ECOSOC CONCLUDES GENERAL DISCUSSION ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMME OF ACTION FOR LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES

17 July 03

The Economic and Social Council this morning concluded its general discussion on the review and coordination of the implementation of the Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2001-2010 - the Brussels Programme of Action.
Representatives of a number of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) talked about their experience in implementing the Programme of Action. They highlighted their national contributions and achievements, and stressed the importance of continued and strengthened support from the international community’s for national efforts.
Yousif Suleiman Takana, Minister for International Cooperation of Sudan, said that the recommendations of the Programme of Action had been included in the Sudanese national development policy which was intended to mobilize local resources for the achievement of sustainable rural development, food security, and access to social services, as well as the eradication of poverty and killer epidemics.
Mr. Takana warned that the Government's efforts would not bear fruit unless Sudan’s development partners honoured their commitments in terms of official development assistance (ODA), relieving indebtedness and extending access for international trade. He noted that Sudan’s burden of debt service alone exceeded 174 per cent of gross national product.
In the same vein, the representative of Bhutan said that all the key areas of the Programme of Action had been incorporated into the national development strategy, which constituted a comprehensive approach to poverty eradication, with a special emphasis on rural development. Far-reaching political, administrative and legislative reforms had been instituted and a new Constitution was being written. Yet, although the development of Bhutan’s hydropower potential had boosted revenue over the years, the country still remained dependent on official development assistance (ODA), as it did not have a market sufficiently attractive to induce foreign direct investment.
Also addressing the importance of the international community’s involvement in implementing the Brussels Programme of Action, the representative of Maldives drew attention to the imperfect progress in implementation made thus far. While the efforts and the initiatives of the donor community to achieve accelerated growth and sustainable development in LDCs was appreciated, one could not escape the reality that conditions had not improved for the vast majority of LDCs. Now, the threat of graduation from the group of Least Developed Countries had already begun to disrupt the national implementation of the Programme of Action in the Maldives. Graduation would seriously undermine the viability of the entire fisheries sector, which about 65 per cent of the population depended on for their meagre livelihood.
The representative of Nepal said that despite the assurances of a promised land through the process of globalisation, poverty and under-development continued to be the bane of LDCs. Rapid globalisation had rendered LDCs even more vulnerable. It had been recognised that without massive efforts at the national level and the creation of a supportive environment at the international level, the fight against poverty could not be waged on a sustained basis.
On the other hand, the representative of Norway said the governments of LDCs bore the primary responsibility for poverty eradication and development; the international community could only assist them in reaching these goals by providing a global environment conducive to economic growth and development.
The moderators of two panel discussions held Tuesday afternoon, Shambhu Ram Simkhada of Nepal and Samuel Amehou of Benin, took the floor this morning to describe the results of their panels, which had covered the subjects of “How the United Nations system can support the Brussels Programme of Action for the LDCs at the national level” and “Dialogue with Civil Society – How to Advance the Implementation of the Brussels Programme of Action.”
Also addressing the Council were the representatives of Australia, Uganda, Japan, Norway, Burundi, the United States, Zambia and Ethiopia, as well as the World Tourism Organization and Rural Reconstruction Nepal.
The Council took note of the report of the Secretary-General on progress in implementing the Council’s agreed conclusions 2002/1 and related provisions of General Assembly resolution 50/227 (E/2003/74).
The Council will meet again this afternoon at 3 p.m. to begin its consideration of issues included within those agenda items related to coordination, economic and environmental, and other questions.

Documents
Before the Council is a report of the Secretary-General on progress in implementing the Council’s agreed conclusions 2002/1 and related provisions of General Assembly resolution 50/227 (E/2003/74). The report highlights progress in implementing key provisions of Council agreed conclusions 2002/1 “Strengthening further the Economic and Social Council, building on its recent achievements, to help it fulfill the role ascribed to it in the Charter of the United Nations as contained in the Millennium Declaration”. It also responds to the mandate for annual reporting on restructuring and revitalization of the United Nations in the economic, social and related fields contained in General Assembly resolution 45/264, by addressing aspects related to the implementation of resolutions 50/227 and 52/12 B and to follow-up to the resolutions adopted by ECOSOC on the restructuring and revitalization of the United Nations, notably resolutions 1998/46 and 1999/51. At the end of the report, recommendations are made for further consideration of the Council.

