open forum for partnership - un-ohrllsbeyond economic challenges, environmental degradation has been...

Open Forum for PartnershipLectures and presentations on the development challengesof the most vulnerable groups of countries

2003-2005

United Nations Office of the High Representative for theLeast Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States

United Nations

Open Forum5.indd 1 2/1/08 6:40:23 PM

Open Forum for PartnershipLectures and presentations on the development challengesof the most vulnerable groups of countries

2003-2005

2007

United Nations Office of the High Representative for theLeast Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States


Foreword


iii

Foreword

Soon after the creation of the United Nations Office of the High Representative in early 2002, the Open Forum for Partnerships was launched as a platform for entities of the United Nations system, development and other multilateral bodies located outside New York to share their perspectives on development challenges that face the three most vulnerable groups of countries: the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), the Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs) and the Small Island Developing States (SIDS). In this setting, development partners have had the opportunity to share experiences and information on their work in support of these groups of countries.

The Open Forum sessions have proven to be very insightful and worthwhile activities, attracting the wide participation of representatives from the Permanent Missions to the United Nations, various United Nations organisations, the United Nations secretariat staff, non-governmental organisations and the private sector. The lively interactions between different development actors at these sessions have provided a fresh look at the challenges facing the most vulnerable countries, and the obstacles confronting the international community as it engages with the developing world.

A recurrent theme at the Open Forum sessions - which have tackled topics ranging from poverty to trade, environment to HIV/AIDS - has been the need for a stronger partnership between the most vulnerable countries and the international community. While these countries have the primary responsibility for engendering economic growth and sustainable development and reducing poverty and environmental susceptibility, they lack the necessary human, technical, financial and institutional capacities to do so. Unfortunately, international support to these vulnerable countries has, in most cases, continued to fall short of what is necessary to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

This volume presents a record of Open Forum sessions held between 2003 and 2005, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, under the stewardship of my predecessor, Mr. Anwarul K. Chowdhury. The enclosed proceedings have also been published on our website (www.un.org/ohrlls).

The very nature of these forums, as open and spontaneous interactions between presenters and participants, has prevented much uniformity in the way the proceedings have evolved. As each presenter has offered a glimpse into the work and goals of his organisation, he has done so in his own style, highlighting particular and sometimes specific challenges or concerns.

We hope that this publication will enable the dialogue on development to continue beyond these particular sessions, and offer insight into the challenges of empowering the world’s most vulnerable countries.

UN-OHRLLS looks forward to the upcoming Open Forum series and the fruitful exchange of ideas and initiatives that help to keep these vulnerable groups of countries high on the development agenda.

Cheick Sidi Diarra Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States


iv

List of AbbreviationsTable of Contents

2 Overview

4 - 7 About the Speakers

8 - 15 International Trade Centre and the Least Developed Countries

16 - 21 Common Fund for Commodities and the Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries

22 - 25 Challenge of drought and desertification in the Least Developed Countries

26 - 31 Facing up to Disaster in Vulnerable Countries

32 - 39 Global Environment Facility and Vulnerable Countries

40 - 47 The Role of Agriculture in the Development of Least Developed Countries

48 - 49 Challenges of Achieving the MDGs in the Least Developed Countries

50 - 55 Impact of HIV/AIDS on the Development Prospects of the Least Developed Countries

57 Acknowledgements


v

List of Abbreviations

AOSIS Alliance of Small Island States

CDM Clean Development Mechanism

CFC Common Fund for Commodities

CIDA Canadian International Development Agency

COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa

ECOSOC Economic and Social Council

FAO Food and Agricultural Organisation

GEF Global Environment Facility

GNP Gross National Product

ICBs International Commodities Bodies

IF Integrated Framework for Technical Assistance

IOC International Oceanographic Commission

ISDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

ITC International Trade Centre

IUCN World Conservation Union

JITAP Joint Integrated Trade-related Technical Assistance Programme for African Countries

LDCs Least Developed Countries

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

NCSA National Capacity Self-Assessment

NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development

NGOs Non-governmental Organisation ODA Official Development Assistance

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

PBA Performance Based Allocation

SIDS Small Island Developing States

SME Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

UN United Nations

UNAIDS Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS

UNCDD United Nations Convention on Combating Drought and Desertification

UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

UN-OHRLLS United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States

WHO World Health Organisation

WTO World Trade Organisation


�

Overview

In 2003, the Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UN¬OHRLLS) launched the Open Forum for Partnership for heads of various organisations and multilateral bodies located outside New York to share their experiences and perspectives on development issues concerning the three most vulnerable groups of countries.

The Open Forum sessions, held at the United Nations headquarters in New York, are conducted with open participation from all, such as representatives of UN Member States, UN System entities, civil society organizations, the private sector and the media.

This volume presents a record of the first series of sessions, held between 2003 and 2005, on a range of issues: from assessing the progress of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), to international trade and entrepreneurship, to environmental challenges and desertification, to combating HIV/AIDS as an essential aspect of development.

As recorded in this volume, the Executive Director of the International Trade Centre, Mr. J. Denis Belisle, expressed the hope that although the share of LDCs in international trade has been declining, this trend can be reversed. He pointed out that a new generation of entrepreneurs – with the creativity and drive necessary to make a difference – is emerging, and that new information and communication technologies are providing a unique opportunity for them. With the right support and facilitation, these entrepreneurs are able to enter the world trade system, which is a powerful tool for driving the development of LDCs.

Dr. Rolf W. Boenke, the Managing Director of the Common Fund for Commodities, highlighted the importance of commodities to the economies of Developing Countries in general and to LDCs in particular. Of the 2.5 billion people employed in agriculture in developing countries, about 1 billion derive a significant part of their income from export commodities. Fifty developing countries depend on three or fewer commodities for more than half their export earnings. It is in this context that the Common Fund for Commodities strives to enhance the long-term competitiveness of particular commodities and to assist developing countries – especially LDCs – to function effectively in a liberalised global economy. Mr. Boenke reiterated that the fate of LDCs is closely tied to that of their commodity sector.

Beyond economic challenges, environmental degradation has been recognised as one of the greatest hindrances to ending extreme poverty and hunger. The scale of the problem was captured by Mr. Hama Arba Diallo, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Convention on Combating Drought and Desertification, who revealed that in the Sahelian countries in Africa, the environment has been degraded to a point where the energy used to prepare food is often more expensive than the food itself. Mr. Diallo emphasised the importance of addressing the problem of land degradation and rural sector issues if the goals of the Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries are to be achieved.

Mr. Salvano Briceno, Director of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, revealed that disaster reduction has been identified as a sustainable development issue, as it affects all areas of

Overview


�

development, including poverty reduction. He stated that natural disasters affect all countries and are a shared concern for humanity, but that they impact on the richest and poorest countries differently. Disasters affect the poorest countries most adversely, ultimately condemning the poor to perpetual poverty. Developing national capacity to reduce disaster risk and respond effectively to natural disasters is key to sustainable development.

The Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), Mr. Leonard Good, said that GEF has been working on over 400 projects in 49 LDCs with contributions totalling $1.1 billion. Among the SIDS, GEF is working on 260 projects in 41 states, primarily on biodiversity. The portfolio is about $425 million, and Mr. Good expressed hope that GEF would receive financing of $3 billion from donors in order to continue assisting LDCs and SIDS for another four years starting mid-2006.

Jacques Diouf, Director-General of the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) said the bulk of chronically food insecure people live in low-income countries; which is one of the defining characteristics of the LDCs. He said FAO statistics indicate that in 36 out of 50 LDCs, almost 40% of the people go to bed hungry every night. Since the mid-1980s, the LDCs as a group had moved from being net exporters of food and agricultural products to being net importers. Mr. Diouf stressed that in order to address this situation, there is a need for more investment in the agricultural sector of the LDCs, and that this must be accompanied by reforms of agricultural policies in developed countries to remove distortions in international agricultural markets.

Discussing the challenges of achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in the LDCs, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the MDGs, noted that many of the LDCs were falling behind on the MDG targets. He stated that the goals must be treated as operational targets for real programming, planning, financing and policy design. Citing the Monterrey Consensus, Professor Sachs argued that if the international community met its Official Development Assistance (ODA) targets, there would be enough money to finance every low-income country, and certainly every Least Developed Country, in the implementation of an MDG-based poverty reduction strategy.

The Executive Director of UNAIDS, Dr. Peter Piot, highlighted that in a span of 25 years, AIDS has become one of the most critical threats affecting the LDCs. He pointed out that of the 50 LDCs, 22 had HIV prevalence rates above 2% of the adult population. Five countries have an adult HIV prevalence rate above 10%. In some countries, prevalence rates are as high as 40% and are continuing to rise. On a positive note however, Dr. Piot outlined that a number of countries have managed to bring drown the prevalence rates quite significantly. These efforts could offer best practices to be scaled up and replicated. Without bringing AIDS under control in many of the LDCs, Dr. Piot concluded that reaching the Millennium Development Goals would remain a pipe dream.

The presentations included in this volume outline the breadth of activities presently taking place regarding the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States. The volume is intended to offer an insight into the range of obstacles and challenges faced by the vulnerable countries and the way various actors are supporting their development efforts. It is a record of the forums that have taken place, to encourage further dialogue and interaction between interested members of the international community, and to ultimately promote further cooperation and coordination in future development initiatives.

Overview


About the Speakers

About the Speakers

�

J. Denis BélisleMr. Bélisle, who was appointed Executive Director of the International Trade Centre in 1994, has over 30 years of experience in international trade and development.

He began his career as a junior trade diplomat at the Canadian Embassy in Washington (1968-72). He subsequently transferred to the private sector where he was, during the period 1972-1989, Assistant to the President, Vice-President, Executive Vice-President and Member of the Board of Directors of Canadian Pacific Consulting Services, a consulting firm active in 64 countries.

He then returned to Government to become Vice President responsible for collaboration with the private sector at the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) from 1989 to 1991 and Canada’s Ambassador to Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger from 1991 to 1994.

He has served on the Board of Directors of several companies, business associations, government advisory bodies and a university.

Mr. Hama Arba DialloMr. Diallo is the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Convention on Combating Drought and Desertification-UNCDD (1996 - ).

Prior to this, he was the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations

Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) during the preparations for the Rio Summit in 1992. He was also in charge of the preparatory process for UNCED in Africa.

From 1979 to 1983, he was the Director of the United Nations Sudano-Sahelian Office. Previous to his UN activities, Mr. Diallo served 24 years as a top official in the state and foreign ministries of Burkina Faso. In 1983, he became Minister of Foreign Affairs in Burkina Faso (Upper Volta).

Between 1988 and 1989 he served as Ambassador of Burkina Faso to China, India and Japan.


About the Speakers

�

Rolf W. Boenhke, former Managing Director of the Common Fund for CommoditiesMr. Rolf W. Boehnke served as the Managing Director of the Common Fund for Commodities from 1996 to 2004. Before then, he had been the Secretary-General of the Lead and Zinc Study Group, an autonomous intergovernmental organisation founded by the United Nations through the Economic and Social Council (1984 - 1996). As Counsellor (Commodities and Energy) at the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany in the United Kingdom in 1984, Mr. Boehnke represented Germany at the relevant international organisations in London. Between 1974 and 1984, Mr. Boehnke worked with the German Federal Ministry of Economics doing analytical work in various fields, including foreign trade policy, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Jeffrey D. SachsMr. Jeffrey D. Sachs is the Special Adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan on the Millenium Development Goals and the Director of the UN Millenium Project. He is internationally renowned for advising governments in Latin America, Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, Asia and Africa on economic reforms and for his work with international agencies to promote poverty reduction, disease control and debt reduction for poor countries. He has been an adviser to the IMF, the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the World Health Organization.

In 2004 and 2005 he was named among the 100 most influential leaders in the world by Time Magazine and is the 2005 recipient of the Sargent Shriver Award for Equal Justice. He is author of hundreds of scholarly articles and many books, the most famous is The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for our Time.

Prior to joining Columbia University as the Director of the Earth Institute, Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development, and Professor of Health Policy and Management, he spent over twenty years at Harvard University, most recently as Director of the Center for International Development.


About the Speakers

�

Sálvano BriceñoMr. Briceño was appointed the Director of the Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR) in June 2001.

Prior to joining UN/ISDR, Mr. Briceño was the Coordinator of the BIOTRADE and GHG Emissions Trading Initiatives of the UN Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva (1999-2001). Before that, he was Deputy Executive Secretary of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification secretariat (1996-1999), following several years as the Coordinator of Intergovernmental and Institutional Support of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1991-1996).

Further UN experience includes five years with United Nations Environment Programme’s Caribbean Environment Programme in Kingston, Jamaica, where he collaborated closely with the Pan-Caribbean Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Programme (1987-1991).

