AD HOC COMMITTEE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW AGENDA FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AFRICA BEGINS THREE-DAY SUBSTANTIVE SESSION

Ad Hoc Committee to Review

New Agenda for Development of Africa

AM & PM Meetings

AD HOC COMMITTEE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW AGENDA FOR DEVELOPMENT

OF AFRICA BEGINS THREE-DAY SUBSTANTIVE SESSION

Committee Grants Participatory Status for Eight NGOs;

Holds Panel Discussion on Promotion of Africa's Future Development

The Ad Hoc Committee of the Whole on the Final Review and Appraisal of the United Nations New Agenda for the Development of Africa (UN-NADAF) in the 1990s began its three-day substantive session today with a panel discussion on the implementation of the New Agenda and ways to promote Africa’s development in the years ahead.

The Committee was established by Assembly resolution 56/218 of 14 January to review the implementation of the New Agenda, which was adopted in 1991.  The Assembly had called for a mid-term review, followed by a final review and assessment of UN-NADAF -- a compact of mutual commitments by African countries and the international community.  A 12-member panel of eminent personalities had been appointed by the Secretary-General to carry out that task. 

Opening the meeting this morning, General Assembly President Jan Kavan (Czech Republic) said that last week’s high-level plenary meeting on the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) was an invaluable experience and a source of reflection on the difficult issues facing the African continent.  He noted that many of the original objectives of the UN-NADAF had not been attained, and problems that were identified during its implementation remained unresolved. Now, with the emerging NEPAD initiative, special attention should be given to ways and means to incorporate those lessons into future policies and actions.

Introducing the findings of the independent evaluation, panel Chairman Kwesi Botchwey said that the performance of UN-NADAF had been far from satisfactory.  Growth performance had averaged about 4 per cent, well below the target.  Also, official development assistance (ODA) flows had actually fallen by some

43 per cent -- from some $28.6 billion in 1990 to $16.3 billion in 2000.  Debt reduction initiatives also failed to achieve the expected results, and by April 2000, only four countries had reached the prescribed level for debt cancellation. There had also had been little progress on the trade front.

Among the lessons learned, he said, was that conflict and development were mortal enemies.  As such, peace and stability were of primary importance.  Also, the model of international development cooperation needed to be revised from the

dominant thinking that had guided it in the past two decades.  In addition, commitments made must be kept by all parties; there should be sustained advocacy for African development; and there was a need to increase the efficiency and relevance of the United Nations. 

On the way forward, the panel concluded that the United Nations, rather than spawning another new initiative, should throw its weight behind NEPAD, launched in July 2001.  Unlike other initiatives for Africa’s development, he said, the New Partnership had originated from Africa’s leadership and sought to address the problems of Africa’s development as Africans saw them.

In the ensuing discussion, speakers raised questions on such issues as how to ensure a coherent United Nations response to NEPAD.  Several representatives, including Cameroon’s, asked why anyone should believe that NEPAD would not suffer the same fate as its predecessors with regard to the broken financial promises of the international community.  The donors, who had committed themselves to

UN-NADAF, seemed to have disappeared. 

Uganda’s representative noted several issues that were missing from the panel’s report, including Africa’s low productive capacity, which was one of the continent’s major challenges.  Infrastructure development, whose absence was a hindrance even to regional trade, and low-capacity development of energy -- a major weakness even in country programmes -- were among the other issues not addressed.  He emphasized the importance of capacity building, since a key element in attracting investment was the availability of skilled labour.

Adding to that, the representative of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) said there would be no enabling environment for NEPAD or any other initiative unless human resources and services were adequately developed.  To that end, ensuring education for all should be a major objective of the international community.

On the issue of conflicts, the representative of the African Union said that among the root causes of conflicts was the problem of governance and public administration, which was not always transparent.  All the conflicts experienced in Africa over the last 10 years, apart from that in the Great Lakes region, were domestic in nature, often due to the exclusion of one section of the population.  Recognizing the incompatibility between conflict, instability and development, the constitution of the African Union had stressed good governance and provided for a Peer Review Mechanism. 

The Executive Director of Partnership Africa (Canada) urged the meeting to strengthen the call for African and non-African non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to play their role as full partners for sustainable development within Africa towards the implementation of NEPAD.  As an example of what could be achieved through cooperation, he highlighted the joint efforts of international actors from the North and South, as well as NGOs and African governments in 2000, to address the issue of conflict diamonds.

On the issue of resources, Mr. Botchwey agreed that a great deal could be achieved by stemming the tide of corruption and waste by African countries.  Much

more could definitely be achieved by improving the efficiency of resource use.  However, it must be recognized that even with that, the levels of savings and investment required to achieve high rates of long-term growth could not come from domestic resources alone. 

As to why commitments to NEPAD would be different, he said that the international environment today had improved significantly.  There was greater awareness of the mutuality of the concerns shared.  Even the Bretton Woods institutions had admitted that some of their programmes were ill-advised and needed to be changed.

Panel member Alexander Love noted that there was a good possibility that Africa would not meet the Millennium Development Goals by 2015, and that foreign direct investment levels in Africa were the lowest in the world.  To address the resource gap, the focus had to be comprehensive and address a wide range of issues, of which ODA was only one.  It was essential that the international community not simply focus on the development assistance agenda but on the comprehensive interactions of its policies. 

The UN-NADAF, he added, had not been broadly accepted in other parts of the developing community and even by some Africans themselves.  Hence, NEPAD’s broad acceptance augured well for increased support.  He was optimistic that the financial resources for its implementation would be made available. 

Emphasizing the importance of a support structure at United Nations Headquarters, panelist Denis Benn proposed that the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on Africa should be tasked with the responsibility of providing a coordinated vision on the part of the Secretariat.

Turning to South-South cooperation, he said the report had noted that there was considerable potential in pursuing activities in that area, but initiatives thus far had not produced desired results.  Still, that did not mean that much good could not be gained from promoting such cooperation, particularly in technical and agricultural assistance.  One of the hindrances in the past had been that data collection mechanisms had been insufficient.  That was changing; further, there was now a consistent attempt to catalogue and report best practices of countries in many areas.

Committee Vice-Chairman Jean de Ruyt (Belgium), who served as moderator for the discussion, introduced the representatives of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Eminent Personalities.  He said last week’s high-level debate on NEPAD, which had produced a strong political declaration, had been a ringing expression of the international community’s support for all initiatives aimed at driving real development in Africa.

The representatives of the panel were:  Chairman Kwesi Botchwey; Denis Benn, Michael Manley Professor of Public Affairs and Public Policy at the University of the West Indies in Jamaica; Alexander Love, Executive Director of the Washington-based Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa; and René Valéry Mongbé, Ambassador of Benin to the United Nations from 1990 to 1996.  Yves Berthelot, the Lead Consultant of the team of independent experts, was also on hand.

At the outset of the meeting, the Committee adopted a decision granting participation to eight NGOs in the work of the Committee.

Also participating in the discussion were the representatives of Zambia, Denmark (on behalf of the European Union), Cameroon, Uganda, Mali, United States, Nigeria, India and Ethiopia.

In addition, the representatives of UN-Habitat, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development UNCTAD), and Femme Afrique Solidarité also spoke.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Wednesday 25 September to begin its general debate.

* *** *