Statements on the Review and Coordination of the Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the Decade 2001-2010
GYAN CHANDRA ACHARYA (Nepal) expressed his appreciation of the report of the Secretary-General, which was comprehensive and gave a rundown of the implementation process. In reviewing the implementation of the Brussels Programme of Action for Least Developed Countries (LDCs), the Secretary-General had made a very frank admission: notwithstanding positive indications of progress from some LDCs, the overall situation remained challenging to many. Despite global focus on the problems of LDCs and the efforts to address them, the objectives of the Programme of Action for them had been largely unattained. The Programme of Action had remained weak in terms of implementation. Despite the assurances of a promised land through the process of globalisation, poverty and under-development continued to be the bane of LDCs. Rapid globalisation had rendered LDCs even more vulnerable to the fast changing pace of the world and the continuous readjustment process that they had to go through. It had been recognised that without massive efforts at the national level and the creation of a supportive environment at the international level, the fight against poverty could not be waged on a sustained basis. Poverty eradication was at the forefront of the seven crosscutting issues in the Brussels Programme of Action commitments. All other major activities must therefore be woven around it. What was needed was the spirit of partnership between the developed and developing countries.
YOUSIF SULEIMAN TAKANA, Minister for International Cooperation of Sudan, noting that the Secretary-General’s report had been comprehensive and contained valid recommendations for goals for the Least Developed Countries, said that his country attached great importance to the Brussels Programme of Action. It had been included, along with the outcomes of other major international conferences, in the national development policy, which was intended to mobilize local resources for the achievement of sustainable rural development, food security, and access to social services, as well as the eradication of poverty and killer epidemics. National expenditure in this regard had reached 30 per cent of the national budget. Moreover, the Government had prepared a twenty-five year strategy (2002-2027), which would be relied upon in economic, social and other domains of interest.
Environmental degradation and natural disasters continued to hamper development efforts in Sudan, he said. And while the State had made great efforts to deal with these problems through committing itself to the outcomes of international conferences, the lack of funds and local resources continued to present a stumbling block. The Government had set up a high-level national forum, under the Minister for International Cooperation, in which other ministries, the private sector and civil society participated in addressing development and environmental issues. Yet such efforts would not bear fruit unless Sudan’s development partners honoured their commitments in terms of official development assistance (ODA), relieving indebtedness and extending access for international trade.
Recalling that debt servicing required more than 174 per cent of Sudan’s GNP, he affirmed the necessity of peace and security for sustainable development and said that Sudan had thus undertaken to enter peace accords with its rebel elements. The Sudan had also adopted a multiparty system, in view of the importance of good governance, and had adhered to international norms on the freedom of expression and association.
REBEKAH GRINDLAY (Australia) said that recently, a number of reform initiatives had improved ECOSOC’s operations and its capacity to review the outcome of major conferences. The Council’s work was now more clearly defined according to themes, and the regular dialogue with the Bretton Woods institutions allowed for more focused high-level consideration of those economic and financial issues affecting global development. But notwithstanding these positive developments, ECOSOC was yet to realize the crucial role envisaged for it in the United Nations Charter. In part, this was because ECOSOC had been eclipsed by its activist functional commissions. This was not necessarily a bad development, but one must recognize that the functional commissions did not have the expertise, time or the mandate to coordinate across thematic areas. Nor could they provide guidance on important policy issues not within their remits. ECOSOC must therefore act more decisively in coordinating activity of this kind through further reform, including the removal of systemic obstacles and more efficient decision making.
Currently, the Council considered too many overlapping items and with a frequency that was not justified. Not only did this undermine the authority of decisions, but it also wasted crucial time that could be devoted to coordinating the work of functional commissions and generating consensus on important economic and social issues. Repetitive items must be retired from the agenda and referred to more appropriate forums. The quality of reporting from functional commissions and other bodies to the Council also needed further improvement. There were still too many, and too long, reports. Without practical changes there was little prospect for ECOSOC being able to assume a strategic role in coordinating the work of its functional commissions.
NATHAN IRUMBA (Uganda) said that the Brussels Programme of Action had recognized the need to reverse the marginalization of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) through the adoption of seven commitments shared by developed and developing countries. While the LDCs were committed to do their part, the international community – particularly developed countries – must support their efforts. Within the goal of achieving sustainable development, it was clear that agricultural development would play an essential role, yet trade liberalization was also of prime importance. Thus, the negotiations to be undertaken at Cancun needed to incorporate the interests of LDCs in this most restricted aspect of the international economic environment. Describing the fall in commodity prices, he said that LDCs needed technical assistance to enable them to escape dependence on basic commodity production in international trade.
In terms of coherence, he reaffirmed that the harmonization of procedures would save donors and developing countries time and money. All Member States should support the Office of the High Representative, thus enabling it to strengthen its work in support of LDCs.
