Opening Remarks by co-chair

Co-Chairs began by underscoring that these are difficult times economically and politically. FFD is to encourage PARTNERSHIPS in pursuit of development, FfD is not a tug of war, developed and developing but a building of synergies, creating coherence, enhancing mutual cooperation.

Co-chairs then highlighted 3 factors creating a greater impetus for FfD 1) persistent anti- globalization demonstrations; 2) recent global economic slowdown (aftermath of Sep 11) and 3)the threat of international terrorism.

Co-chairs underscored that draft outcome document based on many inputs including See Gen report of 18 Dec 2000; the Zedillo Report; as well s institutional stakeholders & the secretariat who produced the technical papers. These inputs informed the 10-page document.

Focus of the Prepcom is facilitator’s text and the nature of the outcome document. Session is for conceptual discussion, not drafting of text.

Presentation by Delegates :

1. Iran, representing G77

Ø Preparation process of FfD unique due to wide range of stakeholders and Action-oriented nature of the conference

2. Belgium, representing the EU

Ø Draft can serve as basis of discussion but doesn’t meet EU expectation on the outcome

Ø Text should focus less on systematic issues

Ø Core message should be poverty reduction and achievement of development foals from UN conference

Ø Focus should be on domestic role; creating a favorable enabling environment internally

Ø Emphasis should be on partnership; increasing the participation of civil society for development to have multiplier effects

Ø ODA – increase effectiveness; increase partnership; untie aid; and focus on both aid coordination and increased ownership; need also progress on increasing the overall volume of aid

Ø EU reaffirmed commitment to reach UN target 0.7% of GDP as soon as possible and to achieve concrete progress before the sustainable development conference in 2002

Ø GPG’s need more study

Ø Global Fin Architecture - increase cooperation and consistency(including at the national level

Ø Not appropriate to reform IFI’s ; EU not willing to discuss new structures but strengthening existing structures

Ø EU wary of automatic review in 2005 but could be regular proceeding of ECOSOC

3.Rio Group (Argentina, Chile, Brazil)

Ø Main responsibility for development lies with individual countries

4. World Bank Group

Ø Impact of Sept 11th – lower growth rates, less trade, higher transfer and logistics costs – even more important to address development finance in a comprehensive way

Ø Increase ODA flows

5. IMF

Ø Process should be anchored in millennium goals; this will help measure results and increase public awareness of these issues

Ø Goals should be poverty reduction; increased market access; increase international resource; improving delivery of ODA; capacity strengthening

6.Small Island States

Ø ODA plays a vital role in small island states

Ø Increase effectiveness and coordination through participatory governance, - project design, implementation and reviews

Ø HIPC funding should be in addition to ODA, not replacing it

Ø Reform governance of IFI’s

7. Japan

Ø Outcome document forward looking based on common determination to achieve sustainable development

Ø Each country has primary responsibility for its own development

Ø OWNERSHIP is the main building block of development

Ø Good governance, rule of law, sound macroeconomic policies need greater emphasis as they are the prerequisite for increased financial flows

Ø Japan gives 1/4 of world’s ODA. Doubling ODA, PARTICULARY IN AFTERMATH OF Sept 11th, is not realistic.

8. Norway

Ø FFD paper prepared by WB also useful reference document

Ø Millennium goals must be basis for work on FFD

Ø Norway favors crisp, precise realistic forward looking outcome doc

9. Korea

Ø Enabling domestic environment key

Ø Reform needed in IFI and Trade organizations to promote better global governance

Ø Cautious approach needed for innovations like CTC’s and ITO. Theses may yet be premature.

10. Switzerland

Ø Dissatisfaction with draft

Ø Doc does not reflect increased role of public-private partnership as a result of FFD

Ø Doc too focused on globalization – imbalance international level and national governments

Ø Doc uses general and vague language

Ø Doc doesn’t strengthen partnership between IFI’s WTO and UN

Ø Yet the Draft use a useful inventory of main problems

Back to Ffd-documents