THE QUEST FOR COHERENCE OF EU POLICIES

The quest for coherence is not easy. The EU has to accommodate many diverse and legitimate sectoral and national interests. Its decision-making system is moreover complex and involves the various institutions of the EU through a variety of ways. This diversity in decision-making filters through to the level of implementation so that existing information and machinery for concerted action, vital to achieve a degree of coherence, are frequently inadequate.

What is Coherence?

The desire for coherence, defined as the absence of, or a reduction in contradictions between various aspects of public policy, is shared by all ,who would like to see more effective EU policies.

Five aspects of coherence can be distinguished.

• between the various instruments of a given policy;
• between EU and Member States policies;
• between various European policies;
• between the EU and other international bodies;
• between policies of the EU and of recipients.

In EU jargon, this wider agenda for a consistent EU action is referred to as the three Cs: coherence, complementarity and coordination. Coherence applies specifically to the relationship between various EU policies.

An Impossible Task?

Several factors causing inconsistency are worth mentioning:
 

Conflicts of Interest

Incoherence is a natural feature of pluralist systems of governance. When they take decisions, governments have to find a compromise between the various policies they wish to adopt and a wide range of individual, collective or institutional interests, within both the public and the private domains. Each decision calls for a weighing up of demands and choices, so it is virtually impossible to reconcile the objectives of all government policy and the interests of all lobbies, however legitimate they may be. The final aim is to reduce inconsistencies to an acceptable level, rather than trying to eliminate them entirely.

Lack of Knowledge on the Impact of European Policies

Incoherence also stems from a lack of information on the potential effect of policies resulting in situations where the "left hand does not know what the right hand is doing". This makes incoherence difficult to detect and hard to quantify.

Complex Decision-making Systems

The way in which the European Union reaches its decisions also gives rise to incoherence. Three bodies are involved: The Commission, which makes policy proposals and ensures their implementation, the European Parliament and the Council, which represents the interests of the Member States. This procedural complexity obviously affects the overall coherence of European policy. It makes policy adjustments difficult when inconsistencies are uncovered.  

Incoherence: The State of Affairs

Experience suggests that policy incoherence can be classified on the basis of three criteria.
 

Structural or Unforeseen Inconsistencies

The first question relates to the scope of the incoherence. Is the measure an isolated or even accidental one, or is a structural problem affecting an entire policy? The answer will affect the measures and attitudes required.

First of all, unintended policy can, once detected, easily be corrected, provided there is no political cost arising from a conflict of interest. In this first category, it is essential that inconsistencies be spotted easily. Having the right machinery for consultations between the various official sections, and between them and non-governmental actors with the necessary information will be a distinct advantage.

At the end of the day, however, a decision has to be taken. This may turn out to be a compromise, but may come down to arbitration, which does not always favour a given policy. This is the stage at which the power game between the various actors - official policy-makers and interest groups - intervenes.

Incoherence - According to Whom?

The appreciation of incoherence depends on the people at the receiving end of such policies. What appears inconsistent to one, because it is contrary to their interests, will not be for others.

Incoherence - Whose Responsibility?

A third angle from which to evaluate inconsistencies is that of the actors involved. The strategies used in bringing pressure to bear and the chances of success vary from one case to another because of the identity and the relative strengths of the various actors.

The second question of importance is whether or not the stakeholders concerned play a role in the drafting of policy.

Promoting Development-friendly Policies

Encourage Open Decision-making

Open and transparent decision making is a prerequisite for European policy coherence. Six factors can contribute to that:

• Information. Reliable information is a prerequisite for transparent decision-making. Manipulating information, either by withholding it or misinterpreting it, is a major element of politicised decision-making. Information is one way of making up for the democratic deficit of the EU, by enabling a large number of stakeholders to express their views, in full knowledge of the facts. Information is also the best way to spot the origins of incoherence on time.
• Analysis. Independent analysis is crucial to find alternatives to policy incoherence and to monitor EU policy implementation and decision-making.
• Capacity. The European Commission and concerned actors need the capacity to collect data, provide information and conduct analyses. Civil society actors involved in the coherence debate need, in addition to this technical capability, a good understanding of how the European system's wheels go round and a highly professional approach in lobbying.
• Procedures. Information, analysis and lobbying will be of no use if the receptiveness of other European policies is not ensured.
• Linkages. The "Brussels world" and the links it maintains with the Member States is the cause and subject of inconsistencies – because there is a myriad of networks. The art of lobbying lies in identifying the right partners and forming effective networks representing the interests that are at stake.
• Dialogue. Establishing networks, setting up procedures, or ensuring that information is flowing are insufficient. A genuine dialogue needs to take place in order to resolve contradictions and achieve compromises between the various interests.

Mobilise Opinion and Seek Alliances

Public opinion and alliances with other interest groups are useful ways to promote coherence. The various coherence-related campaigns conducted by NGOs point at certain factors for success:

• clear messages which can be understood and supported by public opinion, and channelled by the media;
• accurate facts and precise field research on which to base campaigns;
• alliance-building with other actors.

Convince Rather than Confront

To clear up inconsistencies, the art of persuasion is preferable to confrontation.  
 

Put Coherence on the Partnership Agenda

A search for improved coherence of EU policies cannot and should not take place solely within or around European institutions.