KIYOSHI WADA (Japan) said that some points in the report of the Secretary-General required further assessment, including the nature of the compilation of the information received from each least developed country concerned, as well as the functioning of the matrix. In this connection, he stressed that international organizations must commit themselves to the plight of least developed countries. It was essential to consider how to use the report of the Secretary-General and the matrix in a more flexible manner even though Japan did not believe that all points had been reflected correctly. This did not preclude the work done from being a starting point to the implementation of the Brussels Programme of Action. Japan supported the subject of least developed countries and wished that this subject could be one of the focuses of the high-level segment next year. The next such segment would be a good opportunity for evaluating what needed to be done in the future.
PER IVAR LIED (Norway) said that while some positive developments had been recorded for the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), serious problems continued to exist including weak economic growth, unacceptable poverty levels, and a lack of peace and security. Some LDCs had joined the group of “failed states.” In this regard, as the Brussels Programme of Action represented a commitment to more vigorous partnerships for the promotion of social and economic progress in the poorest countries, the most important element of the Programme of Action was the clear understanding that development could not occur in the absence of basic domestic conditions for it. The governments of LDCs bore the primary responsibility for poverty eradication and development; the international community could only assist them in reaching these goals by providing a global environment conducive to economic growth and development.
Reviewing the mixed results of implementing the Brussels Programme of Action, he said that while the trend of declining official development assistance (ODA) had been halted, considerable work remained to reach international agreed goals of ODA transfers to developing countries. Moreover, while OECD countries had done much to open their markets to the products of LDCs and had espoused the untying of development assistance to LDCs, much remained to be done in these fields. The implementation of the Brussels Programme of Action and other international conference outcomes was the key to achieving sustainable development. The multilateral system needed to monitor both its own and national implementation of commitments.
SERAPHINE WAKANA (Burundi) shared her country's experience in its implementation of the Brussels Programme of Action adopted in 2001. As many people knew, Burundi was one of the 16 landlocked least developing countries and was in the throws of a civil war that had already cost the country 15 years of economic and social progress. Burundi therefore placed a lot of hope on the Brussels Programme of Action and had already implemented an array of the key provisions. The Government was undertaking activities through a participatory approach that involved both civil society and the private sector. Finally, a peace agreement had been signed, a new Constitution was being elaborated and elections were imminent. In addition, a ministry had been established dealing with important health issues such as HIV/AIDS and polio. She was pleased to report that polio had almost been eradicated in Burundi. With the assistance of the World Bank, the Government had initiated a job creation project giving preference to high-labour intensive approaches. This was providing the opportunity for poorer people to gain successful employment. The objectives of the Brussels Programme of Action could not be achieved without an increased fiscal efficiency. The results of fiscal reform in Burundi continued to be limited, and international assistance was therefore a must. Burundi had held round-tables in an attempt to increase assistance from the international community. Despite the success of the round tables, assistance had not been forthcoming. Burundi therefore hoped that more attention would be focused on its situation by ECOSOC in the future.
YESHEY DORJI (Bhutan), expressing his delegation’s agreement with the statements of the representatives of Morocco and Benin, detailed the implementation of the Brussels Programme of Action in his country. All the key areas of the Programme had been incorporated into the national development strategy, which constituted a comprehensive approach to poverty eradication, with a special emphasis on rural development. As a part of this effort, far-reaching political, administrative and legislative reforms had been instituted, and a new constitution was being written which would help democratic governance.
Bhutan was also in the process of applying to the World Trade Organization for membership, he said. The Government had placed a high priority on the environmental sector, for which the maintenance in perpetuity of 60 per cent of its land as forested areas had been guaranteed. The development of Bhutan’s hydropower potential, in close cooperation with India and other bilateral partners, had boosted revenue over the years, yet the country still remained dependent on official development assistance (ODA), as it did not have a market sufficiently attractive to induce foreign direct investment. In conclusion, he said that while the Government took primary responsibility for development, the support of Bhutan’s bilateral and multilateral development partners was critical.
CLAUDIA SERWER (United States) said her country was carrying out its commitments made at the Conference on Least Developed Countries. The Government of the United States believed that the implementation of the Brussels Programme of Action depended on robust poverty reduction strategies developed in consultation with all stakeholders, according to the specific situation of the country in question. The Brussels Programme of Action complemented other international development plans and must include national responsibility, good governance and aid efficiency and must emphasize on trade and investment by the private sector in order to achieve the internationally agreed goals. The United States believed that it would be more effective to use existing data and information, including those contained in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers and in the Millennium Declaration. The United States had been concerned about overlapping and duplication between the Office of the High Representative, UNCTAD and the Department of Economic and Social Affairs. The United States challenged the issues dealing with least developed country issues to ensure efficiency and coordination between them.
