PRESS BRIEFING BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF UN CENTRE FOR HUMAN SETTLEMENTS
Press Briefing
PRESS BRIEFING BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF UN CENTRE FOR HUMAN SETTLEMENTS
20001012After a period of managerial turbulence, the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) had now been revitalized and a strategic vision put in place, Anna Kajumulo Tibaijuka, the newly appointed Executive Director of the Centre told correspondents at a Headquarters press briefing this afternoon.
Also present at the briefing was Odyek Agona, Economic Affairs Officer, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).
Ms. Tibaijuka, who was also in New York for the launch of UNCTAD's Least Developed Countries 2000 Report, said her role at Habitat was to further strengthen it as it addressed the challenge of increasing its leadership role as the coordinating agency for the human settlement agenda.
She said the problems of cities were well articulated in the Habitat agenda, which had been agreed on at the Habitat II conference in Istanbul in 1996. (The twin goals of the agenda were "sustainable human settlements development in an urbanizing world" and "adequate shelter for all.) Implementation of that agenda was presently being discussed in the Second Committee (Economic and Financial). There would also be a special General Assembly in June 2001 to review the process. That session would probably be held in New York at United Nations Headquarters.
Ms. Tibaijuka said the problems facing human settlements ranged from pollution to unemployment, poverty and crime. The role of Habitat was to articulate strategies for improving the quality of life in cities and creating more and friendlier environments for people to live in. It was a very challenging mandate because it touched on practically all aspects of life. That coordinating role, however, had beleaguered the Centre since its creation in 1978. The key question for Habitat was "how do you actually bring the different partners together"?
Ms. Tibaijuka went on to say that in the articulated vision of Habitat it had become apparent that work in the area of policy advocacy would be very important. The Centre had thus now embarked upon advocacy campaigns on secure tenure and good urban governance. Brick and mortar alone would not do the trick. Problems continued and they were persistent. The value systems therefore had to change. The problems of cities would not go away unless the societies, communities and peoples decided that they should go away.
The Executive Director said the new vision of Habitat was to engage not only in operational activities but also to look at the policies, value systems and the political will to provide shelter for everyone. "So the right to housing is now the underlying belief and philosophy behind our campaign on secure tenure", she said. There was also a need for an institutional setting or framework in which that could be carried out. The Centre, however, was quite aware that it could not engage in political rhetoric. "It is easy to declare the right to housing, but if there were no houses, some people would be on the street", she said.
"We are trying now to encourage the international system to increase both the spirit of solidarity and understanding of the problem of settlements", Ms. Tibaijuka said. "We have to learn from what we call best practices, and these can be found all over the world". In the village which she came from, for
Tibaijuka Briefing - 2 - 12 October 2000
example, everybody had access to shelter. Yet in some cities where one could see skyscrapers and much affluence, some people were destitute. That raised issues of redistribution and questioned value systems. Only political will could solve some of the problems being faced.
The Least Developed Countries 2000 Report was one of the flagship reports of the United Nations, Ms. Tibaijuka said. Since 1998, the report had targeted the Third United Nations Conference on Least Developed Countries, which was being hosted by the European Union and would be held in Brussels in May 2001. The 1998 report had looked at the issue of market access for least developed countries (LDCs). The 1999 report had focused on the whole problem of productive capacity. The current report built upon the 1999 document and examined the issue of aid, external debt and financial flows to the LDCs.
She said the report basically dealt with the challenge of financing development in LDCs. The facts were well known. Two thirds of those countries had lost ground to low-income States and other developing nations during the 1990s. Nearly half the LDCs had experienced economic stagnation or regression. The average life expectancy in those countries was 50 years and half their populations was illiterate.
Ms. Tibaijuka said that by 2015 only eight LDCs were expected to reach the United Nations goal of universal primary education and only four would achieve a one-third decrease in infant mortality. In other words, the current report was saying that against that background of increasing poverty "how are we going to solve the problem and how are these countries going to rise from the vicious cycle in which they find themselves"?
The Executive Director went on to say that because of the situation prevailing in LDCs, they were the least able to attract private capital flows. There was a myth going around that private sector markets might solve the problems facing some of those countries. The report argued that that that was not really the answer and that official development assistance (ODA), now in decline, would be important in breaking the vicious cycle in which LDCs found themselves. That was the main conclusion of the report.
