STRATEGY DOCUMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF POOR COUNTRIES MUST STRESS GOVERNANCE AND CAPACITY-BUILDING, PREPARATORY COMMITTEE TOLD
Press Release
DEV/2256
STRATEGY DOCUMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF POOR COUNTRIES MUST STRESS GOVERNANCE AND CAPACITY-BUILDING, PREPARATORY COMMITTEE TOLD
20000726Future strategy documents for the development of poor countries must stress issues of governance and capacity-building institutions, human resources development and action on aid, debt, trade and foreign investment, Mary Chinery- Hesse, Chairperson of a high-level panel, told the Intergovernmental Preparatory Conference on the Third United Nations Conference on Least Developed Countries this morning.
The panel is reviewing, among other things, the implementation of the Programme of Action adopted at the 1990 Second Conference on Least Developed Countries at the national and international levels, including international support measures particularly in the area of official development assistance (ODA), investment and trade.
She said the involvement of both poor countries and their development partners in the preparatory stages of forging a new programme of action at the 2001 Third Conference held better promise for its future successful implementation. The panel had discovered a general lack of awareness of the content of the 1990 Programme of Action stemming from a variety of reasons, including lack of dissemination of the Programme's contents to a wider set of stakeholders, absence of institutional memory, and shortage of human resources, and relevant and reliable statistics.
Anna Tibaijuka, Executive Secretary of the Third Conference, which is to be held in Brussels, said that the in-country preparatory process would assist least developed countries (LDCs) in mobilizing resources, as well as generating national debate among government policy-makers and civil society -- on development priorities, polices, and measures. It was also hoped it would help foster ownership among all actors at the national level. The pace of preparatory activities in-country had been mixed -- with somewhat less than one half of national Programmes completed -- due to red tape, unwieldy coordination arrangements, and funding problems. It had been important to explain that preparations for the Conference were meant to coordinate many of the ongoing initiatives and reduce overlapping planning demands.
In discussions that followed the two presentations, a number of representatives of the least developed countries again drew attention to the worsening situation of LDCs and the slow progress made in the implementation of commitments made at the last conference.
Preparatory Committee - 2 - Press Release DEV/2256 3rd Meeting (AM & PM) 26 July 2000
The representative of Norway said it was not enough to focus only on international support measures. Planning, action and follow-up at the national level remained essential for all partners in development. His Government favoured a "bottom-up" approach to development in the LDCs, and also stressed the importance of the full involvement of all relevant United Nations agencies at the country level.
The representative of the United States said the Conference should look at the problem of poverty eradication and outline how it should be tackled in a significant manner. Ultimately poverty reduction should be tackled at the country level, and the Conference must articulate what needed to be done, such as institution-building capacities and specific actions that should be undertaken at various levels. The Conference would have the support of the United States Government if it achieved that.
Also making statements were the representatives of Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Japan, Burkina Faso, Benin, Nepal, Zambia, Angola, Lesotho, Republic of Korea, Yemen, Turkey, Sudan, Kenya, China, Guinea, and Canada. The Observer for Switzerland and an official of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) also made statements. A representative of a non-governmental organization also spoke.
The Intergovernmental Preparatory Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 27 July, to consider the topic: "development and strengthening of productive capacity" as part of its substantive preparations for the Third United Nations Conference on Least Developed Countries.
Statements
MARY CHINERY-HESSE (Ghana), Chairperson of the High-level Panel for the Review of the Implementation of the Programme of Action for the 1990s, told the meeting that the Panel's mandate was, among other things, to assess the results of the Programme at the country level. It was also to review the implementation of international support measures, particularly in the area of official development assistance (ODA), investment and trade, and to suggest appropriate policy measures as a contribution towards the preparation of the next programme of action. The Panel was appointed by the Secretary-General of the Third United Nations Conference for Least Developed Countries, who is also Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).
Judging from documentation put at their disposal, and also from field visits carried out by them, she said the Panel had found, preliminarily, a general lack of awareness of the content of the Programme of Action, its implications for policy-making and, in particular, the responsibilities and commitments undertaken by LDCs in the Programme of Action. (The Programme was adopted at the Second United Nations Conference on Least Developed Countries held in Paris in 1990).