LOVE MTESA (Zambia) said that it was important for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to establish a focal point at the national level for the effective implementation of the Brussels Programme of Action. This had been done in Zambia, and momentum in this regard was making headway. Yet foreign debt continued to be a major domestic stumbling block to economic growth. The debt burden harmed LDCs’ capacities to concentrate on development and poverty eradication. Thus, Zambia called upon the international community to find an effective solution for the problem of indebtedness. Finally, he expressed his support for all the recommendations made by the Secretary-General in his report on the implementation of the Brussels Programme of Action.
ESAYAS GOTTA SEIFU (Ethiopia) said all socio-economic indicators pointed to the fact that LDCs suffered from deep and widespread poverty. They also suffered from growing marginalization in this increasingly globalising world economy, as witnessed by their lowest share in world GDP, in world trade and world FDI flows. This was in sharp contrast to their 11 per cent share in world population. Their problems were compounded by debt overhang and by ever declining export earnings as a result of dwindling commodity prices. It was true that the primary responsibility to transform LDCs economies lay with the LDCs themselves. However, no matter what efforts they made, they could not achieve the needed economic and social transformation on their own. Ethiopia called upon development partners to allocate higher and better official development assistance, to take higher and better debt reduction measures, to facilitate higher and better FDI flows, and to create improved market opportunities. Ethiopia was committed to the implementation of the Brussels Programme of Action and had mainstreamed the elements in the national poverty reduction and sustainable development strategy. No stone would be left unturned to discharge what was expected of the Government to further advance the implementation of the Programme of Action.
AHMAD SAADAT (World Tourism Organisation), said that, up to the present time, tourism had not been accorded a substantial role in poverty reduction strategies, yet it represented the largest and most diversified economic activity of all. The strong and sustained rise or tourism over the past 50 years fully justified its inclusion in consideration for poverty reduction; it was now one of the largest categories of international trade. Unfortunately, the full tourism potential of many least developed countries remained untapped due to a lack of infrastructure and communications systems, deficiencies in the organization of public services, new information technology skills and human resources development. Considering the speed with which the tourism industry was developing in the world and the potential of developing countries in general, it would be possible to improve substantially upon the results currently obtained in the implementation of the Brussels Programme of Action by incorporating a focus on the benefits of tourism therein.
HUSSAIN SHIHAB (Maldives) said that his delegation had warmly welcomed the Brussels Programme of Action, but shared the concerns of others over its weak implementation. While appreciating the efforts and the initiatives of the donor community to achieve accelerated growth and sustainable development in LDCs, one could not escape the reality that conditions had not improved for the vast majority of LDCs. Growth rates had declined in the Maldives to what was about half of the targets set by the Brussels Programme of Action, he said and asked if it was viable that the Maldives be graduated from the category of least developed countries. The threat of graduation was already disrupting the national implementation of the Brussels Programme of Action. On the basis of technical criteria, many donors were reaching their own conclusions about the development status of the Maldives, thereby further constraining their ability to generate the kind of momentum that would get the Maldives to the growth targets in the Programme of Action. Graduation would seriously undermine the viability of the entire fisheries sector, which about 65 per cent of the population depended on for their meagre livelihoods. It was hoped that the objectives of the Programme of Action would be observed, even in the case of countries that technically qualified for graduation.
JEAN-PIERRE OUEDRAOGO (Rural Reconstruction Nepal) addressed the Council in French in the absence of simultaneous translation.
SAMUEL AMEHOU (Benin), reported on the outcome of the informal panel on “Dialogue with Civil Society - How to Advance the Implementation of the Brussels Programme of Action” held yesterday, There was no translation from French, into English.
GYAN CHANDRA ACHARYA (Nepal), reported on the outcome of the informal panel on “How the United Nations system can support the Brussels Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries at the national level” held on Tuesday. During the panel, speakers had stressed that LDCs must take the leadership of the implementation of the Brussels Programme of Action commitments. The primary responsibility for the implementation lay with the LDCs, with the support of the international community. LDCs were encouraged to take positive steps in establishing national mechanisms for the implementation and follow-up of the Programme of Action. Poor implementation by LDCs of the monitoring and reporting mechanism mandated by the Programme BPOA underscored the difficulties faced by the administrations of these countries in coping with the multitude of programmes and demands from the United Nations system and their partners. The panel had also focused attention on the need to mainstream the Brussels Programme of Action; participation and contributions of the civil society; technical and financial assistance; declining trends in official development assistance; HIV/AIDS; good governance; and mutual accountability and coherence.



* *** *