Renewal of promises amid scepticism about actions
Wednesday, 18 May 2011
Moazzem Hossain
back from Istanbul On both trade and aid counts, the least developed countries (LDCs) have got, what can at best be termed, a 'doable' deal, in terms of fresh commitments particularly by the development partners, in last week's Istanbul conference, under the given circumstances. Whether this 'doable' deal -- not necessarily the optimal one -- is what that the LDCs have been looking forward to, is debatable. The civil society groups from the LDCs expressed in Istanbul their clear resentment over the outcomes of the Fourth United Nations Conference on the LDCs (LDC-IV). They stated in their separate declaration that the development partners "failed to deliver their commitments to provide adequate aid, reform unjust trade rules, remove the burden of debt and build the capacity of the LDCs." There is no denying that such a review has some strong substance, particularly in the context of no specific commitments being made through the Istanbul Declaration that was adopted at the final plenary session of the inter-governmental LDC-IV in Istanbul. The Istanbul Declaration does not hold out specifically any quantified time-bound framework about 'resource flows' in the form of official development aid (ODA) by the 'development partners' to LDCs, barring a mention of a review of the aid situation by 2015 with a general promise about consideration of further enhancement of resource flows, on the basis of that review. Nor has it promised, in clear and categorical terms, 'duty-free and quota-free' (DFQF) access for "all goods" of the LDCs. Rather, the semantics in the Istanbul Declaration provides a scope for ambiguity, by mentioning the commitment "to the realisation of the timely implementation of duty-free and quota-free market access, on a lasting basis, for all LDCs, consistent with the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration adopted by the World Trade Organisation in 2005". It also promises to ensure that "preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from LDCs are simple, transparent and predictable and contribute to facilitating market access". However, it must be admitted here that getting even such commitments on both aid and trade counts, as embodied now in the Istanbul Declaration and Istanbul Programme of Action (IPoA), from the development partners was no easy job. The US, in particular, showed some strong reluctance, until the last hours of the LDC-IV conference, to agreeing on what was finally incorporated in the Istanbul Declaration and the IPoA. The US side that was led by the deputy head of the USAID under the US State Department, to the Istanbul conference, reported the agreement that they had no authorisation to go beyond, what was mentioned in the unfinished draft IPoA that was considered earlier at the UN headquarters in New York. Hard bargaining and painstaking negotiations by the LDC group, in tandem with the efforts of the Group of 77 that represents the developing countries as a whole, did, however, pay some dividends. On this score, Bangladesh did its best of efforts to get the commitments about DFQF market access for LDCs and resource flows, along with the rider of a mid-term review by 2015. The stance of Bangladesh at the Fourth UN LDC Conference was shaped in the light of the political directives at the highest level to the Bangladesh hard-core negotiating team, according to its secretary-level sources. Two exclusive meetings were held between the US and Bangladesh sides on the sidelines of the Istanbul conference, the sources added. Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina had placed before the LDC-IV a clear set of actions that the LDCs would like to see endorsed by all sides in Istanbul to facilitate sustained development efforts by the LDCs for lifting themselves out of poverty. The seniormost officials of the Government of Bangladesh including, among others, Foreign Secretary Mr. Muhammad Mizharul Kayees, External Resources Division (ERD) Secretary Mr Mohammad Musharraf Hossain Bhuiyan and Bangladesh Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Dr AK Abdul Momen, expressed their satisfaction over the outcome of the Istanbul Conference under the given circumstances, primarily in the backdrop of the difficult economic situation in a number of member-countries of the European Union (EU), financial predicament of the US and other related adversities. Both the Istanbul Declaration and the IPoC did not fall short of what the LDCs had earlier received in the form of commitments and pledges in the UN Third Conference on LDCs in Brussels in 2001 and the WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong in 2005, according to the members of the hard-core Bangladesh team in Istanbul. Rather, they would consider the Istanbul conference as something plus --addition to -- Brussels and Hong Kong. The five-day fourth UN conference on the LDCs concluded in Istanbul in Turkey on May 13 with the adoption of the Istanbul Declaration and associated Istanbul Programme of Action (IPoA). This largely followed the similar practices in three other previous conferences -- in Paris (France) in 1981, in Paris (France) in 1990 and in Brussels (Belgium) in 200l. The Istanbul Declaration, itself the outcome of a long preparatory process over the last two years during which several regional, thematic and inter-related meetings at various levels were held in Dhaka, Addis Ababa, New York, Geneva, Vienna, Lisbon, Laen, Istanbul and New Delhi, does otherwise provide a detailed document. The document contains actions to be taken up and delivered by 2020 by both the LDCs and the development partners, to achieve sustained and equable growth by the LDCs. The IPoA that was finalised and adopted along with the Istanbul Declaration at the close of the LDCs-IV, targets the 48 LDCs with a total population of