There were several reasons for that situation, including lack of institutional memory; lack of dissemination of the contents of the Programme to a wider set of stakeholders; and the difficulty in coordinating it with those adopted at global conferences and the challenges of implementing them. Another problem was monitoring the implementation of the Programme at the country level in the face of considerable shortage of human resources, and relevant and reliable statistics. The Panel also found that despite the lack of awareness of the Programme of Action, the LDC governments had initiated and implemented policies in the last 10 years that accorded with its provisions. In a few cases, the Programme actually served as an input for the design of national development plans. A central concern in the countries visited by the Panel was that, despite serious efforts on their part, there had been major shortfalls in the support envisaged under the Programme from their development partners, in terms of aid, debt relief, market access and foreign investment. The potential benefits expected from domestic efforts and policy reforms had, therefore, been limited.
She went on to list the shortcomings of the 1990 strategy document that had become apparent to them. They included lack of focus; absence of benchmarks and indicators; and a narrow definition of stakeholders.
On the latter, she said the Programme identified two main stakeholders in the development process, namely, the LDC governments and their development partners. It did not, she said, fully and effectively acknowledge the role of civil society institutions and the private sector in the development process, and did not refer to them as equal partners. That had resulted in a lack of ownership of the Programme of Action by this group of stakeholders, with the result that they could not contribute fully to its successful implementation.
Another shortcoming was the lack of recognition of regional integration issues, she said. The role of regional groupings, of neighbouring countries, and South-South cooperation had not been adequately incorporated in the Programme.
Their findings had tentatively enabled them to define areas for specific emphasis in the strategy document. Those areas included issues of governance and capacity-building institutions; poverty and national strategies for economic development; human resources development; resource mobilization and deployment; and the role of external actors, aid debt, trade and foreign investments. One definite conclusion the Panel had already drawn was that the current approach of involving countries -- both LDCs and their development partners -- early on in the preparatory stages of forging a new programme for the LDCs -- held better promise for future successful implementation.
The Panel planned another meeting in New York early in September when it hoped to give definitive advice on the draft strategy document. The conclusions of the Preparatory Committee should give the Panel further guidance on how best it could maximize its contribution to the preparation of the next Programme of Action.
ANNA KAJUMULO TIBAIJUKA, Executive Secretary of the Conference, said she was very encouraged about the preparation of country-level programmes of action.
She said that the country-preparatory process had been launched in 46 least developed countries, and todate the Committee had received 16 draft country programmes of action. It was hoped that the in-country work would assist LDCs in mobilizing resources and generating a national debate among government policy- makers and civil society on development priorities, polices, and measures. It was also hoped it would help foster ownership among all actors at the national level.
She said that LDCs who were not able to present a draft programme of action at the first Preparatory Committee meeting were expected to submit, at the least, a review of the results of the programme of action for the 1990s in their countries.
The pace of preparatory activities in-country had been mixed, due to red tape, unwieldy coordination arrangements, and funding problems, she said. Indeed, the capacity of government officials appeared to be overwhelmed by the planning requirements of various international programmes, including annual reviews for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and World Bank meetings. Many of these activities seemed to be redundant. Country desk officers had been appointed to assist.
She said it had been important to explain that preparations for the Third United Nations Conference on Least Developed Countries were meant to coordinate many of the ongoing initiatives and reduce overlapping planning demands. It was also important to make sure that the country-level programmes of action were actually used as a framework that coordinated international support for the LDCs for the coming decade.
She introduced a note prepared by the secretariat, entitled Sustainable Development of the Least Developed Countries and Their Beneficial Integration into the Global Economy: Past Performance, Challenges and the Way Forward. The note reviewed developments within LDCs, both at macro and sectoral levels, as well as international support measures. In applying it to Conference preparations, she hoped critical bottlenecks would be focused upon, for example, getting countries that had not honoured agreements reached in past global conferences to do so, and securing additional concessions in favour of LDCs, to assist their effort to integrate into the global economy.
