IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/devpol/v42y2024i1ne12736.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Whose policy coherence counts? Assessing sustainable fisheries in Ghana and the European Union's engagement

Author

Listed:
  • Niels Keijzer
  • Lina Galvis
  • Sarah Delputte

Abstract

Motivation Promoting coherence for sustainable development (PCSD) is a key means of implementation for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, yet it has been overlooked as policy discussions have focused predominantly on the financing of the agenda. The literature and policy debates about PCSD largely focus on processes and on OECD countries, and they neglect their political and normative dimensions. This article complements recent literature on PCSD by elaborating and testing a relational perspective on the concept. Purpose To address these issues, this article elaborates a relational perspective that responds to the misrepresentation of third countries as passive recipients of (in)coherent OECD policy preferences. Methods and approach The analysis presented summarizes the literature on the related concepts of PCSD and Policy Coherence for Development (PCD). On this basis, the article articulates a relational perspective on policy coherence that complements other critical perspectives in the literature. Subsequently, it explores the potential and relevance of this relational perspective by analysing how the fisheries policy preferences of the European Union interact with those of Ghana. Findings Overall, the analysis shows that a commitment to sustainable fisheries cannot be assumed for either the EU or Ghana. Furthermore, assessing the responsibilities of the EU and Ghana around sustainability and degrees of adherence is difficult due to the presence of other fishing nations and influences. In the context of the EU's ambitious policy framework, the continued overfishing in Ghanaian waters negatively affects the credibility and justification of its continued involvement. Policy dialogue between the EU and the Ghanaian government and accompanying EU technical assistance have supported changes to Ghanaian fisheries policies, but overfishing continues. Policy implications Discussions on promoting PCSD should be supported by more empirical research into the extent and manner that policy preferences consider by policy‐makers to be coherent with the 2030 Agenda contribute to advancing the agenda in different country and regional contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Niels Keijzer & Lina Galvis & Sarah Delputte, 2024. "Whose policy coherence counts? Assessing sustainable fisheries in Ghana and the European Union's engagement," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 42(1), January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:42:y:2024:i:1:n:e12736
    DOI: 10.1111/dpr.12736
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12736
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/dpr.12736?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lauri Siitonen, 2022. "A normative power or fortress Europe? Normative policy coherence between the European Unionʼs development, migration, and foreign policies," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 40(S1), June.
    2. Alexander Brand & Mark Furness & Niels Keijzer, 2021. "Promoting Policy Coherence within the 2030 Agenda Framework: Externalities, Trade-Offs and Politics," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(1), pages 108-118.
    3. Harlan Koff & Sandra Häbel, 2022. "Normative coherence for development: What relevance for responsive regionalism?," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 40(S1), June.
    4. Michael King & Frank Barry & Alan Matthews, 2010. "Policy Coherence for Development: Five Challenges," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp335, IIIS, revised Aug 2010.
    5. Maurizio Carbone & Niels Keijzer, 2016. "The European Union and Policy Coherence for Development: Reforms, Results, Resistance," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 28(1), pages 30-43, January.
    6. Catherine Gegout, 2016. "Unethical power Europe? Something fishy about EU trade and development policies," Third World Quarterly, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(12), pages 2192-2210, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Frank Biermann & Thomas Hickmann & Carole-Anne Sénit & Marianne Beisheim & Steven Bernstein & Pamela Chasek & Leonie Grob & Rakhyun E. Kim & Louis J. Kotzé & Måns Nilsson & Andrea Ordóñez Llanos & Chu, 2022. "Scientific evidence on the political impact of the Sustainable Development Goals," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 5(9), pages 795-800, September.
    2. Dirk†Jan Koch, 2018. "Measuring long†term trends in policy coherence for development," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 36(1), pages 87-110, January.
    3. Sari, Dwi Amalia & Margules, Chris & Lim, Han She & Widyatmaka, Febrio & Sayer, Jeffrey & Dale, Allan & Macgregor, Colin, 2021. "Evaluating policy coherence: A case study of peatland forests on the Kampar Peninsula landscape, Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    4. Alexander Brand & Mark Furness & Niels Keijzer, 2021. "Promoting Policy Coherence within the 2030 Agenda Framework: Externalities, Trade-Offs and Politics," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(1), pages 108-118.
    5. Alfredo C. Robles, 2014. "EU Trade in Financial Services with ASEAN, Policy Coherence for Development and Financial Crisis," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(6), pages 1324-1341, November.
    6. Matti Ylönen & Anna Salmivaara, 2021. "Policy coherence across Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals: Lessons from Finland," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 39(5), pages 829-847, September.
    7. Zeigermann, Ulrike & Böcher, Michael, 2020. "Challenges for bridging the gap between knowledge and governance in sustainability policy – The case of OECD ‘Focal Points’ for Policy Coherence for Development," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    8. Weinlich, Silke & Baumann, Max-Otto & Cassens-Sasse, Maria & Hadank-Rauch, Rebecca & Leibbrandt, Franziska & Pardey, Marie & Simon, Manuel & Strey, Anina, 2022. "New rules, same practice? Analysing UN development system reform effects at the country level," IDOS Discussion Papers 3/2022, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    9. Hubert Zimmermann, 2019. "The European Parliament and the Layered Politicization of the External Dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 237-247.
    10. Omar A. Guerrero & Gonzalo Casta~neda, 2019. "Quantifying the Coherence of Development Policy Priorities," Papers 1902.00430, arXiv.org.
    11. Rudolph, Alexandra, 2017. "The concept of SDG-sensitive development cooperation: implications for OECD-DAC members," IDOS Discussion Papers 1/2017, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    12. Siemen Berkum & Ruerd Ruben, 2021. "Exploring a food system index for understanding food system transformation processes," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 13(5), pages 1179-1191, October.
    13. Hannah Kosow & Sandra Wassermann & Stephan Bartke & Paul Goede & Detlef Grimski & Ines Imbert & Till Jenssen & Oliver Laukel & Matthias Proske & Jochen Protzer & Kim Philip Schumacher & Stefan Siedent, 2022. "Addressing Goal Conflicts: New Policy Mixes for Commercial Land Use Management," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-26, May.
    14. Heiner Janus & Stephan Klingebiel & Sebastian Paulo, 2015. "Beyond Aid: A Conceptual Perspective on the Transformation of Development Cooperation," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 155-169, March.
    15. Aydin Yildirim & Robert Basedow & Matteo Fiorini & Bernard Hoekman, 2021. "EU Trade and Non‐trade Objectives: New Survey Evidence on Policy Design and Effectiveness," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 556-568, May.
    16. Hoekman, Bernard & Shingal, Anirudh, 2024. "Development Goals, commercial interest and EU Aid-for-Trade," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    17. Joyce, Corona, 2014. "Annual Policy Report on Migration and Asylum 2012: Ireland," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number SUSTAT52.
    18. Antonio Sianes & Luis A. Fernández-Portillo & Adela Toscano-Valle & Elena Pérez-Velasco, 2023. "Heterogeneity in financing for development strategies as a hindering factor to achieve a global agreement on the 2030 Agenda," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    19. Henökl, Thomas, 2016. "Comparing structure and organisation of development bureaucracies in Europe: a pilot study of European aid administrations," IDOS Discussion Papers 27/2016, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    20. Sandra Häbel & Harlan Koff & Marie Adam, 2022. "Normative coherence for development and regionalism: Gender equality in ASEAN's migration policies," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 40(S1), June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:42:y:2024:i:1:n:e12736. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/odioruk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.