FfD PrepCom—October 16, 2001

Interventions on Introduction and Mobilizing Domestic Resources Sections of Facilitator’s Document

Compiled by Rebecca Pearl
Women’s Environment & Development Organization (WEDO)

The session was opened by the Co-Chair with a summary of the morning’s proceedings, observing that the polarity of views expressed by the developing and developed countries are not too distant and should be brought to middle ground.  The developed countries expect the developing countries to bring about reforms in economic matters, governance, pro-poor growth, fiscal discipline, and strengthening workers’ rights among other improvements in the social sector.  The developing countries expect the developed countries to facilitate greater transparency in accessibility to global trade, reduce the debt burden, and assist with capacity building and technology transfer.

The Co-Chair attempted to assuage the ill feelings of the morning session, during which the US delegate angrily glorified capitalism and denounced the Facilitator’s document. He offered an anecdote about the fall of communism and capitalism with the Berlin Wall and subsequent emergence of globalization.  The US delegate immediately responded that if the Co-Chair wished to make a national statement, he would better make it from Pakistan’s podium, which was followed by a stunned silence broken by hisses from a few delegates).

Following were a series of interventions by Iran (head of G-77 & China group), Belgium, Norway, the IMF, Japan, Mexico, Korea, Brazil, China, Pakistan, Nepal, Guatemala, and Peru.  Most countries expressed a general satisfaction with the Facilitator’s document and often referenced the Millennium Declaration. 

Iran (G-77 & China group) emphasized including social justice and poverty eradication (1); reversing continued stratification between haves and have-nots (2); transparency (4); and better definitions of global public goods (4.3).  In paragraph 8, suggested that specific sectors like women and the environment would better be addressed in corporate management section. Asked for clarification on the meaning of gender budget analysis, a confusion also expressed by Korea. Repeatedly stressed institutional development.

Belgium (representing EU) stressed that the main message on domestic resources should be transparency, rule of law, and human rights. Warned against circular discussions in past meetings on enabling environments. Called for balanced partnerships and mutual commitments, sound macroeconomic policy in order to attract private sector investment, measures to avoid capital flight, improved access to micro-credit and other services for farmers, those in the informal sector, and other disadvantaged groups. Supported capacity-building.  Stressed that economic growth is not equal to poverty reduction.  The EU was one of few speakers that mentioned gender implications, and emphasized social protections.  Comment on migrant worker reference was that transfer costs is not the main issue here.  The EU will circulate a formal paper on these issues.

Norway spoke about the need to consider a participatory approach to governance issues and equal access to resources, including “private property for women and men.”  Asked that point 8.2 be deleted, that ‘micro-credit’ be added to 8.3 and that ‘migrant worker’ in 8.4 be more clearly defined.  In 9.4, reference to African countries and other disadvantaged groups should be expanded to entire document. 

The IMF stressed ownership and commitment of countries to the sections that affect them; called for more links between Millennium Declaration and FfD document; pointed to HPIC process for relieving debt burden; encouraged coordination between donors and specific countries (gave Asian example); asked that standards and codes be mentioned (examples of data standards, good practices in fiscal transparency, accounting, bankruptcy, regulation, and insurance).

Japan asked that the delegates use the document as a conceptual paper and not present comments paragraph by paragraph.

Mexico emphasized each country’s responsibility for economic reform to allow for international capital investment.  Seemed to side with developed countries.

Korea said the language in paragraph 2 is too radical.  Asked that paragraph 6 be moved to section I (this was agreed by Norway and others).  Mentioned that Korea has been successful with human rights, and more reference should be made, especially in paragraph 8.1.

Brazil agrees with G-77 and China on better definition of GPGs, good governance, etc.

China feels that transparency should be added to global governance in section I.  In section II, mobilization of domestic resources is difficult for small countries, and they will need assistance.  Paragraph 8.5.1 should be based on voluntarism and gradualism. 

Pakistan reaffirmed opening globalization comment by Co-Chair and made general statements in agreement with other delegates.

Guatemala stressed that the conference is about development, and not globalization.  Stressed the need to have a tangible document.  LDCs don’t have capacity to mobilize domestic resources or international private resources.  Sees the following tensions in document to be resolved: domestic vs. international commitments, state vs. market and role of public institutions in domestic savings, and global governance (UN and Bretton Woods institutions).

Peru addressed transparency and accountability, and capital flight.