In addition to the note from the secretariat, she introduced three other documents. The Least Developed Countries 1999 Report, she said, examined the poor performance of these countries in world trade and a host of structural - and other supply-side - constraints that had caused it. The Trade and Development Report of 1999 took a fresh look at pressing issues on the trade agenda, and offered reflections on the Asian financial crisis.
Finally, she introduced a brief note on progress in the implementation of the Integrated Framework for Trade-Related Technical Assistance. The heads of six agencies involved in this effort met in New York on 6 July.
OJEMMAL OMAR (Ethiopia) expressed frustration at the worsening situation of LDCs since the last conference, while development assistance had also declined. He called for developed countries to meet their ODA targets, and stressed the need for debt relief. The Integrated Framework had been put into place much too slowly; reforms at the country level must be matched by international assistance.
IFTERKHAR CHOWDHURY (Bangladesh) agreed with the need to achieve a single paradigm for the plethora of development programmes. He noted that a comprehensive plan of action which attempted to do this had been drawn up by LDCs themselves for the tenth session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD X). In addition, he said that the Integrated Framework certainly needed a shot in the arm, and he welcomed the 6 July meeting as a D-Day for it.
HITOSHI KIKUCHI (Japan) said that Japan, a large donor of ODA, was very interested in the results of the upcoming Conference. In creating an overall programme of action that was feasible and embraced by the countries themselves, it was essential to receive the programmes of action from all LDCs in a timely manner. The resulting Programme of Action should be integrated into all development programmes, especially that of the UNDP, and the World Bank. And, for the most effective use of financial resources, the Programme of Action should correspond to the priorities of the national governments and civil societies.
BJORN SKOGMO (Norway) said the situation of the least developed countries was a crucial issue in the debate of how the international community was going to face the twenty-first century. It was crucial in the efforts to reduce absolute poverty, which was a number one priority for the United Nations system. Peace, stability and international security must be ensured. It was also crucial to promote human rights, global health, sustainable development and capacity- building.
The plan of action to be adopted at the forthcoming Conference should reflect and build upon ongoing coordination efforts and development frameworks aimed at poverty reduction. Norway supported the bottom-up approach to development. It was not enough for focus to be placed only on international support measures. Planning, action and follow-up at the national level remained essential for all partners in development. The next programme of action must have a follow-up component, also at the national level.
He called for full participation of all agencies in the preparatory process, including at the national level. He said UNCTAD -- which was the lead body for the organization of the Conference -- could not and should not carry the burden alone. Follow-up mechanisms at the country level should not be an added burden. Inter-agency task forces should be organized to ensure effective follow-up to the Third Conference.
The lack of inter-agency participation and coordination had seriously hurt the implementation of some of the initiatives taken during the 1990s to assist the LDCs. The action programme adopted at Brussels next year should be an efficient and integrated document.
SHANKAR SHARMA (Nepal) said that for the Conference to be one with a difference, it was imperative that focus be placed on the difficulties faced in translating the commitments of the last conference. The preparatory process must also focus on the question of institutional arrangements to implement the programmes.
HERRICK MPUKU (Zambia) said the 1990s registered relative successes and constraints in the development process of his country. Some of the major unfavourable factors during the period included dependency on mining, accumulation of a large and unsustainable external debt, and insufficient and declining investment, especially in productive sectors.
The situation had left the country with deterioration of the general infrastructure, a weak private sector, a huge and unsustainable debt burden, and a high level of poverty among the people. The critical issues that needed to be addressed in the country included reduction of poverty, sustainable solution to the debt burden, and the strengthening and upholding of good governance, both economic and political.
The Third Conference offered an opportunity for its development partners to spell out a concrete and practical strategy to turn all World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements that had a supply capacity into instruments capable of transforming the productive capacity of LDCs.