nearly 900 billion people, aiming at eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. This document, along with the Istanbul Declaration, does otherwise confirm and strengthen, to quote from the closing statement by Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey, Mr Ahmet Davutogue to the Fourth UN Conference of LDCs, "the commitments of the international community and the development partners to the LDCs". It sets out "a cooperation framework and the responsibilities of the UN system, including the international institutions and developed countries as the development partners, developing countries within the context of South-South Cooperation and LDCs themselves". The 50-page document seeks to address wider concerns and covers areas such as investment, technology, tourism, education, health, agriculture, climate change and food security more extensively, besides underlining the importance of regional cooperation and integration and highlighting the role of women in development. Promises about more ODA, enhanced access to trade and improvement of the productive capacities of the LDCs as well as promotion of investment towards achieving such goals, are its core elements. Twenty-two heads of state, 19 prime ministers, 10 deputy prime ministers, 94 ministers and 39 deputy ministers attended the Istanbul conference. In all, about 10,000 participants including law-makers, academics, civil society leaders and private sector representatives joined it, in addition to heads of state and government and ministers. Besides the inter-governmental track that involved the governments of the LDCs and their development partners, the LDC-IV had three other main components. The latter included: parliamentary track including the members of the legislature from the LDCs and thus development partners, civil society track involving non-government organisations (NGOs), academic, media and foundations, and private sector track engaging the representatives of businesses. However, the representation from the developed and wealthy nations has been at comparatively lower levels in the LDC-IV. In this context, Prime Minister of Turkey Mr. Recep Tayyip Edrogan criticized rich countries for showing their "indifference" to the LDC-IV in Istanbul. He, thus, stated at a lunch -- that he hosted for heads of state and government and high-level managers who attended the Istanbul conference -- that the LDC meeting that is held every ten years is "the UN's most important summit after the General Assembly meeting." Such a conference aims to establish a future vision to fight against poverty and starvation, he noted while stating with regret that the developed countries "don't pay sufficient attention to this significant summit. We have problems today that do not recognize boundaries, countries, people or geography. Environmental problems, climate change, poverty, terrorism and problems related to immigration do not just threaten certain countries or region but the entire globe." Meanwhile, the Istanbul Declaration and related IPoA carry forward many familiar pledges, notwithstanding some of its new commitments about technology transfer, innovation green climate fund, technology bank, vocational of technical centres for the youth, funding for infrastructure under aid for trade initiative, relocation of climate migrants, regional and international watershed management, debt-relief, increased funding for agricultural sector, private sector development, rural uplift, human and social development and so on and so forth. While the additionalities to the Istanbul Declaration and IPoA are welcome, it must, however, be kept in view that all such commitments, new and old ones, are not necessarily binding in nature, for all concerned. That was not the case before, and is not certainly so now. The Brussels Programme of Action (BPoA) that was adopted in capital city of Belgium at the close of LDC-III contained more or less an identical set of commitments that have now found place in the IPoA. But most of those commitments, made in Brussels, have remained yet unmet in many areas. There is no enforcement mechanism about all such commitments. In Istanbul, a lot of emphasis has been given, particularly from the LDCs' side, on implementation of the agreed programme of action, on the basis of a mid-term review about the overall situation in 2015. The development partners have now committed themselves to making such a review. But the question still remains whether that review alone will ensure the fulfillment of commitments that have been made to create a new momentum for an "accelerated", "sustained", "inclusive" and "equitable" economic development in LDCs. The failure to achieve goals and objectives of earlier UN-sponsored LDC conferences can largely be explained in terms of digression of attention on the part of the development partners from the plight of the LDCs. After the first LDC Conference in Paris in 1981, it was largely the problems of the then debt-ridden South American countries and the then domestic priorities of such major partners that were on the active agenda of the latter. Afterwards in the 1990s following the second LDC conference, the focus was largely shifted to Eastern Europe, in the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall and dismantling of the erstwhile Soviet Union. And in the first decade of the new millennium, it was the 'global war on terror' that riveted the attention of major developed countries, with their defense spending in pursuit of that, marking a phenomenal rise. Lately, the global financial crisis has attracted a greater part of the policy focus of such countries on setting their own house in order. Against this backdrop, it is difficult to foresee, at this stage, how much serious the development partners will be about providing necessary support and cooperation to the LDCs to help ameliorate the existing sordid state of