ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL TO DECIDE AT 2004 SESSION ON GRADUATION OF CAPE VERDE, MALDIVES FROM LIST OF POOREST COUNTRIES

Economic and Social Council                                

2004 Organizational Session                                

13^th Meeting (PM)

Economic and Social Council to decide at 2004 session on graduation

of cape verde, maldives from list of poorest countries

Adopts Text on Issue by Vote of 49 - 1

The Economic and Social Council will take a decision at its 2004 substantive session on the graduation of Cape Verde and Maldives from the list of least developed countries, according to a draft resolution adopted by the Council this afternoon.

Adopting the text on the report of its Committee for Development Policy by a recorded vote of 49 in favour to 1 against (United States) the ECOSOC will also decide at that 2004 session on a smooth transition strategy for countries graduating from least developed country status.  In that regard, it requested the Secretary-General -- in consultation with Member States -- to submit a report at the 2004 substantive session that would include recommendations on how to formulate such a strategy (see Annex).

Introducing the text (document E/2004/L.10), Sweden’s representative said the resolution had been discussed for some time.  The draft contained two main issues, including that no country that graduated from the LDC list should have its positive development reversed.  To do that, there was a need to formulate ways of making the transition smooth.  The operative portion of the text asked the Secretary-General to look into the issue of a smooth transition.  It also asked him to report, in close cooperation with Member States, on how to formulate such a strategy to the substantive session this summer. 

Making a general statement before the vote, the representative of Qatar, on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, thanked the facilitator of the informal consultations on the matter, who had worked hard to reach consensus on the text.  He asked members to vote in favour of the resolution.

Benin’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Group of Least Developed Countries, supported the statement by Qatar and also thanked the facilitator of the consultations on the draft.  The LDCs were not opposed to graduation.  They simply wanted measures to be put in place.  Negotiations had been pursued with that in mind.  While the group was not totally pleased with the draft’s provisions, in a spirit of consensus it had agreed to adopt the resolution submitted to it.  Any attempt to not adopt the draft flouted the very principles of the United Nations.  He requested all delegations to vote in favour of the resolution.

Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of the United States said her delegation would vote against the text because it was unbalanced.  It focused on transition issues, without making any meaningful decision on graduation.  The graduation process had been paralysed for many years.  She did not see the need for a resolution that further institutionalized the paralysis.  She also regretted that graduation was viewed as a stigma to be avoided, rather than a positive milestone toward successful development.

The General Assembly, in 1991, had established a procedure for graduating countries, she said.  It stipulated that that country would graduate three years after the Assembly “took note” of the finding of the Committee for Development Policy that the country in question no longer met the criteria for LDC status.  The resolution distorted and delayed what was conceived as a process under which experts would set criteria and reach determinations regarding the graduation of individual countries.

The resolution called on the Secretary-General to make recommendations on transition measures, she continued.  That would involve the Secretary-General directly in issues properly under the purview of agencies such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization.  It had been 10 years since a country graduated from the LDC list.  Some countries on the LDC list no longer met the objective criteria for LDCs, while others with the same qualifications as LDCs were not on the list.  The resolution would likely perpetuate that state of affairs.  It would also undermine the objectivity of the LDC list, and thus the legitimacy of special measures for the countries on the list.

The specific matter that had been before the Council for some time was the Committee’s finding that Cape Verde and the Maldives qualified for graduation, she added.  The case was strong.  The Committee first identified Cape Verde as a candidate for graduation in 1997, the Maldives in 2000.  If the findings were to be adopted this fall, graduation would become effective in 2007.  For Cape Verde, a full decade would pass between the date that that country met the graduation criteria and the actual date of graduation.  The comparable delay for the Maldives was seven years.  She hoped that the process for graduating LDCs would return to the procedure envisaged by the Assembly in 1991.  The United States would have supported a resolution that addressed the issue of how graduating countries prepared for the transition following graduation, and how the United Nations system could help them.

Guatemala’s representative said he would vote in favour of the draft resolution.  He would have preferred to avoid a vote on the draft.  A final decision could be taken during the substantive session.  The appropriate forum for recommending graduation would be the Committee for Development Policy.  In principle, the Council should not question the recommendations of that Committee without having powerful justification for it.

Speaking after the vote, Ireland’s representative, on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said the Union had supported the resolution in the understanding that the time had come for the Maldives and Cape Verde to graduate from the LDC list and that ECOSOC take a positive decision in that regard at its 2004 substantive session.  The Union continued to be the most important supporter of the LDC category.  However, that support was of a voluntary a nature, inspired by the Union’s wish to assist the weakest and poorest countries.  It was, therefore, crucial for those countries that the LDC category remained credible and focused on the least advanced developing countries.  In that connection, she reaffirmed the importance the Union attached to the Committee’s mandate to conduct triennially a review to determine the countries to be added to, or graduated, from the list.

Graduation from the LDC list should be considered as a positive achievement, she added, welcoming the remarkable progress made in recent years by the Maldives and Cape Verde.  However, the Union was also conscious of the need to ensure a smooth transition, allowing countries to avoid disruption to their development plans and programmes.  There was an urgent need for the international community to address the possible issues related to the smooth transition.  In that light, she looked forward to the Secretary-General’s recommendations on how to formulate a smooth transition strategy.  General guidelines to be applied to each graduating country, including the Maldives and Cape Verde, were needed.

Australia’s representative said she had voted in favour of the text, as it was vital to ensure that graduating LDCs did not face the risk of slipping back to LDC status.  She looked forward to the Secretary-General’s report.  One issue not covered in the resolution was the question of whether existing criteria for inclusion in and graduation from the list considered the unique circumstances facing small island developing states.

In other action today, the Council decided to convene an informal meeting on the morning of 12 July under the title, “ECOSOC event to discuss the issue of transition from relief to development”.  The meeting would begin with brief presentations followed by interactive discussions with interested delegations.  It would have no outcome document or official record, and a brief reference would be made in the official report of the ECOSOC that such an event took place.  In light of that meeting, the operational activities segment of ECOSOC’s July session should conclude its work on the afternoon of 9 July.

Following that action, the representative of the United States expressed regret that meeting would be so low profile.  The whole question was important and merited being on the record.  Whether it needed an outcome was a separate issue.  She looked forward to the discussion, and hoped it would be the first of many.  As the matter evolved, she hoped the ECOSOC would be able to deal with it in a more substantive way.

Ireland’s representative, on behalf of the European Union, thanked the representatives of Bhutan and Jamaica for their work on reaching agreement on the matter.  The Union intended to actively participate in the event and looked forward to receiving the programme for the event in due course.

Qatar, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77, also congratulated the representatives of Bhutan and Jamaica on reaching a joint formula, which had enjoyed the consensus of all delegations.

The ECOSOC will meet again at a date and time to be announced.

ANNEX

Vote on Report of Committee for Development Policy

The draft resolution on the report of the Economic and Social Council’s Committee for Development Policy (document E/2004/L.10) was approved by a recorded vote of 49 in favour to 1 against:

In favour:  Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritius, Namibia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, Poland, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania.

Against:  United States.

Abstaining:  None.

Absent:  Burundi, Mozambique, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe.

* *** *