JOAO LUSEVIKUENO (Angola) was sceptical about a successful outcome of the Conference unless bold measures were taken. There should be access to the markets of the industrialized countries. Insurmountable tariffs had created problems for improvements in the export capacity of LDCs. The developed world must have courage to change policies that prevented access to markets. He also called for the harmonization of policies of the various agencies.
OLIVIER CHAVE, Observer for Switzerland, said that the Programme of Action must take into consideration the internal dynamics of the countries concerned. Ideas should be developed further within the framework of the work the Committee was engaged in, and reports should provide statements on a more convincing basis.
His delegation supported the bottom-up approach, with reservations. It was important that each country analyse the lack of progress in their individual cases. However, concepts normally grouped under development were not well- analysed, for example, good governance. Analysis of success stories and the most difficult cases were also very important, as was interregional commerce and market access. Switzerland had long been involved in assisting LDCs in this regard, and it was important to listen to other stakeholders in this area.
DABIRE BONOUDABA (Burkina Faso) said that the formulation of the Programme of Action that emanated from the Paris Conference was not based on country programmes. The Programme of Action that came out of Brussels should be so based. He stressed that regional coordination should be a priority. It was difficult to produce a document that would incorporate all development initiatives.
EDOUARD AHO-GLELE (Benin) said that he was involved in reviewing the implementation of the Programme of Action of the 1990s, but had great difficulties in getting the necessary information. This process could indicate which international structures would be effective in implementing future programmes. The implementation must be carried out on the basis of indicators, which must be spelled out. Emphasis must be placed on developing the capacities of LDCs. The number one priority should be increasing production capacity; if there was no production, no market access was needed. Market access should be discussed on the regional level.
JAMES MACKIE, of the Non-governmental Organization Forum, said that the Conference needed a rights-based approach to development. He warned that little progress had been achieved in the past 19 years, and that there was a danger that the upcoming Conference would accomplish little, as well. In the world context of globalization, the rich were getting richer; the poor, poorer. Great political will was needed to achieve a breakthrough, and it was disturbing that the G-8 summit had nothing to say about the situation of LDCs.
The whole debate needed to be reframed to look at what needed to be done to break the cycle. Experience in other processes should be focused on. Historical and structural causes of poverty needed to be looked at. There were institutional restraints such as unfavourable trade agreements, and attitudinal factors that were a problem, as well.
It was necessary, he said, to rethink free-market economics in the case of the LDCs. Debts needed to be cancelled and markets opened. In addition, mechanisms should be radically reorganized. There should be a total ban on arms sales. And national governments should acquire moral authority through good governance and cooperation. He wanted non-governmental organizations and civil society to be fully involved in development planning at all levels; conferences should be scheduled so that NGO staff could attend all relevant ones.
J.P. SETIPA (Lesotho) stressed the importance of poverty reduction and the coordination of development efforts, under the Integrated Framework. His delegation also called for full support of the Trust Fund, and coherence of policy between all organizations involved in country-level development.
KIM BYUNG-YUN (Republic of Korea) said that difficulties of LDCs were multi- dimensional and were exacerbated by globalization. They required macroeconomic, structural, and socio-economic reforms on the national level, with the support of the international community. He said that his country had learned much from the recent Asian economic difficulties -- including respect for market principles, transparency and accountability in policy-making that could be applied to the economic development of the LCD countrys situations.
Mr. MOULA (Yemen) said that his Government faced financial problems in implementing the preparatory activities in his country. Furthermore, certain aspects of the activities at the national level were not made clear, in terms of their expectations in the areas of time frame and financing.
CATHERINE GRAS (France) said that the drafting of a new programme should be carried out in partnership between the developing and developed nations and the United Nations family. This partnership should encompass common goals, common commitments, and reciprocal obligations. The United Nations family itself should act as a whole. All planning should be coordinated with national plans. Methodology must be consistent in the areas of planning and assessment. And quantified targets were needed as goals that would constitute the essential basis for this partnership. The UNDP had established a number of such key indicators and should be able to help out in this area.