Earlier in his career, from 1985 to 1987, Mr. Briceño joined the World Conservation Union (IUCN) as the Executive Officer of IUCN’s Commission on Education, where he focused on environmental education programmes.

During the 1980s he worked as Research Associate at Harvard University’s Energy and Environment Policy Center, following an active career with the Ministry of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources in Venezuela where he was Director General responsible for environmental education, professional development and international relations.

Leonard GoodMr. Good became the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) in 2003.

He served twice as Canada’s Deputy Minister of Environment, from 1989-1993 and again from 1998-1999, supporting the development and implementation of “The Green Plan,” Canada’s first comprehensive environmental strategy.

From 1994 to 1998, he was Canada’s Executive Director on the Board of the World Bank where he represented Canada, Ireland and a number of Commonwealth Caribbean countries.

From 1999 to May 2003, Mr. Good was President of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) which provides financing of about US$2 billion a year for projects and programs in more than 100 developing countries. Mr. Good also spent eight years (1979-1987) in various positions in Canada’s Department of Energy.


About the Speakers

�

Rolf W. Boenhke, former Managing Director of the Common Fund for CommoditiesMr. Rolf W. Boehnke served as the Managing Director of the Common Fund for Commodities from 1996 to 2004. Before then, he had been the Secretary-General of the Lead and Zinc Study Group, an autonomous intergovernmental organisation founded by the United Nations through the Economic and Social Council (1984 - 1996). As Counsellor (Commodities and Energy) at the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany in the United Kingdom in 1984, Mr. Boehnke represented Germany at the relevant international organisations in London. Between 1974 and 1984, Mr. Boehnke worked with the German Federal Ministry of Economics doing analytical work in various fields, including foreign trade policy, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Jeffrey D. SachsMr. Jeffrey D. Sachs is the Special Adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan on the Millenium Development Goals and the Director of the UN Millenium Project. He is internationally renowned for advising governments in Latin America, Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, Asia and Africa on economic reforms and for his work with international agencies to promote poverty reduction, disease control and debt reduction for poor countries. He has been an adviser to the IMF, the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the World Health Organization.

In 2004 and 2005 he was named among the 100 most influential leaders in the world by Time Magazine and is the 2005 recipient of the Sargent Shriver Award for Equal Justice. He is author of hundreds of scholarly articles and many books, the most famous is The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for our Time.

Prior to joining Columbia University as the Director of the Earth Institute, Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development, and Professor of Health Policy and Management, he spent over twenty years at Harvard University, most recently as Director of the Center for International Development.


�

International Trade Centre and Least Developed Countries

Mr. J. Denis Belisle, Executive Director of the International Trade Centre (ITC)• February 2003 •

* The following is a transcript of Mr. Belisle’s presentation.


Let me begin my presentation by saying a few words about our vision. I will then introduce the International Trade Centre (ITC), what it is, what is does and how it does it.

We feel strongly that trade can be used as a tool for the development of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs). A lot is said about what is happening in LDCs as far as trade is concerned, and I am not sure that it is all correct. You know, and I agree, that LDCs are losing market share. But this is not something that has to continue. Indeed, it is something that has to be turned around. It is something that can be turned around.

It is our firm conviction that in LDCs, there is a new generation of entrepreneurs that is emerging. These people are innovative, creative and persistent. They have drive and imagination. And these people can make a difference.

I often hear that globalisation will further marginalise developing countries and in particular LDCs. That we cannot allow. That we have to stop. Not only do we have to humanize globalisation, we have to make sure that it does work for developing countries. I will try to show you this afternoon that this is, indeed, possible.

New technologies and information and communication are giving a unique opportunity to this new generation of entrepreneurs; the internet can make an enormous difference for them. The new information technologies are forcing all to conduct business differently - everywhere, including in developing countries. It also means that new businesses are born, some of which are particularly well-suited to developing countries.

We are used to a world where big firms acquire small firms and we tend to believe that this is a normal phenomenon that cannot be stopped. We believe that this is not the only trend and for the sake of imagery, let me call them big fish and small fish. Big firms are big fish and, in principle, they eat small fish. There is a new trend developing: that of a fast fish eating a slow fish - in part, due to the new technologies of information and communication. These fast fish are born everywhere. They are not only born in the developed world. They are also in the South, including in LDCs. We know several and I would like to talk about some later.


�


But for this to happen, something needs to be done which requires that government, business and international organisations work together to create an environment that will make it possible for new entrepreneurs to emerge and grow in LDCs. I will come back to this later as well.

Another fact is that we cannot do everything at the same time, nor alone, and, it is of the utmost importance, in our view, that public and private sectors put their act together and begin where it can make most difference. In the business world, you cannot be good at everything, everywhere all the time. Successful organisations are those that focus their efforts, decide on what they can do best and begin there. It is this sort of thing that the ITC does and I guess that in order for you to know who we are, what we do and how you can put us to work for you, I should now describe ITC a bit more.

You have already heard by way of introduction that we are the son or daughter of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Briefly, we are a sort of bridge builder between government and the business sector. We are a small, lean, and creative organization. We try to find new ways, not traditional ones, to make things happen, as you will see by a number of examples. We try to be very practical. We speak the business language and try hard to encourage the business community of the LDCs to contribute to the development effort. We are small, as I said. We are about 200 with 700 consultants. We will be 40 years old in 2004. We go out of our way to use technical resources from the developing world. They exist. Fifty-five per cent of our consulting assignments last year came from nationals of developing countries. Consultants from 59 developing countries, including several LDCs, were involved.

What do we do? Again, essentially, we identify business opportunities for the developing world and for LDCs in particular, and we try hard to turn them into actual business. How do we do that? Principally through the initiatives of small and medium-sized enterprises (SME). These are our prime clients, partners, and targets. We help them enter the world trade system. We also strengthen their national support institution. If you are an SME anywhere in Europe or America and you have a problem, you have somewhere to turn to. You look up the yellow pages or you know some experts through your business affiliations. But if you are in a number of developing countries, to find somebody who can help you with quality management or packaging problems or someone, who can tell you what the WTO rules are, this is another story. So one of the things we do is help those people, through their national bureau of standards or industry associations, for instance. We help them become more knowledgeable in order to do a better job of supporting their entrepreneurs in a manner that is more comparable to those available in the North. Essentially, we help them become more competitive. At the end of the day, competitive firms will succeed; others will fail and go bankrupt.


10


As the High Representative for Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States, Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury said before, you have commitments that are spelt out in the Brussels Programme of Action for LDCs. Where can we help you? In our view, Commitment 4 (Building Productive Capacities to Make Globalisation Work for LDCs) and Commitment 5 (Enhancing the Role of Trade in Development) is where we can be of most help. The rest of my presentation will be devoted entirely to telling you, through a number of examples, how we do our work so that you can call on us.

Let me first say that we do have a special focus on LDCs. Last year (2002), 40 per cent of our delivery was to LDCs. It could be more than that, but donors come to us with money earmarked for specific countries. Last year, 40 per cent of our resources were earmarked for LDCs. It allowed us to be of help to 40 LDCs, out of a total of 49 (now 50) and to create a unit entirely dedicated to LDCs.

To give you an idea of delivery on a continental basis, the best part of our work is intended for Africa, followed by Asia and the Pacific. We also have a number of global (and) regional programmes. Our total delivery of trade-related technical assistance last year was almost 17 million dollars. This is not enormous. But when you see the type of things we do, none of them are very expensive. We specialize in very practical and concrete actions. We do not specialize in studies. We undertake some applied research but what we do most and, indeed, what we do best, is roll up our sleeves and help entrepreneurs export.

Being a small organization, we are always delighted to work with others. We participate very actively in two programmes which you may have heard of: the Integrated Framework for Technical Assistance to LDCs (IF) and the Joint Integrated Trade-related Technical Assistance Programme for African Countries (JITAP). The first one is a partnership between the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), UNCTAD, WTO and ITC under which we have agreed to work together when it comes to trade programmes in any of the LDCs, rather than working separately and leaving behind various recipes, at times contradictory. Three pilot countries were selected to begin with. Eleven were added recently. The programme will make a difference.

The second one, JITAP, was born earlier. It includes WTO, UNCTAD and ITC, the three Geneva-based organizations. I will tell you a bit more about what ITC contributes to each programme. As I said, we try hard to be focused and practical. We help build capacity in sectors pre-identified by diagnostic trade integration studies conducted with help from the World Bank. Let me illustrate with specific examples.


11


In Djibouti, we helped create the IF secretariat. In Guinea, we trained managers to run the Integrated Framework. In Madagascar, we brought logistical support. In Mauritania, we conducted workshops and coaching for exporters. In Burundi, we helped with training. In Cambodia, we helped prepare a successful export strategy.

Our second point of focus is trying to build the supply side capacity of LDCs. You know that in many LDCs, there is a limited number of products, goods or services available for export. We begin by looking hard at the supply side of the equation to see what a given country has potential for, we identify their comparative advantages. We then help with product development and certification. For instance, there was a time Bangladesh was exporting lots of jute but it was used principally for potato bags and packaging of some sort. It then competed with other types of packages. We worked intensely with the jute producers to find additional applications such as ladies fashion accessories. You can buy beautiful jute handbags. You can find wallpapers. Better, if you drive a Mercedes, the inside lining of your car is made of jute. Few people know that but this is a fact. This is far from potato bags.

Often when a product is made in a developing country, people in the North wonder if the company is good, if the quality is up to standard and if it will be consistent. The way to beat the notion is to have the company/product certified. We work in this area. Making entrepreneurs aware that the best business card they can have for foreign market is a company that is ISO certified and a product that has received certification. We have a suite of trade maps that allow developing county entrepreneurs and their governments to focus on markets with greatest potential. Who is already on that market? What is competition like? We help in identifying new market opportunities and we assist in formulating export strategies. We have done that in Cambodia and in many other countries.

We are convinced that the best way to succeed on foreign markets is by bringing together the public and private sectors. They need to arrive at some sort of team effort where you can talk in terms of Tanzania Inc. or Team Benin Inc. The public sector is best for providing the long-term vision. But you need the drive, creativity and imagination of the private sector to export. When the two come together to conceptualize and implement an export strategy, you have better chances of winning. And, if you look around the world, to find developed or developing counties that are doing well on the international export scene, the one thing they have in common is a national export strategy put together and implemented by private and public sectors. Look at Mauritius, an advanced developing country that is doing well. They found ways to build bridges between their private and public sector.

In Bangladesh, we helped improve entrepreneurial skills in the leather sector. In Gambia, we provided marketing assistance, training workshops and facilities and equipment to the horticultural and fishery sectors. We helped organise marketing missions and


1�

develop export strategies for mangoes in Haiti and sectoral export strategies for green beans and fisheries in Tanzania. In Burundi, we conducted a feasibility study and provided production and marketing advice for essential oils. In Togo, we arranged for participation in international fairs, and helped build their publicity materials for precious wood articles. A partnership with “Le Petit Prince” provided marketing support for precious wood articles and created 120 new jobs.

Let me come back on promoting strategic alliances of a special kind. In Burundi, an entrepreneur who was involved with essential oils needed help. He could have turned to a consultant from the North. He came to us and we knew that in Haiti there was one other person who happened to be one of the world’s largest producers of Vitiver, an essential oil that goes into perfume. There is not an enormous production and it sells at a high price. We brought the Haitian opportunity to the attention of the Burundian entrepreneur. The two got together in a very successful partnership and created 800 jobs. In Guinea, there was an opportunity to expand the fisheries sector and the expertise to do it came from Mauritania. In Malawi, we were invited to help formulate an export strategy for the textile and garment sector. We did so with help from Bangladesh. Cambodia is possibly the example that I am proudest of. Those of you, who have been following the Integrated Framework, know that it began in three countries and that Cambodia was the first in the class.

It was first in the class because of the manner in which it tackled the opportunity. The Minister of Trade decided not to try to do it all by himself. He invited many other ministers (agriculture, finance, a number of others), the Prime Minister and the business community. He brought them on board and he made a success of it. Those of you, who were at the conference in Monterrey, may remember that it was this example that was singled out as the first and, at that time, the only success of the Integrated Framework.

I would like to tell you a bit about the other programme, JITAP, which is for Africa only. A team of outside evaluators went around the countries concerned and declared the programme most successful. That led to a second generation of JITAP. In this programme, as I told you, there are only the three Geneva-based organizations and again we are dividing the work. UNCTAD specializes in trade policy work, the macro-economic picture, WTO explains what has to be done to comply with the commitments countries undertook when joining WTO, and ITC helps enterprises become more competitive and, in addition, acts as coordinator of the programme.

This programme started in 1999 in eight countries: four LDCs and four developing countries. It has a budget of 10 million dollars that was all used. The second phase, which started at the beginning of 2003, is an expansion of the same programme with some refinement. This time it touches six additional LDCs and two other countries. The budget is 12 million dollars. Seven million dollars have already been pledged. This is quite substantial.



