Mr. Chairman,
The report of the Secretary-General ( A/58/216
) on the implementation of commitments and agreements made at
the International Conference on Financing for Development provides
a comprehensive account of developments during the first year
of implementation and faithfully reviews all areas of progress,
or lack thereof, in implementing the Monterrey Consensus.
Our discussion here today follows on the heels
of the High level Dialogue on Financing for Development that took
place less than two weeks ago. Unfortunately, this in-depth dialogue
concluded that the currently projected rate of implementation,
even after taking into account recent marginal improvements in
development assistance after a long decline, does not auger well
for achieving the Monterrey commitments. The most critical ingredient
of the long-awaited and much-needed political will is yet to be
clearly visible.
The Monterrey Consensus has underscored that
“particular attention is required to address the special
needs of Africa, the least developed countries, small island developing
States and landlocked developing countries.” It reaffirmed
the commitment of the heads of State and Government to the Brussels
Programme of Action and the Barbados Programme of Action. In this
context, it is natural and obvious that the Almaty Programme of
Action adopted last August to address the special needs of landlocked
developing countries would receive the similar commitment. The
Monterrey Consensus further affirmed that international support
for those Programmes of Action, in particular through United Nations
operational activities for development, was “indispensable.”
The leaders also encouraged South-South cooperation, including
through triangular cooperation, for these vulnerable countries.
In various areas of action relating to foreign direct investment,
international trade, official development assistance and technical
cooperation, the Monterrey document highlights the need for special
consideration for the least developed, landlocked and small island
developing countries. It is, therefore, absolutely essential that
in the implementation and follow-up of Monterrey particular attention
should be given to these three vulnerable groups of countries.
The future reporting arrangements should incorporate special focus
on these countries by aggregating data in respect of the three
groups recognized by the United Nations.
With an ever-expanding globalization process, the least developing
countries have remained vulnerable to external events and have
been bearing the main brunt of global economic downturn, despite
the wide-ranging efforts they have made in reforming their domestic
policies. The question is how to realize the Monterrey goal of
making globalization fully inclusive and equitable.
The overarching goal of the Brussels Programme
of action is to “make substantial progress toward halving
the proportion of people living in extreme poverty and suffering
from hunger by 2015 and promote the sustainable development of
the LDCs”. It is widely acknowledged that the full achievement
of the Millennium Development Goals will not be possible without
special attention to the needs of the Least Developed Countries
where the indicators are quite unsatisfactory. The Monterrey Consensus
urges developed countries to make concrete effort towards reaching
the target of 0.15 to 0.20 per cent of GNP of developed countries
to LDCs, as reconfirmed at the Third UN Conference on LDCs. It
also supported untying aid to the least developed countries as
recommended by the OECD/DAC. For effective reporting in future
on the implementation and follow up, it would be necessary to
provide information and the data relating to these aspects for
the LDCs. In the area of international trade, the Monterrey Consensus
called on developed countries to provide duty-free quota-free
access for all least developed countries’ exports as envisaged
in the Brussels Programme. It further added that “consideration
of proposals for developing countries to contribute to improve
market access for LDCs would also be helpful.” The present
report devotes a section to “policy support for the least
developed countries” (paras 91 to 94) and asserts that “schemes
for preferential market access for LDCs need to be consolidated
and made more predictable” and goes on to say that “multilateral
technical assistance programmes should further support and assist
LDCs” that are in the process of WTO accession.
Notwithstanding the commitments made at Monterrey,
the deliberations of the High level Dialogue on Financing for
Development brought to the fore the following points in respect
of the LDCs:
International trade: Stringent rules
of origin, complex documentary procedures and other practices
reduce the extent to which LDCs can actually use preferential
schemes
Official Development Assistance: Current
ODA levels, even after showing some improvements are still well
below those needed to achieve the MDGs and larger flows of assistance
for the LDCs. Let me add here that in the years 2000 and 2001
only 0.05 per cent of the DAC countries GNI has gone to LDCs down
from 0.09 per cent in 1990-91.
Foreign direct investment: the majority
of developing economies, particularly LDCs, do not share in the
benefits of FDI flows.
Debt relief: The delay in providing adequate
debt relief for the heavily indebted poor countries is further
handicapping the LDCs.
It is well understood that even the best efforts of the LDCs to
improve the investment climate in their countries and attract
more substantial flows of foreign direct investments are insufficient
without the support of their development partners. As a matter
of fact though, their effort of making progress in improving good
governance, developing PRSPs, etc. coincide with the lowest per
capita income experienced by the LDCs – there is a limit
to continually reforming without the needed and promised support.
In the present international economic climate when it is doubly
difficult for these countries to attract FDI, their reliance on
ODA gains greater importance in their development efforts and
towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals.
I believe that the financial and technical assistance
required for implementing the commitments made in the Brussels,
Almaty and Barbados Programmes of Action in respect of the three
vulnerable groups of countries, which cover the concerns and aspirations
of more than 90 Member States of the United Nations, would go
hand in hand with the overarching international agenda contained
in the Monterrey Consensus and the Millennium Declaration. At
the core of these efforts is the need for true partnership amongst
all stakeholders.
At this juncture a strong resolve in respect
of LDCs is necessary. It is hoped that the singular focus on the
LDCs at next year’s High-Level Segment of ECOSOC, with its
theme of “Resource Mobilization and Enabling Environment
for Poverty Eradication in the context of the Implementation of
the Programme of Action for the LDCs for the Decade 2001-2010”,
will generate much-needed momentum for the international support
to these countries. The annual spring meetings of the ECOSOC with
the Bretton Woods institutions should also build in the LDC issues
for enhacing coherence, coordination and cooperation as they discuss
financing for development.
Let me conclude by emphasizing the relevance
of the concluding sentence of the report of the Secretary-General
in which he asserts that “efforts for the implementation
of the Monterrey Consensus and for the attainment of the (Millennium
Development) Goals, in particular Goal 8, are and should be increasingly
complementary and mutually reinforcing in many ways.” And
we all know that Goal 8 focuses on addressing the special needs
of the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries
and Small Island Developing States. That is the point I have attempted
to make in this presentation.
************