Ms. Tibaijuka said that LDCs also formed 70 per cent of the heavily indebted poor countries. So the debt problem was actually an LDC problem. The report argued that ODA must come in to solve the problem of indebtedness. It also argued that while measures such as the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Debt Initiative were progress, they were not likely to solve the problem. The main question was how do we package a global new deal for the LDCs"? That was the question that was being taken to the Brussels conference.
A correspondent wanted to know if one could ever be optimistic about solving the housing problem, particularly when it was so closely connected to other factors such as population migration or conflict.
Ms. Tibaijuka said that this was a challenge facing humanity. Social upheaval, crises, wars and conflicts caused large movements of people and were some of the factors behind the very rapid urbanization in Africa. Also, as rural communities became insecure, they tended to seek safety, which was normally found in cities. It was a big problem. That was why advocacy campaigns were needed.
Habitat, she said, was charged with addressing the underlying and fundamental causes of influx into urban areas. In other words, the situation in the countryside had to be improved. In that context security was important. The United Republic of Tanzania, for example, was itself a peaceful country. But it was in the hinterland of the Great Lakes region of Africa. There was war in Rwanda and Burundi and crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The result was that the western part of the country was practically under siege and the people were moving closer to the coast. "These are the problems facing us", she said.
Another correspondent said that slums had continued to expand and increase in number throughout the developing world, and even though Habitat had been addressing the problem over the years, there had been no impact on the ground. Further, the Millennium Summit had even set a target for reducing slums. He wanted to know how that would be achieved?
Ms. Tibaijuka said the problem had to be confronted squarely. That was precisely why Habitat had to move into the advocacy campaign, and raise awareness. It was not enough to move into a slum and upgrade it, only for the area to degenerate again into a slum. More innovative ways were needed to deal with squatter settlements in slums. One way was involving the people themselves.
The Executive Director went on to say that Habitat's sustainable cities programme was encouraging communities and slum dwellers to be empowered and decide how they wanted to live. The bottom line was that all those people wanted to live neatly -- they did not want the chaos that came with slums. But they had been disempowered by the socio-economic structures in the cities.
Noting that the number of LDCs was 48, a correspondent wanted to know what the root causes were that made those countries the poorest in the world?
Ms. Tibaijuka said of the 48 LDCs, 33 were in Africa, nine were in Asia, five were in the Pacific and the other was Haiti. LDC was a United Nations category involving a set of specific economic criteria. Normally the per capita annual income of LDCs was below $800. There were also a number of historic factors that contributed to their LDC status. Out of the 51 African States, more than 50 per cent were LDCs. "And we know the problems of Africa in the historical context - what made it what it is and therefore what made the LDCs what they are", she said.
Generally, she continued, when the historical factors were taken apart, LDCs were countries that had for many reasons suffered from a lack of proper investment, particularly in infrastructure and in human resources. There were also governance problems. A number of countries had achieved independence, but there had been problems of both governance and economic management. Another important factor was the international super-structure. The global economy continued to increase terms of trade and "we all know the story of deteriorating trade terms".
She said that the world was now in a situation where aid was given not for development but so that debts could be repaid. The present report was arguing that there was a situation where the "debt tail" was really wagging the "aid dog". Such a framework would not help LDCs to break out of their vicious cycle.
Mr. Agona said there had been a disjoint in the development of LDCs. When Ms. Tibaijuka had cited history in her response to the previous question, it was for a fundamental reason. As countries transited from colonialism to independence they were not prepared and that affected development. Most of the LDCS thus found themselves in situations where their capacities were not that well-developed. As a result, their social, economic and political performance was bad. That was
further compounded by the international economic super-structure and the rules of the game that guided it.
Mr. Agona said that, as the report noted, "we are talking about the impact of changes on national economies". What had globalization meant for the LDCs? What had liberalization meant? How had people shared in scientific and technological progress? All of those were factors that put LDCs at a continuous disadvantage. The other question was that of the "haves and have-nots" and whether it would ever be possible for them to bridge the gap as long as the rules were against them. That was an ethical issue.
Mr. Agona said that the report made reference to an effort in the 1990s by the international community to help LDCs to come out of their economic morass. There had not been much success. The report went on to ask that if there had been no success, what had gone wrong? The answers revealed that aid had not been sufficient in the first place. The rules of the game had been loaded against those countries. If one looked at trade, LDCs were the most liberalized countries in the world. Yet in the area of market access for their commodities, they were at a disadvantage.
Mr. Agona added that technology transfers had not taken place as envisaged because LDCs lacked the infrastructure to attract investment. Also, investment and private per capita flows did not go anywhere, they went for profit.
* *** *