1�

These are two major programmes where we work with others. In most other cases, we work by ourselves or under ad hoc associations with others. By way of example, let’s look at our South-South Trade programme. We are convinced that there are many opportunities for trade between developing countries. Very often, this is the place to start, before trying to export to the most demanding, difficult and sophisticated markets of the world. Very often, on the same continent, there are countries which could buy and sell to each other. Many people are under the impression that it is not possible - that they have nothing to offer each other. I can assure you that this is not the case. I am saying that with certainty because we have been working on this area for a number of years. Our starting point is trade flow analysis. We have done much of this in Africa. We did establish, at one point in time, that there were over 900 products which Africa imported from outside of Africa, at the same time that African producers were exporting outside of Africa. If it is good enough for the rest of the world, it is probably good enough for Africa. But Africans were not buying from each other. On the basis of trade flow analysis, we isolate sectors that offer more potential. We have a methodology to identify serious buyers and sellers. We share it with people in the developing countries concerned and they conduct the studies. We check, and we coordinate a meeting for serious buyers and sellers in a given sector, such as food and beverages or printing materials or generic drugs. Buyers and sellers come for two days, at their own expense. Most want to come back.

Let me push this a bit further; doing trade flow analysis we found that last year or the year before, UN agencies and large NGOs procured goods and services worth 4.7 billion dollars for distribution in Africa. What did they procure in Africa? Less than 10 percent. So we looked at what they procured. We found plenty of humanitarian-related simple goods. Products such as tents, nets, blankets, pots and pans and other goods which are produced in Africa but were imported from everywhere except Africa. It occurred to us that we should bring together African buyers and sellers. We did that for the first time in October 2001 in Nairobi. Eighteen buyers and 65 sellers came. We repeated the experience in [Dhaka] in 2002 and then in Pretoria. We were extremely pleased to read about the Pretoria event in The Times of London. Their correspondent in South Africa attended it and reported on it enthusiastically.

Now, a word about our Export-led Poverty Reduction Programme. This is a pilot programme which we are testing in several countries, including two LDCs to begin with. Under this programme, we try to find products made by poor communities in rural areas or industries predominantly in the hands of women. We help them organize production better and get closer to markets. It means bringing together a number of producers, something we are not terribly well equipped to do. We reach out to them through NGOs. We speak to larger exporters of the same country with the view of having smaller producers piggyback on them in a manner that benefits



1�

both. It’s a pilot project, which, we believe, has a bright future. In Nepal, we are working with production villages where one or two or three producers could never think of exporting. Sixty of them grouped together have the critical mass to begin to think about exports.

Another of our very popular programmes is called World TradeNet. You are all aware of WTO rules and the danger that lies ahead if countries do not take the time to learn about them. You know that in Doha, the developing world, and the LDCs in particular, were very clear. They told the North that if it wanted to liberalize trade further, the South may be prepared to join, but with the conditions that benefit them as well. They said they were signing again, but wanted additional market access and technical assistance to benefit. The Cancun WTO Ministerial Conference is around the corner. It is in September of this year (2003), and by that time, I think the North will have to be clear about what it is prepared to do. At the ITC, we have a programme focusing on what those rules are all about. It explains them in simple language. Exporters from the North can call on experts for explanations on sanitary and phytosanitary agreements or whatever they need to know. In the south, it is not so easily done. In order to help in this regard, we have summarized the rules in a “Business Guide to the World Trading System”. It presents rules in a businesslike manner. To complement it, there are national networks in 49 developing countries, including a number of LDCs. These national teams are generally composed of 10 to 15 persons: essentially, persons from the Ministry of Trade and/or Finance, lawyers who hope to make money explaining the rules one day, professors, Chamber of Commerce people and others. If those people come together voluntarily, we back them up with solid support to help them do the job.

The ITC Executive Forum is an annual affair held in Montreux, Switzerland, which is funded by Switzerland. We bring 25 national teams to Montreux, composed of business persons and policy makers to brainstorm on the subject of national export strategies. We prepare the subject long ahead of time. Participants debate. ITC takes notes and produces a book, such as this one on Export Development in the Digital Economy. Another forum was held on the theme of Redefining Trade Promotion: the Need for a Strategic Response.

Another one was on trade support networks. There is high demand for this, but we can only accommodate 60 to 80 persons. Anyone that cannot make it can follow by Internet. Last year we had 700 participants on the Internet.



1�

I told you about trade flow analysis. We have developed product maps which essentially contain statistical information, market intelligence and business contacts. We have done it for over 5,000 products in 80 countries. We assemble it all under various portals. I recommend that you go to your computer and look them up. It is easy, go into country profile, decide on the country you are interested in. It will ask if you wish to look at export or imports. Let us say you are from Benin and you want to know about your exports, press Benin exports. Immediately, you get 30 products on the screen. The 30 products you are presently exporting most. You will see your relative share of the market. You will see who your four top competitors are. Whether they are gaining market share or losing it. This is the type of information that trade promotion organizations from the North have had at their fingertips for a long time. It’s now on our website; it is free and available to all.

Let me conclude by saying that those who want more information should consult our compendium [of ] tools, services and programmes. If you want to know a bit more about what we did last year, what we are proposing to do next year, look up our annual report on our website. See our publications at the e-shop. Buy them online. To sum up, what we do at ITC is help exporters. We facilitate the dialogue between business and government. We strengthen national trade support institutions, we help SMEs become competitive. Above all, we believe that export is a tremendously powerful tool for development and we would like to work with like-minded organizations, be they international institutions, bilaterals, foundations or companies.



1�

The Common Fund for Commodities and the Programme of Action for

Least Developed CountriesDr. Rolf W. Boenke, Managing Director of the Common Fund for Commodities

• June 2003 • * The following is a transcript of Mr. Boenke’s presentation.

I would like to refer in my presentation to five points:

Firstly, I will give a brief introduction into the Common Fund and its mandate;

Secondly, some comments will be made about the link between Least Developed Countries and commodities;

Thirdly, I will draw attention to the main commodity-related issues of the Brussels Programme of Action for LDCs;

Fourthly, the response and activities of the Common Fund in relation to the Brussels Programme of Action will be outlined; and

Fifth and finally, an outlook will be provided regarding the direction of the future activities of the Common Fund in support of the Least Developed Countries.

1. Common Fund for Commodities

The Common Fund for Commodities is an autonomous intergovernmental financial institution established under the auspices of UNCTAD. The agreement establishing the Common Fund for Commodities became effective in 1989 and a very small secretariat was subsequently set up in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The Common Fund now has 106 member countries plus three institutional members, namely the African Union, the European Community and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA). Forty-two of the 49 (now 50) Least Developed Countries are members of the Common Fund, which is an indication of the high attention paid by the Fund to LDCs.

The Common Fund for Commodities and the Programme of Action for Least Developed Countries


1�

In line with its market-oriented approach, the Common Fund finances commodity development projects in the following areas:

a) Commodity development measures aimed at improving the structural conditions in markets and at enhancing the long-term competitiveness and prospects of particular commodities. These measures include research and development; productivity and quality improvements; transfer of technology; diversification and processing; and improvements of marketing and market access.

b) Assisting developing countries, and in particular LDCs, to function effectively in a liberalised global economy. Projects in this field include physical market development, enhancement of market infrastructure, facilitation of private sector initiatives and commodity price risk management. Price stabilising measures are now pursued through market-based instruments such as warehouse receipts, which allow the farmers and their cooperatives to sell once prices have become more favourable instead of immediately at harvest time. Price Risk Management instruments will secure a floor price while still participating in upward price movements .

The financial resources for projects come mainly from voluntary contributions of member countries and to a smaller extent from interest earned on the foundation capital.

The Common Fund operates under the novel approach of commodity focus. This entails concentrating on general problems of commodities, which are of relevance to producers in several countries.

Project proposals are usually submitted to the Common Fund by and through 24 international commodity bodies (ICBs), which are intergovernmental organisations specialising in particular commodities, for instance the International Jute Study Group and the intergovernmental groups of the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO). Projects are demand-driven and generated by commodity producers.

Projects are implemented by project executing agencies which have a special knowledge in the field of the particular project. The majority of projects are grant-financed, about one fifth is loan-financed. The average project size is 3 million US dollars with a duration of 3 to 5 years.

2. Least Developed Countries and Commodities

The importance of commodities for LDCs becomes evident, inter alia, from the testimony of these countries. The Common Fund, together with UNCTAD, organised a workshop with representatives of LDCs in preparation of the Brussels LDC III Conference. I quote from the statements of three LDCs which participated in that workshop:



1�

Benin: “The rural sector … accounts for 40 percent of the GDP, 80 percent of export revenue and 75 percent of jobs”.

Comoros: “Geographical isolation and limited natural resources; dependency on three (agricultural) export products”.

Nepal: “The country depends heavily on agriculture. Agriculture contributes more than half of household income, provides employment to about 80 percent of the population, and has a significant bearing on the industrial and export sectors”.

Commodities are still the backbone of the economies of the large majority of developing countries, in particular of the LDCs and the poorer strata of the population in other developing countries. Out of 2.5 billion people employed in agriculture in developing countries, about 1 billion derive a significant part of their income from the production of export commodities. World Bank calculations have shown that more than 50 developing countries depend on three or fewer leading commodities for more than half of their export earnings. Commodity production and trade determine the livelihood of hundreds of millions of people as well as government revenues, trade expenditure, the trade balance and foreign reserves. A decade long decline of the terms of trade for commodity producers as well as generally declining price trends and sharply fluctuating prices have aggravated the situation. Given this scenario, it is no wonder that most of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) are commodity-dependent.

It can be said that the fate of the LDCs and the development of their commodity sector are inseparably intertwined.

In recognition of the pivotal role commodities play in economic development, particularly of the LDCs, the international community has repeatedly drawn attention to the Common Fund for Commodities, more recently in General Assembly Resolution 57/236 of December 2002, underlining “the need to strengthen the Common Fund for Commodities…”

3. The Brussels Programme of Action 2001 to 2010

The Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2001-2010, adopted in Brussels, contains under Commitment 5 “Enhancing the Role of Trade in Development” a special chapter on commodities. The main points in this chapter are:

• Intensifying horizontal and vertical diversification, including local processing of primary commodities;

• Diversifying export base;



1�

• Supporting capacity building in the areas of research and development, production, processing and marketing of commodities, including non-traditional commodities where market niches offer fresh opportunities;

• Adapting research and development on productive and technological capacities with a view to increasing commodity exports from LDCs;

• Building institutional and technical capacities to gain access to and make use of modern risk management techniques and tools;

• Assisting to create essential infrastructure to facilitate the functioning of liberalised domestic and regional markets;

• Encouraging private sector initiatives

• Continuing to provide compensatory financing

4. Implementation of the Brussels Programme of Action Relating to Commodities by the Common Fund

Even before the Brussels Meeting in May 2001, the Common Fund had given priority to the LDCs under its Five-Year Action Plan 1998 to 2002, which provides as follows:

a) Target Beneficiaries: LDCs shall receive particular attention, both as a target group and with regard to the location of projects.

b) Type of Commodities: The Common Fund will pay special attention to commodities of interest to LDCs and commodities with development potential.

c) Types of Projects: The Common Fund will concentrate on small to medium sized projects and on projects which are particularly well suited for the low absorption capacity of LDCs.

We have taken great care that the commodities the Fund focuses on and that the type of problems being addressed are of relevance to the target beneficiaries, which are mainly the LDCs. Among others, we have conducted a comprehensive statistical review of commodities of importance to producing member countries.

The commodities that were found to be of particular importance for LDCs were coffee, cotton, fish, livestock/meat, fruits (all kinds), sugar and edible oils. The major areas of concern identified in production, processing and marketing were productivity and labour enhancing technologies, especially in the context of declining commodity prices; access to inputs; availability of improved seeds; new disease and pest resistant varieties; improvement of quality and compliance with sanitary and phytosanitary standards; access to credit; and various aspects of marketing.



�0

As at May 2003, the Fund had approved a total of 175 projects, of which 121 are regular projects and 54 are smaller fast track projects, with an overall cost of USD 367 million, of which the Fund financed USD 178 million or almost half. This comprises USD 152 million in grants and USD 26 million in loans. Of these, 92 projects, of which 55 are regular projects and 37 Fast Tracks, directly involve LDCs with an overall cost of USD 167 million, of which the Common Fund is providing USD 87 million. The high co-financing ratio is evidence of the catalytic role the Common Fund plays in attracting resources from other institutions for commodity development using its funds as seed money.

The Common Fund projects currently cover 37 commodities, of which 34 are agricultural and 3 are mineral. The total number of commodities covered by the international commodity bodies and which are therefore supportable by the Common Fund is over 60. Common Fund projects in LDCs cover 27 of these commodities and they are all are agricultural.

