PRESS CONFERENCE TO LAUNCH UNDP 2001 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT

PRESS CONFERENCE TO LAUNCH UNDP 2001 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT

Advanced technology -- in the biological, information and communications fields -- had a tremendous potential to make a difference in the lives of poor people, Eimi Watanabe, Director of the Bureau for Development Policy of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), told correspondents at a Headquarters press conference this afternoon to launch the 2001 Human Development Report (HDR).

The report -- "Making Technologies Work for Human Development" -– goes on to caution that if left to market forces alone, advances in these technologies will not be channeled towards areas that might positively affect those afflicted by poverty.

Ms. Watanabe said that the official launch of the development report would take place today at noon Mexico time, in Mexico City, with UNDP Administrator Mark Malloch Brown and Mexican President Vincente Fox officiating.  Kate Raworth, one of the chief co-authors, introduced the annual report (of which this was the twelfth) to correspondents.  Ms. Watanabe defined human development as "development that enlarges choices for people, particularly poor people" in all countries of the world, according to a number of indicators which include income, education, and life expectancy.

"Why do people need access to the Internet when they can't read, or genetically modified food when they don't have clean drinking water?" Ms. Watanabe asked.  Her answer was that, in today’s world, the latest technology was extremely valuable in closing the gap on those basic needs -- as long as those needs were prioritized.  "So its not a question of either/or," she said.

However, technology had to be redirected to meet those needs.  For example, bio-tech research in grains such as millet and sorghum, staples for poor populations, were not a priority for commercial firms.  And Ms. Raworth pointed out that of the 1,200 new drugs put on the market between 1975 and 1996, just

13 were for tropical diseases.  The report says that the problem needed to be addressed through better public policies at the national and global levels, as well as innovative means of private and public partnerships. 

As for overall progress in human development, the report finds disturbing delays, Ms. Raworth said.  In fact, not one single goal described in the Millennium Declaration will be achieved.  For example, 40 countries will not be able to halve the proportion of people suffering hunger by 2015, and 83 countries are off-target in the effort to similarly reduce the proportion of those without access to clean drinking water by the same date.  "Some say this shows the goals are unrealistic; we say it shows that the world is not taking them seriously enough."

On the other hand, Ms. Raworth said, since 1975 several developing countries had made rapid advances in the overall ranking of human development indicators. Those were, most notably, Mexico, Malaysia, Thailand, China, Indonesia, Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco, India and Nepal.  Twenty others had gone down in the index.  Many were in sub-Saharan Africa, facing the crisis of HIV/AIDS, and many were in Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), facing the hardships of economic transition.

To get progress on track, the report recommends an increase of resources targeted to development, through both official development assistance (ODA) as well as unusual potential sources such as the billionaires of the developing world.  There were nine of those in Brazil, nine in India, 13 in Mexico and five in Saudi Arabia.  The report suggested they create regional foundations with a “southern” agenda.  It also suggested converting military spending to more constructive ends, and policy changes to make drugs affordable and accessible in the developing world.

Correspondents asked about the reordering of the countries at the top of the index.  The United States and Canada, for example, had fallen to number 6 and number 3, respectively.  That, Ms. Raworth explained, was because other countries were making solid, long-term investment in health and education and greater strides in increasing the human development of those at the lower end of the economic ladder. 

A factor in Canada's fall from the number one spot, she said, was also a revision in methods of calculating life expectancy, even though most measures had actually improved in that country.  As for the United States, it came last in the human poverty index out of the 17 richest countries, because one person in eight born today was not expected to live to 60, and one person in six lived below the poverty line.

One correspondent noted that Romania and Bulgaria were rated high in technological achievement, even though they had lost ground in the overall index.  He wondered if their technological edge still represented an avenue of development.  Ms. Raworth said that the effects of education would last for a while even with the decline in other factors, but whether that strength would remain long enough to represent a way out of poverty would depend on current and future investment.

Asked whether technology had helped countries which had risen rapidly in the index since 1975, Ms. Raworth said that that was certainly the case in East Asia.  Technology had increased incomes, health prospects and livelihood choices.

Finally, a correspondent asked what benefits poor people had so far reaped, if any, from genetically modified foods.  None so far, said Ms. Raworth.  The report proposed that if such technology was going to go forward, it would be most useful if applied to poor people's needs.  Unfortunately, current privately-funded research meant it would be turned towards commercial interests rather than human needs.

* *** *