socio-economic conditions in many countries among the latter. The Istanbul Declaration and the IPoA will help bring about a substantive change to the situation facing the LDCs, only when actions are concretised to redeem the commitments and pledges. The promises of the rich developed countries to the LDCs as a group have so far been seen to be broken, time and again, continuing a pattern dating back to 1980s, This applies both in the cases of aid and market access. Admittedly, the future for many LDCs, in today's vastly-changed conditions lies in trade and productive capacity more than aid. But here too some developed countries are still found to be too niggardly and, at times, taking actions in a selective manner without opening their markets to the LDCs as a whole. While the LDCs will need to make efforts on a sustained basis to strengthen their own governance and build up proper institutional capacity, they will certainly require an enabling international environment to overcome their structural and other related socio-economic problems in order to make a dent into their syndrome of 'poverty'. The LDC-IV conference ended in Istanbul with the broad goal of halving the number of the current 48 Least Developed Countries by 2020. According to an assessment by the UN, five or six LDCs, including Bangladesh, Nepal, Equatorial Guinea, Angola and Timor Leste, are already in line to 'graduate' in the next couple of years or more. This is certainly a positive news about the countries concerned. The concept of LDCs, to recall, originated in the late 1960s and the first group of LDC was listed by the UN in its resolution 2768XXVI of November 18, 1971. A country is classified as an LDC having a per capita income below $900 and achieving some sustained improvements in their human development index (HDI) above a certain level. The LDC criteria are reviewed every three years by the Committee for Development Policy (CDP) of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Countries may "graduate" out of the LDC classification when indicators exceed the criteria set for that. While there were 25 LDCs in 1971, the number has increased to 48 today. Only three countries have so far been able to graduate from this grouping. Today, the LDCs account for 13 per cent of the world population, having their combined share at only 1.0 per cent of global economic output. Meanwhile, a fear also persists among some LDCs that the advantages they enjoy now -- whatever these -- will be withdrawn from them, once they graduate. This also makes it crucially important that a process of smooth transition is put in place in order that the LDCs that will 'graduate', would not lose abruptly the assistance that they are now receiving from the international community. So far so good. Looking at the LDC-IV conference in Istanbul from a broader angle, it will, perhaps, be more appropriate to consider its outcome as 'the glass not being exactly half-full', but it certainly was 'not entirely empty either'.
back from Istanbul On both trade and aid counts, the least developed countries (LDCs) have got, what can at best be termed, a 'doable' deal, in terms of fresh commitments particularly by the development partners, in last week's Istanbul conference, under the given circumstances. Whether this 'doable' deal -- not necessarily the optimal one -- is what that the LDCs have been looking forward to, is debatable. The civil society groups from the LDCs expressed in Istanbul their clear resentment over the outcomes of the Fourth United Nations Conference on the LDCs (LDC-IV). They stated in their separate declaration that the development partners "failed to deliver their commitments to provide adequate aid, reform unjust trade rules, remove the burden of debt and build the capacity of the LDCs." There is no denying that such a review has some strong substance, particularly in the context of no specific commitments being made through the Istanbul Declaration that was adopted at the final plenary session of the inter-governmental LDC-IV in Istanbul. The Istanbul Declaration does not hold out specifically any quantified time-bound framework about 'resource flows' in the form of official development aid (ODA) by the 'development partners' to LDCs, barring a mention of a review of the aid situation by 2015 with a general promise about consideration of further enhancement of resource flows, on the basis of that review. Nor has it promised, in clear and categorical terms, 'duty-free and quota-free' (DFQF) access for "all goods" of the LDCs. Rather, the semantics in the Istanbul Declaration provides a scope for ambiguity, by mentioning the commitment "to the realisation of the timely implementation of duty-free and quota-free market access, on a lasting basis, for all LDCs, consistent with the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration adopted by the World Trade Organisation in 2005". It also promises to ensure that "preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from LDCs are simple, transparent and predictable and contribute to facilitating market access". However, it must be admitted here that getting even such commitments on both aid and trade counts, as embodied now in the Istanbul Declaration and Istanbul Programme of Action (IPoA), from the development partners was no easy job. The US, in particular, showed some strong reluctance, until the last hours of the LDC-IV conference, to agreeing on what was finally incorporated in the Istanbul Declaration and the IPoA. The US side that was led by the deputy head of the USAID under the US State Department, to the Istanbul conference, reported the agreement that they had no authorisation to go beyond, what was mentioned in the unfinished draft IPoA that was considered earlier at the UN headquarters in New York. Hard bargaining and painstaking negotiations by the LDC group, in tandem with the efforts of the Group of 77 that represents the developing countries as a whole, did, however, pay some dividends. On this score, Bangladesh did its best of efforts to get the commitments about DFQF market access for LDCs and resource flows, along with the rider of a mid-term review by 2015. The stance of Bangladesh at the Fourth UN LDC Conference was shaped in the light of the political directives at the highest level to the Bangladesh hard-core negotiating team, according to its secretary-level sources. Two exclusive meetings were held between the US and Bangladesh sides on the sidelines of the Istanbul conference, the sources added. Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina had placed before the LDC-IV a clear set of actions that the LDCs would like to see endorsed by all sides in Istanbul to facilitate sustained development efforts by the LDCs for lifting themselves out of poverty. The seniormost officials of the Government of Bangladesh including, among others, Foreign Secretary Mr. Muhammad Mizharul Kayees, External Resources Division (ERD) Secretary Mr Mohammad Musharraf Hossain Bhuiyan and Bangladesh Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Dr AK Abdul Momen, expressed their satisfaction over the outcome of the Istanbul Conference under the given circumstances, primarily in the backdrop of the difficult economic situation in a number of member-countries of the European Union (EU), financial predicament of the US and other related adversities. Both the Istanbul Declaration and the IPoC did not fall short of what the LDCs had earlier received in the form of commitments and pledges in the UN Third Conference on LDCs in Brussels in 2001 and the WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong in 2005, according to the members of the hard-core Bangladesh team in Istanbul. Rather, they would consider the Istanbul conference as something plus --addition to -- Brussels and Hong Kong. The five-day fourth UN conference on the LDCs concluded in Istanbul in Turkey on May 13 with the adoption of the Istanbul Declaration and associated Istanbul Programme of Action (IPoA). This largely followed the similar practices in three other previous conferences -- in Paris (France) in 1981, in Paris (France) in 1990 and in Brussels (Belgium) in 200l. The Istanbul Declaration, itself the outcome of a long preparatory process over the last two years during which several regional, thematic and inter-related meetings at various levels were held in Dhaka, Addis Ababa, New York, Geneva, Vienna, Lisbon, Laen, Istanbul and New Delhi, does otherwise provide a detailed document. The document contains actions to be taken up and delivered by 2020 by both the LDCs and the development partners, to achieve sustained and equable growth by the LDCs. The IPoA that was finalised and adopted along with the Istanbul Declaration at the close of the LDCs-IV, targets the 48 LDCs with a total population of nearly 900 billion people, aiming at eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. This document, along with the Istanbul Declaration, does otherwise confirm and strengthen, to quote from the closing statement by Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey, Mr Ahmet Davutogue to the Fourth UN Conference of LDCs, "the commitments of the international community and the development partners to the LDCs". It sets out "a cooperation framework and the responsibilities of the UN system, including the international institutions and developed countries as the development partners, developing countries within the context of South-South Cooperation and LDCs themselves". The 50-page document seeks to address wider concerns and covers areas such as investment, technology, tourism, education, health, agriculture, climate change and food security more extensively, besides underlining the importance of regional cooperation and integration and highlighting the role of women in development. Promises about more ODA, enhanced access to trade and improvement of the productive capacities of the LDCs as well as promotion of investment towards achieving such goals, are its core elements. Twenty-two heads of state, 19 prime ministers, 10 deputy prime ministers, 94 ministers and 39 deputy ministers attended the Istanbul conference. In all, about 10,000 participants including law-makers, academics, civil society leaders and private sector representatives joined it, in addition to heads of state and government and ministers. Besides the inter-governmental track that involved the governments of the LDCs and their development partners, the LDC-IV had three other main components. The latter included: parliamentary track including the members of the legislature from the LDCs and thus development partners, civil society track involving non-government organisations (NGOs), academic, media and foundations, and private sector track engaging the representatives of businesses. However, the representation from the developed and wealthy nations has been at comparatively lower levels in the LDC-IV. In this context, Prime Minister of Turkey Mr. Recep Tayyip Edrogan criticized rich countries for showing their "indifference" to the LDC-IV in Istanbul. He, thus, stated at a lunch -- that he hosted for heads of state and government and high-level managers who attended the Istanbul conference -- that the LDC meeting that is held every ten years is "the UN's most important summit after the General Assembly meeting." Such a conference aims to establish a future vision to fight against poverty and starvation, he noted while stating with regret that the developed countries "don't pay sufficient attention to this significant summit. We have problems today that do not recognize boundaries, countries, people or geography. Environmental problems, climate change, poverty, terrorism and problems related to immigration do not just threaten certain countries or region but the entire globe." Meanwhile, the