Of the regular projects approved by the Executive Board of the Fund after LDC III, 52 percent have been directed towards LDCs.

Of the fast track projects approved after LDC III, 67 percent have been directed towards LDCs.

The following are examples of Common Fund-financed projects for selected commodities in LDCs:

a) Banana improvement project: Developing more disease resistant varieties, reviving banana cultivation in Guinea on a pilot basis; Improved Banana Musa Germplasm to be distributed to farmers

b) Cashew: Regional cashew improvement network in Africa

c) Coffee: Development of gourmet coffee and its markets; coffee market development and trade Promotion in Africa (warehouse receipts to be introduced; marketing and trading policies for coffee; prevention of coffee mould formation; combating coffee wilt disease; pilot rehabilitation of neglected coffee plantations; integrated stem borer management of coffee; coffee price risk management

d) Cotton: Integrated pest management for cotton; improvement of the marketability of sticky cotton; improvement of cotton marketing and trade systems (warehouse systems to be introduced); pilot cotton price risk management

e) Fish: promotion of value-added fishery products; technical information service for smallholder fisheries; export promotion of value-added tuna products in the Pacific.

f ) Grains: Improvement of jute physicochemical properties; development of jute-



�1

based non-woven products; biotechnology application of making pulp for paper production from green jute and Kenaf; entrepreneurship development in diversified jute products; jute reinforced polypropylene for industrial applications.

g) Hides and skins: Grading of hides and skins in Africa, with the aim of improving returns to farmers; adding value to African leather/leather products; commercialization of hides and skins by improving collection and quality

h) Meat: Value-added meat products in sub-Saharan Africa; improvement of livestock marketing in West Africa

i) Sugar: Integrated sugarcane variety improvement; co-cropping of sugar and sweet sorghum; study on sugar bagasse electricity co-generation

j) Tropical fruits: African fruit fly initiative to combat the damage inflicted by fruit flies

In its projects, the Common Fund has addressed the strategic areas relating to commodities as identified by the Brussels LDC III Conference. Also, evaluations of completed projects by independent external consultants have shown that the projects financed by the Common Fund have broadly achieved their objectives.

5. Outlook

Since the holding of the LDC III Conference in Brussels, the Governing Council of the Common Fund has approved the new Five-Year Action Plan 2003 to 2007 of the Fund. The new plan reconfirms the particular attention to the LDCs. The plan further underlines the supply chain approach in development as well as diversification, strengthens the advocacy role of the Common Fund in commodity matters and aims at facilitating information on commodities. The plan takes account of the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations to reduce poverty by half by 2015. Specific reference is made to the Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries and the Plan of Implementation agreed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development. The Action Plan (2003 to 2007) states that:

“Common Fund financed measures and actions shall be designed and implemented in a way that they reach the target beneficiaries and make an identifiable contribution to sustainable development and poverty reduction, (while) paying due respect to the private sector and civil society”.

In summary, the Common Fund for Commodities is committed to use its resources in support of the LDCs. In so doing, the Common Fund seeks close collaboration with other development partners and in particular looks forward to a continued cooperation with the Office of the High Representative for Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island States.



��

The Challenge of drought and desertification in Least Developed Countries


Mr. Hama Arba Diallo, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Convention on Combating Drought and Desertification

• May 2003 •

Mr. Anwarul K. Chowdhury, High Representative for Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island States introduced Mr. Hama Arba Diallo, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Convention on Combating Desertification (UNCCD) and the session chairman, Ambassador Joel Adechi, Benin’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Chairman of the Coordination Bureau of the Least Developed Countries. In his opening remarks, Ambassador Adechi highlighted the importance of the topic, noting that desertification and drought were a severe impediment to development of LDCs.

Mr. Hama Arba Diallo started off by highlighting the extent of environmental degradation in the LDCs. He observed that in the Sahelian countries in Africa, degradation had reached such a level that the energy used to cook is more expensive than the food itself. He emphasised that is not history, but the present reality.

He said the UNCCD is a tool that people look to in order to address their situation - a situation that, fortunately for the international community, has solutions. Farmers are looking forward to being supported in actions to improve the situation, even where the actions of some of them had contributed to the erosion of the natural resource base.

Dr. Diallo explained that the international community can support these farmers through mechanisms such as UNCCD, initiated in Rio in 1992, which has been ratified by 186 countries to date. At the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002, it was recognized that the UNCCD could be a tool to help the international community achieve the objectives of the Millennium Declaration and the Johannesburg Programme of Action.

Mr. Diallo explained that the UNCCD seeks to stop the process of land degradation, which is the result of agricultural and livestock activities as well as recurring droughts. Over the last five to ten years, many countries, particularly in the drylands, have directly experienced the impact of climate change on the seasons. The certainty and regularity of the seasons has become a thing of the past, with severe consequences for developing countries,


��


especially in Africa where, in most countries, 90% of agriculture is still rain fed. The consequence, according to a study by the United Nations Environment Programme, is that every year, an estimated $42 billion is lost in income.

The solutions advanced by the Convention are being reflected in the national action programmes of countries. The measures envisaged under the Convention are essentially preventive, as curative measures are deemed very expensive. In the implementation of these measures, the Convention requires a bottom up, participatory approach involving all the major stakeholders at the local and national level.

Mr. Diallo observed that past mistakes included simply informing a given community of the best project ideas prepared with the best tools. Although this is a helpful strategy, it is not enough. He stated that “we must determine how to involve other stakeholders who can amongst themselves reconcile the various proposed utilisations of limited natural resources.” He noted that there are national action programmes from the affected countries that have gone through this process. This, he said, creates the enabling environment necessary for good implementation of those activities.

He elaborated that an enabling environment includes access to land, access to water and access to credit for both women and men. The issue of gender is fundamental, as 80% of those who use the land and natural resources in the countries concerned are women. They are part of the problem, and they should be part of the solution; but this requires that they have direct access to land, water and credit.

Mr. Diallo explained that beyond the national level, activities are promoted at the sub-regional level among countries sharing natural resources such as water. These countries are encouraged to come to a consensus on how best to jointly manage the shared resources.

At the regional level, UNCCD has helped countries develop programmes in areas such as information management, capacity building, research, technology exchanges and formation of thematic programme networks, particularly in Africa, Asia and the Pacific. The thematic networks cover various subjects, including integrated management of water resources, agro-forestry, and rational use of ranges.

The UNCCD is also promoting collaboration at the inter-regional level, particularly between Africa and Asia. Mr. Diallo reported that three meetings had been organized for this purpose, with one in Mongolia in 2001 and another planned for Benin in 2003 to discuss agro-forestry and soil conservation.

Turning to what LDCs in Asia and Africa could learn from each other, Mr. Diallo said that agro-forestry was one of the easily accessible entry points for farmers to share experiences. Through discussions in this area, activities have been identified and were underway. UNCCD has facilitated similar experience-sharing processes between Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, including a meeting in Venezuela for the three regions last year.


��


One of the UNCCD’s main approaches is to help countries integrate their national action programmes or regional programmes into existing schemes of collaboration between these countries and the international community. The organization has, in particular, looked at how best to integrate activities identified by the countries into the cooperation arrangements of the Cotonou Agreement between the European Union and Africa, the Pacific and Caribbean countries.

This, Mr. Diallo explained, was one of the ways to show there was collaboration at the national level in the formulation of schemes to utilise resources. “It is not only a framework prepared by the Ministry of Environment, but a framework also shared and agreed to by the other ministries, such as the Ministry of Planning or the Ministry of Finance. Until those ministries are convinced that this is a process that is also their process, things wouldn’t work,” he said.

He added that it was also important to ensure that national and regional action programmes are seen as relevant and important in helping countries combat poverty. For example, under the NEPAD process in Africa, it had been found that 60% to 70% of poverty is concentrated in rural areas.

Mr. Diallo said one of the most important outcomes of the Johannesburg Summit and the Monterey Consensus1 is the conviction that it is time to change the situation where the bulk of resources have been coming out of the rural areas into other areas. “Maybe the politicians are more eager to please the city dwellers than the rural dwellers…For those looking for votes, the marginal areas inhabited by the marginal people are the ones getting short-changed.”

He argued that we cannot continue to wait for the rural people to move into the urban areas to make the case that poverty is getting worse. “If you are waiting for people to come into the urban areas, they will come. They will not come because they want it. They will come because they have to; because the conditions in the rural areas are impossible.”

He said that if they came to the urban areas and failed to make it, they would move on to other countries. People in developed countries, he said, were “very lucky” because 60% to 70% of those who migrate, do not come their way, but go to neighbouring countries. However, if they can’t cope in the neighbouring countries, they would move on to the developed countries. Unless poverty was effectively tackled, migration was bound to increase. The solution to migration pressures is not to enact laws, but to improve the conditions in the countries that are the sources of the migration.

1 Outcome of the UN Financing for Development Conference of Heads of State and Government held in Monterrey, Mexico, in 2002.


��


Mr. Diallo made the case for increasing overseas development assistance (ODA), with more resources going to the rural sector. If the rural sector is not looked after, he said, the objectives of the Millennium Declaration would not be achieved.

While these are the issues UNCCD has been trying to address, it has been constrained by the lack of direct access to resources. In Johannesburg, one of the important decisions taken was to facilitate access to the resources of the Global Environment Facility (GEF). It is important to continue thinking about how to better channel more resources towards the implementation of the UNCCD.

The next Conference of Parties in Havana at the end of August2 will be a time to see how all of the efforts that have been made over the last 10 years can enable us to create the best possible environment for the international community to stand behind the countries concerned by supporting them in the implementation of their various action programmes.

In his conclusion, Mr. Diallo expressed UNCCD’s readiness to support the achievement of the Brussels Programme of Action for LDCs. He said there are enough targets and international agreement on them and what is required now is implementation. He emphasized, however, that unless the rural sector and land issues were tackled in an appropriate way, it would be extremely difficult to achieve those targets. He warned that if the targets were not achieved, poverty would be compounded.

2 The conference was held in Havana, Cuba, from 25 August to 5 September, 2003.


��

Facing up to Disaster in Vulnerable Countries


Mr. Salvano Briceno, Director of the Inter-Agency Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR)

• February 2005 •

The Chairman of this session of the Open Forum, Ambassador Omar Bashir Manis, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Permanent Mission of the Sudan and Vice Chairman of the LDC Coordination Bureau, opened the event saying that the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are the poorest of the poor within the international community. As such, they are also the most vulnerable countries in the face of natural disasters. The severe effects of the hurricanes in Haiti in the Caribbean, floods in Asia’s Bangladesh and continuous cycles of drought and other natural disasters in most LDCs in Africa underscore LDCs’ high degree of vulnerability to natural disasters.

In his introductory remarks, Anwarul K. Chowdhury, High Representative of the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island States, noted the timeliness of this Open Forum session soon after the World Conference on Disaster Reduction in Kobe, Japan, from 18-22 January 2005, which was held to review progress in the implementation of the Yokohama Strategy adopted in Japan in 1994. Mr. Chowdhury expressed satisfaction with the outcome of the Kobe Conference, the Hyogo Framework of Action for the next 10 years (2005 ¬2015), which proposes measures to be undertaken to address the specific needs of LDCs.

Referring to the Kobe Declaration and Framework of Action, Mr. Salvano Briceno proposed that the discussion should focus on reducing risk and vulnerability as the main purpose of the implementation of an international strategy for disaster reduction.

Disaster reduction has been identified as a development issue and, more recently, as a sustainable development issue. All of the different areas of development are affected by disasters: environmental degradation, poverty reduction, governance, etc.

Mr. Briceno said that the ISDR is looking for a holistic approach to disaster reduction, where it can first be identified as a priority in policy-making processes and then be integrated into all the sectors of managing natural resources, environment, social and economic development. This would represent progress towards sustainable development.

Citing statistics reflecting that the poorest are always the most affected by disasters, Mr. Briceno contended that the main effect of natural disasters is that the poor are condemned


��


to perpetual poverty. Most diseases are located in areas highly prone to natural hazards. When you add to this, population growth, unplanned urbanization, poverty, deforestation and other forms of environmental degradation, global warming, lack of mitigation measures and institutional weakness, the problem is exacerbated. Africa has a natural resource-based economy where communities are largely dependent on rainfall to grow their food and cash crops. It is vulnerable from the onset to climate change. Drought has a major impact on Africa, and it is one of the more damaging natural hazards on the African continent. Insufficient social services and other health and social factors lead to greater vulnerability.

Mr. Briceno described risk reduction as the sum of measures that can be undertaken to reduce human and social vulnerability. The measures include risk assessments, education and information management, land use planning, environmental management, protection of critical facilities and application of science and technology in all fields including early warning. The ISDR works with national platforms in each country to address risk reduction. They are called platforms because they involve the participation of all sectors, both within and outside government, including NGOs, the academia and private sector.

