VZCZCXRO2010
RR RUEHRN
DE RUEHFR #0061/01 0191611
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 191611Z JAN 10
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8081
RUEHSS/OECD POSTS COLLECTIVE
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 2162
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA 0001
RUEHJA/AMEMBASSY JAKARTA 0748
RUEHSA/AMEMBASSY PRETORIA 1981
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI 1352
RUEHSG/AMEMBASSY SANTIAGO 0018
RUEHSL/AMEMBASSY BRATISLAVA 0027

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 000061 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
ALSO FOR USAID 
 
SENT FROM USOECD 
 
12958:  N/A 
TAGS: EAID ETRD OECD
SUBJECT: OECD: POLICY COHERENCE FOR DEVELOPMENT 
 
PARIS 00000061  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary:  Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development (OECD) member states are engaged in a reflective 
exercise on how best to incorporate development into OECD activities 
writ large, both in terms of engaging developing countries in a 
two-way dialogue, extending support to developing countries in areas 
of OECD competence and examining the extent to which OECD and member 
state policies and recommendations are compatible with development 
goals ("Policy Coherence for Development").  The exercise challenges 
OECD members to consider how to reflect a "development dimension" 
while staying true to the OECD's original mandate and its 
time-tested committee-led structure (and avoiding overlap with other 
international organizations.)  Of note, the OECD has already 
successfully harnessed its policy experience and "brand name" cachet 
to a number of innovative outreach activities for developing 
countries, particularly in the area of tax policies.  End summary. 
 
 
Policy Coherence for Development 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (SBU) In 2008 the OECD Council launched a process to prepare 
goals for a long-term development agenda for the OECD which would 
take the organization beyond the traditional "donor coordination" 
role and expand the OECD's engagement with new actors and promote 
coherence of policies beyond aid in support of development.  As a 
result, OECD members are currently engaged in a reflective exercise 
on how best to address development in OECD activities writ large, 
both in terms of engaging developing countries in a two-way 
dialogue, extending support to developing countries in areas of OECD 
competence and examining the extent to which OECD and member state 
policies and recommendations are compatible with development goals 
("Policy Coherence for Development").  The January 21 Council 
session (which will include the participation of Enhanced Engagement 
partners) will officially kick off this discussion, although a 
high-level meeting on January 15 on "Development Goals" provided 
members an advance opportunity to speak frankly on some of the 
opportunities - and pitfalls - lie ahead. 
 
Let Me Mainstream - But Not Today! 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) A tour de table at the January 15 event showed superficial 
agreement on what many members called the "politically correct" 
mantra that development should - in theory - be mainstreamed into 
OECD work.  However views were mixed on the rigor with which true 
"Policy Coherence for Development" could and should be enforced. 
Sweden, Australia and Canada noted that the most significant OECD 
member "incoherence" (and one that negatively affected developing 
countries) was in the area of agricultural policy (others added 
migration).  They pointed out, however, that members were not eager 
to discuss this particular lack of coherence.  Finland noted that - 
particularly in a time of global economic crisis - national 
interests would trump development, stating that "our leaders have 
other constituencies than development institutions."  The European 
Commission stated OECD committees should be mindful of policy 
coherence, but added that the WTO was the forum to address trade and 
agriculture issues.  The UK and Denmark concluded that mainstreaming 
was probably better thought of as a long-term rather than short term 
goal. 
 
Improving OECD Outreach to Developing Countries 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
¶4. (SBU) Most members agreed that there were OECD activities and 
products of interest to and use by developing countries - and that a 
surprisingly large number of excellent activities were ongoing.  The 
Africa Tax Forum was cited as a good example of OECD outreach within 
its particular area of expertise.  The OECD/MENA program was 
described as a positive example with strong developing country 
ownership.  The majority of members stressed that the OECD should 
not become a "development agency" and therefore needed to prioritize 
the areas for work with developing countries. USDel cited areas such 
as taxation, anti-bribery and promoting sound economic policies as 
priority areas.  Other countries highlighted food security, climate 
change and investment policies. 
 
¶5. (SBU) The European Commission noted that as Official Development 
Assistance (ODA) funding was tight, the OECD could helpfully analyze 
innovative financing sources, such as remittances, and taxation, and 
 
PARIS 00000061  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
highlighted the excellent work the Development Center is doing with 
Africa. The Czech Republic seconded this suggestion, suggesting that 
the OECD Development Center study the role and impact of non-ODA 
sources of funding.  Finland suggested that the Development Center 
analyze the last half a century of development assistance.  A number 
of countries regretted the fact that not all OECD members were 
members of the Development Center (Comment: referring most notably 
to the United States, Japan, and Australia.  End comment).  Belgium 
noted that "Policy Coherence for Development" was about promoting 
behavioral change of donors.  But it was important to know what the 
developing countries themselves wanted.  The Development Center 
should be used as a platform to find this out.  Several members 
asked who the target countries were: was it the least developed 
countries, the middle-income developing countries, the emerging 
economies?  Members noted that in this day and age the "catch-all" 
of developing country was increasingly meaningless.  USDel and the 
European Commission welcomed the discussion as a whole as reflecting 
the "whole of government" approach that was taking place in 
Washington and Brussels. 
 
Questions on Process 
--------------------- 
 
¶6.  (SBU) Members had questions on the end product of the exercise: 
would the final outcome of the exercise be a Ministerial Council 
Meeting (MCM) declaration?  Would it be a binding recommendation? 
Would it be a requirement to OECD Committees to integrate a 
development perspective that would eventually be part of the 
biennial Program of Work and Budget? It was noted that unless OECD 
committees - the work-horses of the OECD project - were involved, 
the outcome was unlikely to be meaningful. 
 
¶7. (SBU) The Netherlands -speaking last -summarized the debate 
nicely by saying: "I cannot answer these questions because I don't 
know what we want."  Are we trying to improve the effectiveness of 
OECD bodies or are we trying to find ways and means to increase 
cooperation with developing countries?  He suggested that all OECD 
committees be asked to report to the Council to explain what they 
were doing on development now, and what their development dimension 
could be (note: this process has actually already been initiated in 
the run-up to the January 21 Council meeting on Development.  End 
note) 
 
Comment: 
-------- 
 
¶8.  The exercise as a whole serves as a reminder that - in an era of 
globalization and increasing economic clout by major emerging 
economies - the D in OECD can no longer to be assumed to be simply 
the development of Western economies.  The debate also demonstrates 
the tension that OECD members (to varying degrees) see between 
incorporating a "development dimension" to the OECD's work while 
staying true to its original mandate (and its time-tested 
committee-led structure.)  But discussions notwithstanding, it is 
clear that the OECD has already successfully harnessed its policy 
experience and "brand name" cachet to a number of innovative 
outreach activities for developing countries, particularly in the 
area of tax policies.  Kornbluh