|
In Panel F: the Wrap-up session, the seminar noted the
concluding remarks by Mr Jonathan Fried, Senior Assistant
Deputy Finance Minister of Canada, on his personal
responsibility. The remarks are as follows:
A
sustainable development strategy requires, among other
things, approaches that are both pro-poor and pro-growth,
as the means to achieve the globally agreed poverty
reduction targets for 2015. Pro-growth, because private
savings and investment are necessary to generate the
wealth necessary for governments to fund public goods and
investments in social infrastructure. Pro-poor, because
developing the appropriate macroeconomic, fiscal,
regulatory frameworks necessary for pro-growth approaches
entails significant adjustments in society, particularly,
in developing countries in a globalizing economy. As a
result, it is clear that government investments in
health, education, social infrastructure are necessary to
protect the most vulnerable in society, and to better
ensure the equitable distribution of income that should
flow from pro-growth approaches.
Improving
the ability of LDCs to take advantage of the benefits
that liberalised trade can provide is, in most countries,
subject to the empirical evidence, a key element that
supports the creation of a pro-growth environment.
As
a result, trade should properly be mainstreamed into
national development plans, and trade should be
integrated into development strategies. This position was
evident in the course of the seminar, against the
backdrop of the efforts already undertaken by many LDCs
to lower barriers autonomously.
Acknowledging
also that there are discussions at the WTO on
mainstreaming development into trade; and,
Noting
that there are prospects for significantly
improving market access in all countries through
the early launch of new trade negotiations.
Mainstreaming
trade must be seen as, only one part, of a more
comprehensive pro-growth development strategy. Trade
plays a supporting role in back stopping a stable
macroeconomic and fiscal policy framework and
pro-competitive, pro-private sector activity, regulatory
policies and the rule of law, through the enforcement of
contracts, etc.
Sequencing
is key. Trade benefits will not likely flow to LDCs
unless trade liberalisation is synchronized with the
development of a sound economic framework at home,
alongside the development of appropriate social
infrastructure.
To
achieve these objectives, country ownership is essential.
Many participants emphasised this point and supported it
with first hand experience both from recipient
governments and from involved agencies. Country ownership
requires, in turn, effective coordination across
ministries in government, and requires partnership
between governments and private sector participants in
the economy as well as partnership between the recipient
government and the donor agencies involved.
Donor
coordination among bilateral donors, within and between
multilateral and regional agencies and even at the
country level, on the ground, is lacking and in need of
significant improvement. There are too many reports, too
many frameworks and too little coordination.
Given
the challenge of coordination, the general mood of the
seminar suggested that the IF provided, at least, a
promising platform that, if implemented well, as a shared
responsibility, among donors, recipients and multilateral
agencies alike, could promote the mainstreaming of trade
and improved donor coordination within a country-owned
Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) framework,
particularly through the Country Assistance Strategy
(CAS) process. It might also provide a model for cost
saving through improved coordination.
Funding,
through a trust fund, to permit an improved IF process to
be tested on a pilot project basis, was broadly
supported.
As
with any well administered program, there was a sense in
the room that ongoing evaluation will be essential.
Various panels had reviewed a number of case studies in
various regions, the Asia-Pacific and Sub-Saharan African
countries. Each of the examples provided important
lessons for future programs and for the future
implementation of an improved IF including, in
particular, the lesson of the autonomous liberalisation
already undertaken and proposed by both developed and
developing countries.
The
Trade Policy Review (TPR) process could be enhanced to
provide better guidance to LDCs on trade rules and on
liberalisation within a broader context of national
development plans. The World Bank, the IMF and other
country directors could be invited to participate in the
TPR.
Improved
statistics would be of immeasurable assistance to donors
and recipients alike.
It
would be useful if the results of the seminar, as well as
the papers and presentations that formed the analytical
foundation for the discussions, were forwarded to those
who are responsible for the preparation for Third United
Nations Conference for Least-Developed Countries
(LDC-III), to those responsible for the UN Conference on
Financing for Development and to ensure that they are
forwarded and distributed to bilateral donors, to the
regional and multilateral donor agencies who may not be
represented at the seminar, such as the regional banks
who are also partners in the Poverty Reduction Strategy
Papers (PRSPs) process.
Note
Participants
agreed to request the Director-General to circulate the
outcome of the seminar to:
The
Okinawa Workshop on Trade-Related
Capacity-Building, 2-4 March 2001;
Third
United Nations Conference for Least-Developed
Countries, Brussels, 14-20 May 2001;
The
Meeting on Financing for Development (FFD); and
to,
Other
multilateral and regional institutions and
bodies.
|
|