Mr. Briceno highlighted that the Hyogo Framework of Action was established at the Kobe Conference to address this issue. The framework was based on a review of the 1994 Yokohama Strategy to determine what had been achieved and what gaps remained to be filled. The Kobe Conference identifies a new set of objectives for the next 10 years. It identifies strategic objectives and priority areas to reduce risk at all levels and emphasizes the integration of risk reduction as part of poverty reduction and sustainable development strategies. Particular emphasis is put on the needs of the LDCs and Small Island Developing State (SIDS).

There are a number of measures that need to be implemented in order to ensure reduction of risk and vulnerability and, therefore, resilience. The main priority actions are to ensure that risk reduction is a national and local priority with a strong institutional base for implementation; to identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning; to use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels; to reduce underlying risk factors such as gender equity, environmental management, social safety, micro-financing, etc; and to strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response for recovery and for risk reduction. These are the five main chapters. As stated in the Yokohama Framework of Action, each of the five chapters has a long set of detailed actions that need to be undertaken. From the Brussels Declaration and Program of Action for LDCs, there was the understanding that this is a priority. The seven main areas of the LDCs’ Program of Action coincide very much with the framework of disaster reduction.

One issue that is becoming very important in Geneva is the link between disaster reduction and trade. Mainstreaming disaster risk reduction in sustainable development strategies and policies also includes measures aimed at strengthening LDCs’ trade capacity


��

and resilience. These measures should not be limited to helping countries hit by disasters to recover trade capacities but also oriented to increase net return on trade, which will help them invest in future disaster risk reduction as well as finance recovery processes. These are important elements given current negotiations in multi-lateral trade systems.

Quoting former UN Secretary-General Mr. Kofi Annan, Mr. Briceno said ‘more effective preventive strategies would save not only tens of billions of dollars but save tens of thousands of lives. Funds currently spent on intervention and relief could be devoted to enhancing equitable and sustainable development instead, which would further reduce risk for war and disaster. Building a culture of prevention is not easy. While costs of prevention have to be paid in the present, its benefits lie in the distant future. Moreover, benefits are not tangible. They are the disasters that do not happen. This makes it even more difficult but more urgent at the same time.’

Mr. Briceno concluded by stating that “we all agree that the Tsunami tragedy in the Indian Ocean was a very big eye opener for all of this…we hope it will help in building very strong process to address these issues.”

Closing remarks

In his closing remarks, Mr. Chowdhury stressed the need to build resilient capacity in LDCs. Such capacity has to be community-based to be effective. He noted that at the Kobe Conference, apart from LDCs, there was also a focus on Small Island Developing States. The Kobe meeting took place soon after the Mauritius Conference on Small Island Developing States and took due note of the Mauritius Strategy. Out of the 37 member states of the Small Islands group, 12 are also LDCs. Therefore, the work done for LDCs and SIDS are mutually reinforcing.



��

a) What have been the achievements in disaster reduction over the last 10 years and what can be achieved in the next 10 years?

Since the first conference in Yokohama in 1994, there has been clear advancement on the subject. Nowadays, most countries, particularly those in disaster prone areas, have some kind of program – an institutional mechanism that is sometimes reflected in their legislation, policy or just programmes or projects. There are a lot of initiatives and work being carried out in all the relevant countries. The problem is that vulnerability is increasing even faster. So, even if countries have mechanisms in place, the population growth especially in urban areas, environmental degradation and global warming are all leading to increased vulnerability. So, the world has advanced a lot. It is important to recognize it. One of the most valuable examples is Bangladesh. It lost so many people in the 70s to natural hazards. Nowadays, it resists much better and is much more resilient in the face of floods and tropical cyclones that affect it every year. The same thing has happened in the Caribbean. For instance, Jamaica and Cuba have great systems in place to respond to these disasters. Unfortunately, some countries are still not able to cope. When Hurricane Jane hit Cuba and Haiti, nobody died in Cuba but, in Haiti, we saw the loss of almost 3,000 people. This was the same hurricane. It actually hit Cuba more strongly that it did Haiti, yet Haiti was more affected than Cuba. The world has advanced but there is still much more to be done. We need to build on what we have achieved.

b) What is ISDR’s role in efforts to set up a tsunami early warning system for the Indian Ocean?

Immediately after the tsunami, ISDR started working on the problem with partner agencies in the United Nations. ISDR is basically an interagency secretariat. Its role is to facilitate interaction and team efforts among international organizations. The tsunami early warning system was one of the mechanisms that were most promoted by the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. In the 90s, the tsunami early warning systems were heavily promoted within the context of UNESCO’s International Oceanographic Commission (IOC). ISDR is now working with the IOC for the Pacific to develop a regional system in the Indian Ocean. Tsunamis can be caused by many things, not just earthquakes. They can happen from landslides or volcanic eruptions.

*Mr. Briceno responded to the following issues raised by the audience.&Questions

Comments



�0

That’s why it is important to know more about them. Many of the people who died in the tsunami did so because of ignorance and not because of the tsunami. They did not know what it was and did not run fast enough or know what to do. This can be solved. Education to raise awareness is possible. ISDR is working on it. It is important to realize that all agencies (regional, bilateral, international) want to play a key role. It is true that it is not an easy task to bring everybody around the same table. ISDR is playing the role of facilitating their getting together to discuss. If a tsunami happens again, it will not have the same effect. Everyone knows what a tsunami is. Secondly, relevant disaster management offices and authorities in each country are now connected to the Pacific Tsunami Early Warning System based in Hawaii. At the time of the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, these countries were not connected to the system. There is now an interaction and communication.

Important steps have already been made to reduce the risk and potential impact of a new tsunami. Of course, that’s not enough. We have to strengthen the capacity in the Indian Ocean. It will take several years to strengthen national and local capacities. We need to strengthen local community capacity for reducing risk through the education systems at the local level.

c) How will ISDR facilitate the implementation of Hyogo Framework of Action?

One of the decisions of the Yokohama Framework of Action is to start with the development of a matrix to identify the role of all relevant agencies and institutions that need to work on this. ISDR is doing that now in Geneva with key partners. So, the first step is to identify what each institution needs to do to implement the Yokohama Framework of Action. ISDR is also working with UNEP to develop criteria and indicators for identifying risk reduction in environmental management programs. One of the problems that exist in relation to environmental degradation is that environmental management is one of the main causes of disaster. The reason is that they have not integrated risk reduction as a main feature of their programmes. So far, environmental management has been addressing the need to protect environment, eco-systems and bio-diversity. That has been its main purpose. The fact is that the concept of eco-systems being a part of the risk reduction mechanism has so far not been addressed enough. ISDR is working very strongly with UNEP on that issue. They are developing a set of

Questions & Comments continued



�1

recommendations so all ministries of Environment can identify risk reduction as a key target of their environmental management policies and programmes. Eco-systems, for example, are a very important buffer for reducing the impact of disasters. ISDR is doing the same with UNESCO in education, World Health Organization in health, UN Habitat in urban development and with all other sectors.

d) Isn’t there the risk of focusing all attention on disasters that pose immediate danger and forgetting the gradual but equally destructive disasters such as droughts?

This is one of the main elements of ISDR’s program. All hazards need to be treated with the risk reduction approach. We can’t only focus on those that are more visible, like earthquakes or tsunamis. Even though the tsunami was the most visible tragedy in recent years, many more people died from other hazards elsewhere. There’s a ‘tsunami’ hitting Africa every three months. In less than 3 months, there are 300,000 people dying of various epidemics or from the effects of droughts or other hazards that could be prevented. It’s a matter of understanding that risk reduction and risk management is essential. We have to try to keep a balanced focus. When we are working on the follow up of tsunami, we say we have to go beyond tsunamis to a multi-hazard approach; beyond early warning to a multi-risk reduction approach and we need to go beyond the Indian Ocean to the other regions in the world. We have to understand that the most urgent and most visible and most needed is the tsunami early warning system in the Indian Ocean. As long as we understand that, and we work on that first and immediately move to the other issues, it’s fine. We cannot abandon one to go to others or only focus on that one without others. A more comprehensive approach is needed.




��

Global Environment Facility, Environmental Challenges and Vulnerable Countries

Mr. Leonard Good, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Global Environment Facility (GEF)

• March 2005 •


In his welcoming remarks, Mr. Anwarul K. Chowdhury, High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States identified GEF as an important partner in the implementation of the Brussels Programme of Action for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and the Mauritius Strategy for Small Island Developing States (SIDS). With respect to the LDCs, he said GEF has a fund for climate change that would be very relevant to their needs. Of particular relevance is Commitment Six of the Brussels Programme, which is devoted to the environment and environmental protection. Mr. Chowdhury emphasised that Mr. Good is well placed to discuss what GEF is trying to do in the context of the Mauritius Programme given his presence at the review of the Barbados Programme of Action. Mr. Chowdhury introduced the co-chairs of this session of the Open Forum: Mr. Oussou Edouard Aho-Glele, Minister Counsellor of the Permanent Mission of Benin and the Chairman of the Coordination Bureau of the LDCs and Ambassador Jagdish Koonjul, Chairman of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and Permanent Representative of the Mauritius to the United Nations.

Mr. Aho-Glele stated that land is one of the most important avenues for the implementation of the Brussels Programme of Action and welcomed the recent extension of GEF’s area of work to cover land degradation. He emphasized that GEF’s activities were crucial to the implementation of the Brussels Programme.

Ambassador Koonjul said the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) welcomed the launch of the report “GEF and Small Island Developing States” at the Mauritius meeting. It provides a comprehensive overview of GEF activities in support of SIDS to date. It also contains a number of forward-looking ideas. He pointed out that while this briefing was being held jointly for LDCs and SIDS, AOSIS is of the view that there is a need to differentiate between the measures required to address the needs of these two groups of countries. He reminded the audience that a major outcome of the Mauritius meeting was that one size does not fit all and that situation-specific solutions are required.

Ambassador Koonjul highlighted the proposals put forward by the GEF report to the Mauritius meeting:


��


a) Capacity building remains a major challenge for SIDS. Institution of national capacity development programmes to address the findings of national capacity self-assessments would be an important matter to deal with. Small grants could be used to complement such approaches.

b) Climate change is an issue of great concern for SIDS. The GEF is developing pilot programmes to show how adaptation can practically be put into action for SIDS. The small grants approach would complement these activities.

c) GEF’s review of the effectiveness of past projects in order to assess the results of those interventions.

Referring to the discussions in Mauritius, Ambassador Koonjul highlighted the problem of capacity within SIDS in relation to GEF procedures for funding. Filling out application forms, combined with procedures that exist in GEF at the moment, makes it very difficult for SIDS to have access to those resources.

Mr. Leonard Good, Chair and Chief Executive Officer of GEF, introduced the four-part structure of his presentation: (1) background to GEF; (2) relationship with LDCs and SIDS; (3) opportunities for LDCs and SIDS in the context of GEF 4; and (4) performance-based resource allocation framework.

1) Background of the GEF:

The GEF began as a pilot project in 1991, and became formalized as a legal instrument in 1994. It emerged more or less in parallel with the Rio Earth Summit discussions. Technically, the GEF is a financial mechanism for a number of global environmental conventions: notably, the UN Framework on Climate Change and Convention on Biological Diversity. It helps out, but doesn’t have a major role in the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depletion. The GEF does a lot of work on international waters, although not under any particular convention. These four areas were the mandate of the GEF in 1994.

The Chair of the LDC group made reference to the fact that in the last two years, GEF has become the financial mechanism for the Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and for the UN Convention to Combat Desertification. Therefore, the GEF mandate has been expanding. As a financial mechanism for those global conventions, GEF provides grants as part of the co-financing package for projects in developing countries, which yield global environmental benefits.

GEF does a lot of work in energy efficiency in industry and buildings; renewable energy; support for electricity generated by wind, geothermal and small hydro plants. It does a lot of work on solar voltaics. It has also been involved in fairly sophisticated efforts, such as projects on fuel cell buses in some major cities. It is looking at biomass gasification in four countries. All this falls under the climate change portfolio. In biodiversity, GEF is involved


��


in conservation of protected areas and increasingly in bio-safety issues under the Cartagena Protocol.

In international waters, GEF focuses on large marine ecosystems like the Black Sea and Danube, the Nile Basin and the South Pacific. Recently, GEF has become involved in issues associated with destruction of persistent organic pollutants and, increasingly, land degradation. A memorandum of understanding with the Secretariat of the Convention to Combat Desertification is being developed.

The GEF takes guidelines from all of these conventions. GEF itself consists of 170 countries, 32 of which are represented on the GEF Council. Of the 32 members of the Council, 14 are developed countries, 16 are developing countries and 2 are countries in transition.