Istanbul Declaration and related IPoA carry forward many familiar pledges, notwithstanding some of its new commitments about technology transfer, innovation green climate fund, technology bank, vocational of technical centres for the youth, funding for infrastructure under aid for trade initiative, relocation of climate migrants, regional and international watershed management, debt-relief, increased funding for agricultural sector, private sector development, rural uplift, human and social development and so on and so forth. While the additionalities to the Istanbul Declaration and IPoA are welcome, it must, however, be kept in view that all such commitments, new and old ones, are not necessarily binding in nature, for all concerned. That was not the case before, and is not certainly so now. The Brussels Programme of Action (BPoA) that was adopted in capital city of Belgium at the close of LDC-III contained more or less an identical set of commitments that have now found place in the IPoA. But most of those commitments, made in Brussels, have remained yet unmet in many areas. There is no enforcement mechanism about all such commitments. In Istanbul, a lot of emphasis has been given, particularly from the LDCs' side, on implementation of the agreed programme of action, on the basis of a mid-term review about the overall situation in 2015. The development partners have now committed themselves to making such a review. But the question still remains whether that review alone will ensure the fulfillment of commitments that have been made to create a new momentum for an "accelerated", "sustained", "inclusive" and "equitable" economic development in LDCs. The failure to achieve goals and objectives of earlier UN-sponsored LDC conferences can largely be explained in terms of digression of attention on the part of the development partners from the plight of the LDCs. After the first LDC Conference in Paris in 1981, it was largely the problems of the then debt-ridden South American countries and the then domestic priorities of such major partners that were on the active agenda of the latter. Afterwards in the 1990s following the second LDC conference, the focus was largely shifted to Eastern Europe, in the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall and dismantling of the erstwhile Soviet Union. And in the first decade of the new millennium, it was the 'global war on terror' that riveted the attention of major developed countries, with their defense spending in pursuit of that, marking a phenomenal rise. Lately, the global financial crisis has attracted a greater part of the policy focus of such countries on setting their own house in order. Against this backdrop, it is difficult to foresee, at this stage, how much serious the development partners will be about providing necessary support and cooperation to the LDCs to help ameliorate the existing sordid state of socio-economic conditions in many countries among the latter. The Istanbul Declaration and the IPoA will help bring about a substantive change to the situation facing the LDCs, only when actions are concretised to redeem the commitments and pledges. The promises of the rich developed countries to the LDCs as a group have so far been seen to be broken, time and again, continuing a pattern dating back to 1980s, This applies both in the cases of aid and market access. Admittedly, the future for many LDCs, in today's vastly-changed conditions lies in trade and productive capacity more than aid. But here too some developed countries are still found to be too niggardly and, at times, taking actions in a selective manner without opening their markets to the LDCs as a whole. While the LDCs will need to make efforts on a sustained basis to strengthen their own governance and build up proper institutional capacity, they will certainly require an enabling international environment to overcome their structural and other related socio-economic problems in order to make a dent into their syndrome of 'poverty'. The LDC-IV conference ended in Istanbul with the broad goal of halving the number of the current 48 Least Developed Countries by 2020. According to an assessment by the UN, five or six LDCs, including Bangladesh, Nepal, Equatorial Guinea, Angola and Timor Leste, are already in line to 'graduate' in the next couple of years or more. This is certainly a positive news about the countries concerned. The concept of LDCs, to recall, originated in the late 1960s and the first group of LDC was listed by the UN in its resolution 2768XXVI of November 18, 1971. A country is classified as an LDC having a per capita income below $900 and achieving some sustained improvements in their human development index (HDI) above a certain level. The LDC criteria are reviewed every three years by the Committee for Development Policy (CDP) of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Countries may "graduate" out of the LDC classification when indicators exceed the criteria set for that. While there were 25 LDCs in 1971, the number has increased to 48 today. Only three countries have so far been able to graduate from this grouping. Today, the LDCs account for 13 per cent of the world population, having their combined share at only 1.0 per cent of global economic output. Meanwhile, a fear also persists among some LDCs that the advantages they enjoy now -- whatever these -- will be withdrawn from them, once they graduate. This also makes it crucially important that a process of smooth transition is put in place in order that the LDCs that will 'graduate', would not lose abruptly the assistance that they are now receiving from the international community. So far so good. Looking at the LDC-IV conference in Istanbul from a broader angle, it will, perhaps, be more appropriate to consider its outcome as 'the glass not being exactly half-full', but it certainly was 'not entirely empty either'.