTURE

Poverty is keeping 1 billion people hungry. The question the leaders must answer is: how will more food be produced or better distributed? The 2009 report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) provides significant evidence of how small-scale, bio-diverse agriculture can achieve greater food security and reduce poverty in developing countries, but has as yet been widely ignored by European and international policymakers.
The agricultural policy reforms implemented during the Structural Adjustment Programmes as a result of the GATT/WTO agricultural trade negotiations, on the other hand, have gradually lowered stocks levels. In developing countries, these policies have resulted in low investment in local agriculture and increased dependence on the world market for staple foods. The EU leaders, together with all stakeholders, must rethink this existing food system, which is neither socially nor environmentally sustainable.
The current European approach to food in large part reflects the Global Europe strategy, centred on increasing EU competitiveness on the global market. This overarching approach is not conducive to a system better serving the poor and hungry or the environment.

The EU, the Concord report contends, should build a world food system that better serves the poor, supporting the development of viable local economies and improving the coordination of its internal organization, agencies and programs. This is fundamental in order to be coherent with its policy of promotion and protection of human rights. For what concern the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy), it is fundamental that the EU will remove export subsidies by 2013. Finally, the EU should create incentives for research and investment in “second-generation” biofuels and must ensure that productive land are not confiscated by European Companies for the expansion of agrofuels production in developing countries at the expense of food production for the local markets.

The summary of this report is part of an ongoing project of European Alternatives to look at the relations between European trade policy, European environmental policy, and the development of third-world countries.

You can find the full report by Concord Europe here: http://www.concordeurope.org/