FERHAN ERKMENOGLU (Turkey) said ODA had been declining, beginning from the early 1990s, and the LDCs had not been enabled to compensate for the shortfalls. Their external debt continued to hamper their ability to harness resources for development. The decline in commodity prices was weakening their resources. A proper and balanced multilateral system must ensure the full participation of all countries. Turkey favoured new mechanisms for that purpose.
He said Turkey had announced a system of preferences which would allow more than 500 products from developing countries to enter its markets. He said ways must be found to strengthen the multilateral system. The Brussels Conference must come up with measures to help LDCs overcome constraints they faced.
ALI RAHMAN MAHMOUD (Sudan) said the activities of the Bretton Woods institutions - the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank - must be harmonized with the other agencies in the preparatory process at the national level.
ADAM EDOW (Kenya) said national programmes must be implemented and monitored. The LDCs must be integrated into the world economy. They required new and additional resources to help them build their capacity and strengthen their position in world trade. The Bretton Woods institutions must help them in those efforts. They must also be granted access to markets through removal of trade barriers. He also said LDCs must prepare sound economic policies on their own. He underscored the important role of non-governmental organizations in the preparatory process and the Conference.
HUANG XUEQI (China) said that the LDCs should mainly rely on their own efforts to achieve developments, but due to globalization, they must rely on the full support of the international community to integrate into the world economy. Official development assistance, debt alleviation, trade development, and foreign investment are the most important areas to consider in this regard. However, ODA had been reduced.
The Chinese delegation would like to express its great concern regarding the prospects of LDCs in the current environment. The most developed countries should reverse the decline of ODA, honour all commitments, and go beyond planning to implementation. They should encourage diversification and open markets. China itself is a developing country, but had assisted other developing countries through various arrangements.
FAMOUDOU MAGASSOUBA (Guinea) said that the important thing was implementation. In countries where there were no plans of action, though, implementation could not be spoken about. To encourage the completion of these action plans, documents should be accessible and easy to understand, so everyone could participate in both planning and implementation.
GINETTE LACHANCE (Canada) said that lessons should be drawn from the failures of the 1990s. These could include the importance of country ownership of the national planning process, and that poverty-reduction strategies must be organized within the United Nations development framework. It was important, she said, to utilize whatever already existed, to have a participatory approach, and to balance the emphasis between internal and external elements. Finally, she agreed that partnership was essential for the success of the upcoming Conference.
M. AYNUL HASAN, of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), said that until all country action programmes were ready, the framework for global plans could not be created. The most import issues were monitoring and implementation. Deficiencies in those areas were important reasons for the shortfalls of the 1990s. Institutional mechanisms for monitoring should start up after the 2001 Programme was ready.
NORMAN NICHOLSON (United States) said the Conference provided opportunity for focus to be clearly placed on poverty eradication. The Conference should look directly at the problem and outline how it should be tackled in a significant manner. The Conference would accomplish a great deal if specific ways were found to deal with constraints hampering poverty-reduction programmes at the national level. Ultimately, poverty reduction should be tackled at the country level. The Conference must articulate what needed to be done, such as the building of
institutional capacities and specific actions that should be undertaken at the various levels, nationally and regionally. The Conference would have the support of the United States Government if it achieved that. Full participation of all stakeholders could advance emerging consensus about the development agenda for the next decade.
Ms. TIBAIJUKA, Executive Secretary of the Third Conference, responding to comments made during the discussions, said three regional coordinators had been appointed. They were based in Yaoundé, Cameroon; Dhaka, Bangladesh; and Dar Es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania. Full-time officials had been employed to help governments with the preparations of their programmes of action.
One of the biggest problems faced by the secretariat was that funds pledged for the preparatory conference had not reached the UNCTAD secretariat. She appealed for understanding by countries that did not have coordinators helping them.
She said work on the drafting of the final Conference document had not started because of the need for country-level inputs. In response to a question, she said the basic methodology used by the High-level Panel in determining their conclusions on the implementation of the Programme of Action for the 1990s included visits to LDCs and examination of documents submitted to them. The Panel planned visits to the development partners of the LDCs.
* *** *