GEF gets funding from donor countries, both developed and developing countries. There was a small fund for the pilot phase from 1991 -1994. Since then, there have been three replenishments: GEF1 from 1994- 1998, GEF2 from 1998 to 2002, GEF3 from 2002 to July 2006. Donors put $3 billion into the third GEF replenishment. Hopefully, more that $3 billion will be raised under the GEF4 negotiations that will start in July and continue up to the end of 2005.

GEF’s total portfolio amounts to $5 billion in 140 developing countries, with 35% of that going towards climate change activities. Biodiversity accounts for 35%, and international waters 15%. The rest is shared between ozone, persistent organic pollutants and land issues. The projects co-financed by GEF are implemented through well known implementing agencies that are part of the GEF family. The three primary implementing agencies are the World Bank, United Nations Development Programme and United Nations Environment Programme. GEF is also starting to work more closely with seven other executing agencies, namely Food and Agricultural Organisation, International Fund for Agricultural Development, United Nations Industrial Development Organisation and four regional development banks.

2) Relationship with LDCs and SIDS

Historically, the bulk of the funds have gone to the larger, better off developing countries such as China, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Philippines, Egypt and India. Nevertheless, GEF has been quite active with LDCs and SIDS, although with smaller projects and amounts.

GEF has worked in 49 LDCs and has 431 projects on its portfolio worth about $1.1 billion in contributions from the GEF. About 200 of these have been in the area of biodiversity and about 100 in the area of climate change.

As for SID countries, GEF has worked with 41 SIDS, where it has almost 260 projects. About half of these are in the domain of biodiversity. That portfolio is about $425 million.


��


3) Opportunities for LDCs and SIDS in the context of the GEF 4

GEF4 will start in mid-2006 and continue for 4 years. While GEF has been active with regard to LDCs and SIDS, it wants to do more in the future. There are various opportunities in the context of GEF4 replenishment and the evolution and maturation of various global environment conventions. These opportunities include:

a) With respect to the Convention on Biodiversity, there is a major discussion underway on a new work programme for the Convention called Island Biodiversity, especially for SIDS. It is expected to be agreed upon at the next conference of parties of the Biodiversity Convention sometime next year. The work programme will provide guidance to the GEF as to the kinds of things it should be doing to support it. There is an obvious opportunity for SIDS, working within the context of Island Biodiversity programme, to indicate how GEF can provide more support.

b) There are also opportunities under the Convention on Climate Change. Historically, that Convention has focused on reduction of greenhouse gases as a mitigation measure. In recent years, it has started to focus more on the reality that no matter how successful we are with mitigation, the climate is changing and adaptation to those changes will be required. Given their circumstances, this is obviously a higher priority than mitigation for many LDCs and SIDS.

Within the main GEF Trust Fund, there is $3 billion referred to earlier, out of which $50 million has been set aside for embryonic work on adaptation. Separate from the basic $3 billion trust fund, GEF has been asked to administer other funds that emerged from the Climate Change Convention and from the Kyoto Protocol. One is called “Special Climate Change Fund” and focuses on adaptation and technology transfer.

The second fund, which is called the “LDC Fund”, has been set up to fund the national adaptation programmes of action.

The third fund, which is not yet operational, is the “Adaptation Fund.” It will be based on resources generated by a 2% charge on projects that are funded under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

All these funds have relatively small amounts of money. LDCs and SIDS can push for more funding.

Discussions are now starting on what the post¬2012 climate change regime should be. Developing countries have some leverage that can be effective in terms of getting more resources into the funds mentioned above.

c) The third opportunity lies within GEF, which is beginning to focus on other areas in addition to biodiversity and climate change. International waters is one of them.


��


GEF is now involved in the Caribbean and West Indian Ocean SIDS. A lot of work is being done on ship related pollution, port operation, tour ship waste, solid waste management. Specific to SIDS, GEF helped support the conclusion of the first international treaty on fisheries under the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement. In the future, GEF will put a lot more focus on water related concerns - on fisheries, reefs and lagoons. There are eight projects involving 38 SIDS under development. They will involve about $83 million in GEF grants. That’s going to be an area of increased importance for GEF.

d) Land degradation is a new area of focus for GEF that is of particular interest to LDCs and SIDS. In GEF3, about $250 million will probably be committed to land degradation. This should increase under GEF4.

It is obvious that national eco-systems, if not taken care of, become multi-country problems and will ultimately become global problems. There is no point in waiting for these problems to become global in scope before we address them significantly.

e) Capacity building is going to be an increasingly important area. GEF has always been involved with enabling activities under various conventions. It has funded National Capacity Self-Assessments (NCSA), which are now being done in over 100 countries. The Secretariat is putting together guidelines, which will hopefully be passed by the Council towards the end of this year to allow GEF to get into actual financing of capacity building initiatives emerging from those self-assessments.

The plan is to put decision-making in the hands of the LDCs and SIDS themselves, so that they can decide how that money is spent in support of capacity building that flows from NCSA or other kind of national plan.

f ) GEF’s Small Grants Programme, which builds capacity at the civil society level, is being expanded. At this point, the Small Grants Programme covers about 80 countries, but it will be extended to an additional 10 countries over the next three years. Five of these will be SIDS and LDCs.

The bottom line is that there are opportunities that LDCs and SIDS can collectively take advantage of.

4) Performance-based resource allocation framework

Putting such a framework in place was part of the agreement that let GEF3 come into being 3 years ago. Putting it in place will be an important pre-condition for the success of replenishing GEF for the fourth time.

Donors will hopefully increase the level of grant funding beyond the $3 billion that was allotted for GEF3. During the negotiations for GEF4, adaptation to climate change,


��


island biodiversity with a focus on SIDS, international waters, land degradation and capacity building will be highlighted. Hopefully, LDCs and SIDS would follow the negotiations and be supportive.

When GEF3 was agreed in 2002, one of the conditions of that replenishment was that the GEF would put in place a “performance based allocation” (PBA) system. It is now called “resource allocation framework.” The notion is that GEF4 monies would be allocated to countries individually based on the potential environmental benefits and their performance.

The arguments in favour of that tend to be that you have a transparent allocation system that is equitable on the one hand, and, on the other hand, lets donor countries make the case to their parliaments that they know where their monies are going. So, it is a transparency argument that is also happening in other international financial institutions.

It has nevertheless been far more controversial in the GEF context than in the context of other institutions. That is because many countries see GEF as a different kind of institution. They see its origins, its history, and its mandate as different. It focuses on global environmental benefits. For a year or two, there was almost no progress made in putting such a system in place. In the last year or so, progress has been made. There is agreement on how that allocation model should work and on many of the parameters of the model.

The outstanding issue is how to measure performance. Everyone agrees that at a minimum, you need some index for the quality of environmental regulation and management - everything to do with the environmental sector in a country as a measure of performance. Where the discussion has come off the rails to a degree is that a number of countries feel there should be some macro-governance, anti-corruption index that should be built into this measurement of performance. Some countries strongly support this while many recipient countries are strongly against it. Nevertheless, the model will provide more equity in terms of distribution of the funds.

Mr. Good summed up his presentation by stressing the following points:

1 GEF’s record over the last decade has been a good one.

2 This year is critical because of the resource allocation framework and the replenishment processes

3 The support of LDCs and SIDS in all this is extremely important.

Closing remarks

In his closing remarks, Mr. Chowdhury stressed the following points arising from Mr. Good’s presentation:


��

a) Some LDCs and SIDS are members of the GEF Governing Council. They can therefore take a lead in pushing forward the SIDS and LDC agenda.

b) LDCs can benefit more from the Small Grants Programme and the LDC Climate Change Fund.

c) SIDS have better opportunities to benefit from water related resources.

d) Mr. Good’s commitment to prepare a report on GEF contribution to the implementation of the Brussels Programme of Action for LDCs is welcome. It would be an important input into the midterm review of the implementation of the Programme of Action in 2006.


a) Why has so much GEF funding gone to the big countries?

Part of the answer is that there is a presumption that global benefits in some areas of biodiversity are going to be larger in bigger countries. Another part of the answer has to do with absorptive capacity. One, for example, finds more equity in terms of the number of projects across countries than one would in terms of dollar amounts. Another part of the answer has to do with the size of projects that can be undertaken in different countries. GEF has some very expensive projects, up to $50m, in some countries for one project on, for instance, an electrical grid. Fuel cell buses are also very expensive. Such projects tend to be undertaken in those countries. A combination of factors has led to that historical distribution. Where possible, GEF is trying to do something about it. In the context of the GEF4 discussions, more focus needs to be put on the opportunities already mentioned.

b) Doesn’t the Resource Allocation Framework constitute a form of conditionality?

I wouldn’t characterize the issues of governance and other kinds of performance measures mentioned earlier as conditionalities. The reality is that the way funds would get allocated would be on the basis of both the potential benefits and performance. Let’s say the benefits would constitute about half of the basis for making an allocation; and performance would constitute the other half. Of the performance half, one quarter of

*Mr. Good responded to the following questions raised by the audience&Questions

Comments


��


it would be based on the portfolio and how well it has been implemented. About half of that half would be based on environmental sectoral issues. The issue of governance becomes only a small part of that half. So quantitatively, it’s not that big an issue in terms of how it influences allocation.

c) GEF procedures being too complex for countries with limited capacity.

While GEF recognizes the criticism, there is a limit as to how much simplification can be done in a world where the Secretariat is looking at:

a) Guidance from four or five conventions

b) A Council consisting of 32 members

c) Trying to work through three implementing agencies

d) Paying attention to the views of 170 countries in which projects are unfolding.

It’s a huge family and very complicated. So, there are limits on how much simpler the procedures can be made. However, efforts are being made to simply, especially in the case of SIDS and LDCs.



�0

The Role of Agriculture in the Development of Least Developed Countries


Jacques Diouf, Director General of the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) • April 2005 •

The High Representative for Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States, Anwarul K. Chowdhury, introduced the speaker, Mr. Jacques Diouf, and the chair of the session, Mr. Oussou Edouard Aho-Glele, Minister Counsellor of the Permanent Mission of Benin to the UN and Chairman of the LDC Group Coordination Bureau.

In his introductory remarks, Mr. Chowdhury highlighted the importance of agriculture in the LDCs in terms of:

a) Contribution to poverty reduction, particularly rural poverty by promoting rural development, which was the focus of the high level segment of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in 2003.

b) Food security: Agriculture’s direct links to forestry, fisheries, livestock development and trade are major aspects that have positive and negative effects on the development efforts of LDCs.

c) It has major implications for the role and status of women with respect to human development.

All of these have a direct or indirect effect on the implementation of the Brussels Programme of Action.

Mr. Aho-Glele recalled that agriculture and food security are some of the major components of the Brussels Programme of Action. As we move towards the mid-term review of the implementation of the Brussels Programme of Action, it is important to consider what has been done in the area of agriculture and food security, and the challenges that lie ahead.

Mr. Jacques Diouf was grateful for the opportunity to speak on the role of agriculture in the development of LDCs and their integration in the world economy. He stated that the two major challenges that face the world in general and LDCs in particular are to reduce poverty and to ensure food security for all at all times. These challenges are the concern of both the Rome Declaration approved by the Heads of State and Government at the World


�1


Food Summit in 1996 and the primary objective of the UN Millennium Development Goals agreed upon in 2000.

Mr. Diouf noted that the bulk of the chronically food insecure people live in countries with very low per capita incomes, which is one of the defining characteristics of the LDC category. FAO estimates that in 36 LDCs for which data is available, nearly 40% of the people go to bed hungry every night. Most disturbingly for these countries, the aggregate number of undernourished people increased from 164 million in 1992, which represented 30% of the population, to 246 million in 2002, representing 51% of the population. The World Food Summit goal of reducing the number of undernourished people by half by the year 2015 can be reached by LDCs only if the recent negative trends can immediately be reversed and if annual reductions can be accelerated.

For dealing with the twin challenges of hunger and poverty in LDCs, the production and trade of food and agricultural products is crucial. Mr. Diouf illustrated that with an average of 73% of the population living in rural areas, the role of agriculture, which is the predominant economic activity in rural areas, is essential in the eradication of poverty and food insecurity in LDCs. The agricultural sector in LDCs provides nearly 70% of the population with employment and livelihood. It accounts for a large percentage of the gross domestic product, ranging from 20% to 60% in more than 20% of the LDCs. It represents a major source of foreign exchange, earning between 20% and 90% in most cases. Ironically, for the more food deficit LDCs, agricultural export earnings provide the bulk of the foreign exchange necessary to finance food imports vital for food security.

Mr. Diouf outlined that most LDCs have considerable unexploited potential in agriculture because of their land, water and climate as well as their human resources but, also, in view of their potential for increasing a presently very low productivity. For example, 60% of LDCs for which data is available are exploiting less than 50% of their arable land. The gap between agricultural productivity in LDCs and what is potentially achievable is large. For example, the average yield in maize production in developed countries is more than 5 times, and, in developing countries as a group, more than three times that of LDCs. Similarly, for rice, the yield on average in developed countries is 3 times and in developing countries twice that of LDCs. LDCs’ agricultural output per capita has declined since the 1990s, and their combined share in world agricultural exports stood at just 1% in 2001-2002, a decline from about 5% in around 2 decades.

