UNITED
NATIONS  GENERAL
ASSEMBLY
STATEMENT
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE
FIFTY EIGHT SESSION
OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
AT
THE PLENARY MEETING OF THE HIGH-LEVEL DIALOGUE ON FINANCING
FOR DEVELOPMENT
30 OCTOBER 2003
Excellencies,
Mr Secretary General, Distinguished Delegates, Ladies and
Gentlemen:
The
Monterrey Consensus, adopted by the International Conference
on Financing for Development, reflects the critical decisions
we took, at the highest political level, "to address
the challenges of financing for development around the world,
particularly in developing countries." It also includes
the objectives we set for this purpose.
Monterrey's
distinctive approach of bringing together all parties involved
in the financing for development process has made it possible
for key cross-sectional issues on trade, finance and development
to be addressed comprehensively. The Consensus has thus
been widely acclaimed as a new and workable approach to
development finance, and an important framework to guide
our common efforts at the national, regional, international
and systemic levels in this critical area. This accounts
for the commitments made and priority pledged for implementation
of the courses of action of the Consensus.
At
Monterrey, we ensured that implementation and follow-up
of such a key document as the Consensus would not be left
to chance. We now begin our biennial process of assessment
and forward planning in the area of financing for development
at this two-day High-level Dialogue. Our theme, "The
Monterrey Consensus: status of implementation and tasks
ahead" gives us clear direction on what is expected
of us.
We have
worked well in this follow-up process. Reports are that
all of yesterday's Ministerial Roundtables dealt forthrightly,
frankly and effectively with the issues at hand. I commend
all the Roundtable participants. Civil Society and Business
Sector Panels, on 27 October, also had productive sessions.
No doubt these prior deliberations will inform our discussions
here today.
I believe
that pragmatism but now inform our high-level segment, so
that we may realistically assess both the progress we have
made and the urgency with which we must proceed with the
tasks ahead. By any yardstick, our assessment report is
a mixed one. On the positive, and I must say, commendable
side, we saw an increase of some 4.8% in development assistance
immediately following Monterrey. Some donor countries have
reached the United Nations ODA goal of 0.7%, and have committed
to reaching 1% during the period 2005 - 2006. Others have
set time frames, for example, 2012, to reach 0.7%. The European
Union has decided to collectively raise ODA levels to 0.39%
of GNI by 2006, as a first step towards the 0.7% United
Nations goal. There are also promising signs that other
countries may increase their ODA, but may still fall short
of the 0.7% target. It is interesting to note, in this regard,
that it is among the same group of countries that usually
fund development activities that pledges are being made
for significant increases in ODA.
There
are nascent, and encouraging signs pointing towards the
resolution of the debt crisis, with ideas such as a "comprehensive,
statutory approach to restructuring the external debt of
governments" and the use of collective action clauses
now being discussed.
For
their part, many developing countries and countries with
economies in transition are working towards the creation
of an enabling environment at the national level, by strengthening
economic governance and enhancing democratic participation,
as called for in the Monterrey Consensus.
Overall, however, the other side of our report card has
not been encouraging. Net private financial flows to a significant
number of developing countries have declined or are negative.
There is little change in respect challenges such as lack
of market access, special and differential treatment, debt,
the deteriorating situation of commodity dependent countries
protectionism and agricultural subsidies and lack of participation
of developing countries in the decision making of international
financial institutions. Further, much more needs to be done
to reach the additional $50 billion needed in ODA annually
to meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGS). The failure
of make tangible progress in trade relations at Cancun put
us no closer to our quest for a level playing field, and
enhanced opportunities for developing countries.
In some instances, special circumstances have hampered progress
in meeting the objectives of the Monterrey Consensus. Civil
strife and military conflict, for example, is hindering
development in a number of the most vulnerable countries
and populations. Basic health care also remains alarmingly
inadequate in a large number of countries.
In this
High-level segment of our Dialogue, we should openly and
frankly discuss all the issues that present a challenge
to the successful implementation of commitments and agreements
reached at Monterrey be they at the national, international
or systemic levels. If we are to effectively use it, we
must be forthright in asking ourselves pertinent questions,
in order to arrive at pertinent responses.
Is the
United Nations system, for example, positioned to adequately
impact the development funding process? Have sufficient
steps been taken towards improving coherency and efficiency
amongst donor agencies? Regarding partnerships, have a sufficient
effort been made to engage civil society and the private
sector both nationally and internationally? And in respect
of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council
- what should be their role in tracking progress made, and
proposing further steps for implementing the commitments
and agreements made at Monterrey?
I pose
these questions because I believe that the answers bear
centrally on our tasks ahead. I also pose them in the hope
of that they will assist us in identifying some of the pertinent
issues we must take up and address in our interactive discourse,
so that we may move decisively forward, and effectively
implement the Monterrey Consensus.
I thank
you.
|