In asking why the agriculture potential in LDCs remains unexploited, Mr. Diouf summarised that here are both domestic and external factors for the underdevelopment of the agriculture potential. Internally, LDCs continue to suffer from inadequate rural infrastructure: irrigation, roads, storage capacities and limited technology and inputs. These factors are due to low investment in physical and human capital in the agricultural sector.


��


In Africa, which has 34 of the 50 LDCs, only 7 % of arable land is irrigated compared to 40 % in Asia. Only 4% of its renewable water resources are used for irrigation compared to 17% in Asia. Fertilizer consumption is low; only 23 kilos per hectare compared with 144 kilos in Asia. The present rural road network in Africa is comparable to India’s in 1950. The lack of storage and packaging facilities causes up to 50% harvest losses of fruits and vegetables in many LDCs, compared to an average of 25% in all the developing countries. Without talking about the developed countries, this means that LDCs lose twice more than developing countries in general. Mr. Diouf contended that until these structural constraints are removed, agriculture will remain highly vulnerable in LDCs and subject to climatic swings and particularly to drought.

In 2004, 36 LDC countries were confronted with serious food shortage mainly due to drought and floods. These countries will not be productive and competitive in a world where markets and economies are increasingly globalised. Currently, LDC governments devote on average only 6% of their budget to agriculture. Fortunately, the ACP (Africa, Caribbean and Pacific) countries in the context of the Maputo Declaration of Heads of State and also in the framework of the Heads of State of the African Union have committed themselves to giving priority to agriculture.

The share of agriculture in official development assistance (ODA) to LDCs fell by 56% in real terms between 1981/82 and 1999/2000. However, Mr. Diouf asserted that we must remain optimistic and say that most of the assisting agencies have been refocusing their priorities on poverty eradication and have, quite recently, been initiating policies to restore agriculture to the important place it deserves. The World Bank, which in 1980 devoted 30% of its portfolio to agriculture compared with only 7% in 2003, has fortunately set itself the target of raising this figure to 16% within five years.

There are also positive signs in the same direction at the level of the G-8 and OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries. While LDCs’ expenditure on agriculture is low, developed countries have provided a cumulative $6.5 trillion dollars worth of support since 1980. Mr. Diouf considered that this created an extraordinary agricultural capacity and introduced significant distortions in the markets and the global pattern of agricultural trade. As the G-8 and OECD discuss doubling ODA from $50 billion to $100 billion, $6.5 trillion has been given to farmers in developed countries in different forms of subsidies, support and so on since 1980.

Since the mid-1980s, LDCs as a group have shifted from being net exporters of food and agricultural products to being net importers. As a consequence, the commercial food import bill of LDCs has risen steadily. For at least one-fifth of all LDCs, food imports now exceed 30% of total export of goods and services, excluding debt service payments. On the export side, nearly 20% of all LDCs depend on a single agricultural commodity and more than 40% of their total merchandise earnings. It shows how dependent and fragile their economies are.


��


The current WTO (World Trade Organisation) negotiations on agriculture provide an opportunity to achieve international agreements to hopefully substantially reduce distortions in international agricultural markets, particularly, subsidies. Improved market access for LDC exports through duty free and quota free access, already provided in some markets, has been proposed in the August 2004 WTO Framework Agreement for negotiation. Though yet to be realized, this is a welcome development. However, the reform of agricultural policies in the rich countries will need to be accompanied by measures within LDCs themselves to improve domestic policy incentives for productivity-raising investments in agriculture to strengthen their supply side capacities to be able to take advantage of the trading opportunities available.

Mr Diouf highlighted that international financial institutions and bilateral donors as well as specialized agencies will need to assist LDCs through financing and technical assistance. There has been a growing consensus on these policy requirements as they are reflected in the commitments undertaken by LDCs and the international community in the Programme of Action adopted at the Third United Nations Conference on LDCs held in Brussels in 2001 to which, naturally, FAO subscribes. For dealing with the twin challenges of hunger and poverty, FAO advocates for, in particular, increased investment in sustainable land management and reliable water control systems; rural infrastructures (which means roads), storage capacities, slaughterhouses for animals; fishing ports and, naturally, markets to have a place where demand and supply meet.

The specific problems of LDCs are addressed on a case-by-case basis through FAO’s Technical Cooperation Programme. In 2003, more than 510 field projects with a total budget of $532 million were active in 45 of the 50 LDCs. In addition, FAO has continued to assist LDCs in mobilizing external resources for agricultural and rural development. For the period 2001 to 2004, FAO provided such assistance for 55 agricultural and rural development investment programmes and projects amounting to $1.685 billion; of which external funding commitments were $1.4 billion.

FAO field program assistance met a wide range of needs from emergency relief and agricultural rehabilitation; to policy assistance to governments; to practical programmes for food security; and to sustainable agricultural growth and rural development. FAO’s role is catalytic, helping to set up a situation in which major investment would be the next step. Mr. Diouf concluded by saying that “fighting rural poverty and food security is a huge undertaking; one requiring concerted efforts and continuous dedication by the international community. FAO is committed to be by the side of the LDCs to achieve the goals of the World Food Summit and of the Millennium Summit and, particularly, by the side of women, who represent 60% of agricultural production.”


��


Closing remarks

In his closing remarks, Mr. Aho-Glele emphasized the importance of women having access to land, technology and financing, just as access is provided for family units, for the successful development of agriculture in the LDCs. He also emphasized the role of civil society, especially in terms of spreading information and mobilizing rural communities for production.

Mr. Chowdhury emphasized the importance of infrastructure by citing a case in Ethiopia where rural women were selling honey at 8 birr per unit but when a road was built improving market access, the price increased to 22 birr a unit. He concluded by highlighting the following areas where the collaboration between FAO and the OHRLLS in the implementation of the Brussels Programme of Action could continue and be strengthened:

a) Special Programme for Food Security: There are 46 LDCs covered under that programme. As these are small-scale projects, this is an area where the LDCs would benefit from FAO’s work. However, it would be very helpful if FAO could increase even further LDCs’ share of the organisation’s financial commitments.

b) South - South Cooperation: This is a new avenue for supporting the LDCs. In the area of agriculture, the experience and expertise of the neighbouring countries is much more helpful than the industrial countries.

c) State of world markets in agricultural products and commodities: It would be helpful if a chapter of the publication could be devoted to the special conditions of the LDCs

d) Trade negotiation capacity building: The LDCs would benefit immensely from FAO’s expertise as they prepare for world trade negations.


��


a) How does FAO’s support women specifically?

First, FAO has a division dedicated to women’s issues. Second, it produces statistics and data on the situation of women in agriculture. Unless you have the information, you cannot have the right policies. Third, FAO ensures that its major programmes provide the necessary focus on women. About 50% of the beneficiaries of the special programme on food security, which is FAO’s flagship programme for small scale water harvesting, irrigation and drainage systems at village level; improving crop production and diversifying into livestock-keeping and aquaculture, are women. The Telefood Fund Project is 60 - 70% geared towards women. These are small scale projects of $4000 to $10,000.

b) Is there political commitment at the international level to give agricultural development the attention it deserves?

Over the last two or three years, there have been very encouraging signs. Firstly, within the framework of the African Union, NEPAD (the New Partnership for African Development) is focusing on economic development, conflict prevention, resolution and management. On the economic side, it has been clearly stated that agriculture is the priority as it employs the majority of the population and the large majority of the poor are within that sector. In the commitments that were made in Maputo in 2003, it was stated that agriculture is a priority for economic and social development. This orientation was endorsed by the ACP Heads of State. Africa for the first time organized an extraordinary summit on water and agriculture held in Abuja. The summit insisted that food security be a priority at the July meeting of Heads of State of Africa. When we organized the Second World Food Summit in 2002 to tell the donor community and the concerned countries that between 1990 and 2000, the share of agriculture in ODA had been cut by half when they had set themselves a target of cutting by half the number of hungry people by the year 2015 – meaning that at the current pace we would only achieve that goal in 2150 – there was some awakening. The recently-published Blair Commission Report, which specifically focuses on Africa, indicated that we need to invest $10 billion in Africa between now and 2010 and $20 billion between 2010 and 2015 in infrastructure, of which $2 billion per year would go towards developing small

* Mr. Diouf addressed the following questions from the audience&Questions

Comments


��


scale water harvesting, irrigation and drainage systems. The information is there, and the commitments are there. Now we need action.

c) What role can the private sector play?

The private sector is important. It is important to remember that the private sector is first constituted by the farmers and the hungry people who live in the rural areas. This is the largest portion of the private sector. However, no private company will seriously invest in any agriculture where there is no infrastructure and where production depends on the vagaries of the climate. Without the roads, how you can they take the modern inputs to the farmers? How can they take their products to the market? Without infrastructure that can make agricultural activity competitive, the private sector – in terms of foreign direct investment - will not go to agriculture in the LDCs. That’s why we need to remove those constraints.

d) What are the prospects of achieving the MDG target on poverty and hunger?

If we continue on this trail, extreme poverty and hunger will not be eradicated by 2015 but 2150. We should not be complacent and give the impression that we are making progress when we are not. The main problem has been the lack of resources to match the commitments. However, there is no reason to be discouraged because there have been a number of signs and commitments in the right direction.

e) Importance of access to external markets

This is certainly vital. The best way to ensure access to external market is to have a fair market. This is far from being the case. On the one hand, when there are negotiations with developing countries, they are asked not to support their agriculture; not to subsidize their farmers. On the other hand, the powerful countries are providing $300 billion (per year) worth of support to their farmers.



��


g) How can domestic inputs into agricultural development be guaranteed?

No one will develop a country unless it is done by the people and its leaders. The international community can help and support but the responsibility to improve the condition of life rests with the people themselves and within the framework of their institutions and governments. This is why when we launched the Special Programme on Food Security, we made sure it was directed at the community level, to small farmers.



��

Challenges of Achieving the Millennium Development Goals in the Least Developed Countries

Challenges of Achieving the Millennium Development Goals in the

Least Developed CountriesProf. Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the United Nations Millennium Project and

Special Adviser to the Secretary General on the Millennium Development Goals, also Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University

• December 2004 •

Ms Harriet Schmidt, Director of the UN Office of the High Representative for Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS), introduced Prof. Jeffrey Sachs. She outlined that although there had been a lot of discussion about achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), more attention needs to be paid to the special situation of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs).

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs explained that the United Nations Millennium Project, which he directs on behalf of the UN Secretary-General, had produced an extensive study on issues pertinent to the achievement of the MDGs. The project, he said, attempts to propose a ‘practical plan’ for the global achievement of the MDGs.

Prof. Sachs emphasised that while these goals could potentially be achieved on a global scale, there is currently no functioning international development system, and we are running out of time to achieve these targets. At the current trajectory, Prof Sachs stated that we would not achieve the MDGs. He urged that ‘there is a decade left and if we lose another year to inaction, there would be no chance for many countries to reach the goals.’ Many of the LDCs are falling farther and farther behind, and for these countries, the goals are not tangible operational targets. Prof. Sachs elaborated that the achievement of the MDGs is premised on a partnership that does not presently exist. He emphasised that the MDGs are not mere benchmarks, and that operational targets for real programming, planning, financing and policy design are required if the MDGs are to be achieved.

Prof. Sachs felt it was unfortunate that the farmers - the women of Africa - were in effect being told “go out and work the fields, break your backs everyday - at the end of the year you will not produce enough because you don’t even have nitrogen in the soil, then we’ll give you emergency food aid.” He questioned why we do not first give fertilizers, so that the crop harvested may adequately feed families. Presently, farmers are unable to afford the fertilizers,


��

Challenges of Achieving the Millennium Development Goals in the Least Developed Countries

and are unable to transfer their goods to the market because of a lack of motor transport. In outlining such scenarios, Prof. Sachs pointed out that simple investments can be made, and can make a difference. The costs are very small - well below the 0.7 percent of GNP that the world promised to deliver in development assistance. Currently, donors are only delivering 0.25 percent of their GNP in development aid, with the United States giving only 0.15 percent.

Prof. Sachs quoted the Monterrey Consensus that urges “all developed countries that have not done so to make concrete efforts towards 0.7 per cent of gross national product in Official Development Assistance.” If we did that, he said, there would be plenty of money to finance every low-income country, and certainly every Least Developed Country, in implementing an MDG-based poverty reduction strategy.

According to Prof. Sachs, practical ways of achieving the MDGs need to be planned, financed and implemented. He reiterated that “we do not need a single new promise to do it; no new promises”. Prof Sachs further urged that every low-income country, and every developing country that is committed to achieving the MDGs should be encouraged and assisted in preparing and implementing an MDG-based strategy no later than 2006. Citing immunisation and malaria bed nets as examples, Prof. Sachs proposed concrete actions that can yield results quickly and that do not require sophisticated policies and systems.

He concluded that if the MDGs are not achieved, there will be nothing to fall back on. “We will just be in a world without goals, without the motivation, leverage and political commitment of the goals. These goals will fail if we miss 2005; so we have got to get started in a major way.”


�0

Impact of HIV/AIDS on the Development Prospects of the Least Developed Countries


Dr. Peter Piot , Executive Director of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)

• June 2005 •

The High Representative for Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States, Anwarul K. Chowdhury opened the forum, noting that 34 of the 50 LDCs are in Africa, where HIV/AIDS is most prevalent. With their heavy burden of external debt and other development challenges, LDCs have limited resources to devote to the new challenge of HIV/AIDS. To compound the situation, the pandemic is eroding the human capacity of these countries. Mr. Chowdhury was, however, optimistic that with the collaboration and support of various partners, HIV/AIDS could be contained in the LDCs.

In his welcoming remarks, the Chairman of the session and of the LDC Group Coordination Bureau, Mr. Aho-Glele, Minister Counsellor of the Permanent Mission of Benin to the UN and Chairman of the LDC Group Coordination Bureau, warned that unless HIV/AIDS was contained, LDCs would not achieve their development objectives. He recalled that the Brussels Programme of Action set the target of reducing HIV/AIDS infection rates among people of 15 - 24 years of age in every country, and by 25% in the most seriously affected countries. He questioned whether this target would be met.

UNAIDS Executive Director, Dr. Peter Piot, observed that within 25 years, AIDS has become one of the most critical of the multiple threats affecting LDCs. This is not true for only LDCs in sub-Saharan Africa, where the epidemic embraces all countries. The cold statistics show that of the 50 LDCs, 22 have HIV prevalence above 2% of the adult population. This includes non-African countries (Cambodia, Myanmar and Haiti). Ten of these have HIV prevalence rates above 5%. All except Haiti are in sub-Saharan Africa. Five countries have an adult HIV prevalence rate above 10% (Lesotho, Zambia, Malawi, Central African Republic and Mozambique).

It’s not a coincidence that the poorest populations are the most affected. Poverty is definitely a driver of the epidemic. It’s the poverty that breaks up families; pushes men to seek work in another city or country; pushes women into prostitution as a survival strategy; makes people illiterate so it is much harder to organize prevention campaigns and so on.


�1


Poverty, gender inequality and the shame, the stigma and discrimination that are associated with HIV are the drivers of the epidemic.

Dr. Piot observed that contrary to predictions by many epidemiologists that the epidemic would taper off at a prevalence rate of 15-20% of the population, this has not happened. The latest survey in Swaziland, the country most affected, shows that 42% of all adults are infected with HIV, with the numbers still going up.

Changing face of the epidemic

Twenty-five years after it emerged, Dr. Piot noted, the AIDS epidemic is entering new phases:

a) Globalization phase: It’s not an issue for one continent or one country. It is the fastest growing epidemic in Eastern Europe, Asian countries and, increasingly, in Central America.

b) Feminization phase: When it was first described, it was depicted as a problem for white, middle class homosexual men in the West. However, half of all people living with HIV in the world are women. In sub-Saharan Africa, 60% of people living with HIV are women. This has implications for what can be done about the epidemic, especially with regard to prevention, where our strategies are based mainly on male-controlled methods, be it abstinence, faithfulness or using condoms. It also points to the need for affirmative action to ensure access by women to life-saving treatment.

c) Societal impact phase: In Southern Africa, we have countries where 1 out of 5 households are headed by a child and 20% of children are orphans because of AIDS. This impacts on the capacity to deliver services and on food security.

Dr. Piot said that, on a recent visit to South Africa, he had reached the conclusion that a new category of countries may soon emerge: “In addition to the categories of developing countries or least developed countries, we need to add a category of the undeveloping country because of AIDS… because we see such erosion of human capacity in the legal system, teachers, health care workers, name it.”

He observed that on one hand, AIDS thrives on faults in society, such as poverty and discrimination but on the other, it exacerbates the already high levels of poverty, poor health and under nutrition in many of the LDCs. It worsens the already severe constraints on national finances and capacity. It leads to a destructive cycle of economic and social regress.

Encouraging signs

Considering the response to the epidemic, Dr. Piot identified some positive developments:


��


a) Big change in terms of leadership. There is more political commitment in the LDCs than anywhere else to fight the epidemic because there is hardly a family that has not been directly affected. It is not a coincidence that in 35 countries, the president, vice president or prime minister is personally leading their national AIDS commission or its equivalent.

b) Major financial momentum. In 1996, $200 million was spent on AIDS in developing countries, most of that in LDCs. All this was donor money. Last year (2004), $6 billion was spent on AIDS in developing countries, and probably $8 billion this year. Since 2001, there has been an unprecedented fourfold increase. Half of that money is coming from developing countries, mostly middle income countries. For LDCs, however, it will not be possible to overcome the epidemic without a massive infusion of external resources.

c) Success is possible. This is a problem with a solution. Four years ago, there were very few countries one could point to and say “less people are becoming infected than 5 years ago.” There was Uganda (an LDC) and Thailand (a middle income country). Today, there is a decline in new infections in every single capital in East Africa.

Secret of success

Dr. Piot outlined the following as features of a successful response to HIV/AIDS, as shown by experiences of LDCs:

a) AIDS specific development efforts: There always has to be a combination of approaches. Anything that has “only” in the system doesn’t work, e.g. only abstinence or only condoms. In the first place, we need leadership. It’s something that doesn’t cost money but has enormous impact if used well. It’s particularly important in overcoming social denial, stigma and discrimination. An effort that includes HIV prevention, treatment and mitigation is required.

b) Broader development efforts: Clear and coherent strategies for food security, education, health, gender equity and poverty reduction should be linked with efforts to deal with AIDS. In short, a plan for progress towards all the Millennium Development Goals is required.

c) Strong financial support from the international community: It is plainly impossible to stop the epidemic with millions [of dollars]. You need billions worldwide. In the short and medium term, the LDCs cannot finance measures to overcome the AIDS epidemic from their own resources, if only because their fiscal base is eroding as is their human and institutional capacity. Predictable external financing will be necessary for long periods of time. There is still an enormous gap in terms of funding needs. Four years ago, the General Assembly called for the creation of the Global Fund, which is now operational. It’s important to have multiple funding streams,


��


with funding to AIDS as a specific issue, but also as part of a broader development effort. It is not enough to just fund AIDS projects. There is need to invest in capacity, both institutional and human.

d) Good management of available resources: It’s not only about money. It’s about quality; making sure we are getting the highest impact from every dollar. Many countries are struggling with how to make money work for the people on the ground when it comes to AIDS. We have problems of coordination. We need to boost the capacity of the country and push forward the agenda of harmonization for all those working on AIDS. This was the origin of the agreement brokered in UNAIDS, with all donors and governments from developing countries, on the so-called three ones: one national AIDS action plan; one national AIDS coordinating authority and one monitoring and evaluation framework that is nationally owned.

Dr. Piot concluded by saying that AIDS has become one of the global issues of our time. It requires an exceptional response involving governments, civil society, the UN System and other partners. He stated “that without bringing AIDS under control in many of the LDCs, reaching the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and achieving social and economic development will remain a pipe dream. That’s what makes AIDS so special and that is why it requires an exceptional response”.

Closing remarks

In his closing remarks, UNDP Assistant Administrator, Mr. Shoji Nishimoto, described HIV/AIDS as the most serious barrier to development in the worst affected countries. “It kills the social fabric and affects the very structure of governance and human and institutional capacities. It takes financial resources away for more productive purposes. So for many countries, HIV/AIDS is both a drastic humanitarian as well as long-term development challenge,” he said.

Mr. Nishimoto said UNDP and UN-OHRLLS have forged a partnership to respond to the threat to development and emerging capacity crisis caused by HIV/AIDS in LDCs. The partnership focuses on advocacy, analysis and action. As part of the initiative, the publication Hoping and Coping: A Call for Action - the Capacity Challenge of HIV/AIDS in LDCs had been launched during the ECOSOC session in July this year. The key message of the publication is that rapid progress in capacity development for LDCS is a must if the minimum standards of human dignity laid out in the MDGs and the Brussels Programme of Action are to be achieved. HIV/AIDS, he said, is the greatest threat to capacity development and retention in the LDCs.


��


a) What are the obstacles to universal access to anti-retroviral therapy?

What are the needs? Six million people acutely need access to anti-retroviral treatment in the developing world. If they don’t have access to that soon, they will die within the next few years. That’s the fact. How many people have access to it? By the end of the last year, only about 700,000. The obstacles to access include:

(i) Price of drugs: The price has come down tremendously from over $10,000 per person per year for the first line treatment to about $150 if you buy generic copies, particularly from countries like India. We are now around half a dollar to one dollar per day. However, the price of anti-retroviral medicines is now becoming a minor aspect of the cost. Patient management, laboratory tests and all that is very expensive. We have hardly seen any decrease in those prices. That’s something we are working with WHO to bring down. Price has always been an issue but there is a limit. It will never be free. Local production in several countries will help. International trade agreements offer enough instruments to make it possible but they are not necessarily used.

(ii) Procurement of medicines: At the last meeting of the Board of the Global Fund, we spoke about making sure that medicines are getting to the end point of delivery (i.e. the clinic). The whole process is very weak in many countries: certainly in LDCs whether AIDS exists or not. That is another illustration of a structural weakness that is revealed in dramatic ways because of the AIDS epidemic.

(iii) Institutional and human capacity in the health sector as well as elsewhere in the public sector. We are in a very absurd and perverse situation where, on the one hand, development aid and financial support for AIDS programmes are provided to some of the LDCs but on the other hand, there is active recruitment of doctors, nurses and other professionals from these countries by institutions in Europe and North America. They have been trained at great expense by poor countries. So, in a sense, what we as donors give with one hand, we take away with the other. While I don’t want to stop natural migration, there is a problem here. A code of conduct has to be put on the table. It is further undermining the

Dr. Piot responded to the following questions and comments from the audience&Questions

Comments


��


capacity of LDCs. We have AIDS on the one hand that is killing professionals and those remaining professionals are migrating for economic reasons. If they were being paid decent salaries, most of them would stay where they are.

b) The role of social mobilization

It is indeed the core approach to dealing with AIDS. While at the end of the day it is about personal behaviour, it is social mobilization that will generate that. How can we work better together? We can organize social mobilization in each individual country. UNAIDS is definitely a very decentralized organization. In every country, we have a UN theme group on HIV/AIDS with the UNAIDS Secretariat as support in the particular areas of monitoring, evaluation and surveillance. There are specific offices responsible for each of these areas. Their first job is strengthening capacity in this area because it’s very weak in many countries. We can talk about how to do this. It’s one of the areas where we definitely need to do more and join forces.

c) What is the impact of gender inequality?

UNAIDS has published a lot on this subject. It is about sexual violence, girls’ education, inheritance and property rights, women as caregivers and access to care and treatment and specific programmes for HIV prevention among girls and adolescents. They face the highest risk. In many countries, teenage girls are 5 to 10 times more infected with HIV than boys in their age group. Although that has a little bit to do with biology, it has a lot to do with the position of girls in society.



��

Acknowledgements

The first edition of the Open Forum for Partnership is the result of the efforts of the United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS). The former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative, Mr. Anwarul K. Chowdhury, conceived the idea of the Open Forum for Partnership and provided overall guidance for its implementation. The Special Assistant to the Under-Secretary-General and High Representative, Mr. Raul de Melo Cabral, organised and coordinated the Open Forum sessions at which the presentations contained in this volume were made. Ms. Carol Sakubita provided support to the organisation of the sessions.

This volume was edited by the Advocacy and Outreach Officer, Mr. Fred Kirungi. Ms. Vouzas Katherine proof-read the report and provided valuable comments during her internship with UN-OHRLLS. Ms. Betty Lin was responsible for the design and layout.

The report would not have been possible without the contributions of the various presenters, speakers and moderators at the Open Forum sessions. UN-OHRLLS is particularly grateful for the support provided by the chairpersons of the Group of Least Developed Countries, the Group of Landlocked Developing Countries, and the Group of Small Island Developing States in New York.


United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States

United Nations Headquarters New York, NY 10017

Telephones: 1-212-963-7778 1-212-963-5051

Fax: 1-212-963-0419 1-917-367-3415

Email: [email protected]

Website : www.un.org/ohrlls

United Nations


open forum for partnership - un-ohrllsbeyond economic challenges, environmental degradation has been...

Documents