Summary: October 15, 2001: Statement on behalf of the European Union by H.E. Mr. Jean de Ruyt, Permanent Representative of Belgium to the United Nations. Preparatory Committee for the International Conference on Financing for Development (New York)
Madam Chairman, Mr. Chairman,
I speak on behalf of the European Union. This statement is endorsed by the Central and Eastern European countries associated with the European Union (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia) and by the other associated countries (Cyprus, Malta, Turkey), as well as Iceland, EFTA country, member of the EEA, endorse this statement.
1. May I take the opportunity of this first EU statement to say how pleased I am to see you co-chairing this resumed third session of the Preparatory Committee. I should also like to congratulate the Permanent Representative of Pakistan, HE Mr. Shamshad Ahmad, on his appointment to the Prepcom Co-Chair. I would extend my compliments to all of the Bureau Members for the many hours put into preparing for this session. Lastly, I should thank the facilitator for the draft outcome presented here in
New York on 19 September 2001, which we are to discuss this week.
1a. Madam Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I should like first of all to reiterate the EU's commitment to doing its utmost to make a success of the Monterrey Conference on Financing for Development. Success means working resolutely to bridge the gap between the Millennium Declaration and the present state of implementation of national and international development commitments.
Madam Chairman, Mr. Chairman,
2. It is my intention this afternoon to speak briefly, in general terms, about item 3 on our agenda and more specifically the facilitator's document. We shall, of course, have a chance to go into the details of the proposals put forward in that paper, but the EU thought it worth giving an overall assessment of A/AC.275/25.
3. Procedurally, the EU takes the view that, while in substance unbalanced and incomplete, the facilitator's draft can serve as a starting point for our discussions this week. At previous Prepcom meetings, a large majority of delegations wished to avoid embarking upon the usual line-by-line negotiations at this stage. The EU would obviously support that approach. In the EU's view, some changes of emphasis, additions and amendments will be required. Our comments this week will therefore be
directed to the drafting of a new document, which, we hope, will prove more balanced and better, structured.
4. The facilitator's draft, in its concision, has the merit of departing from the type of document customarily produced by major United Nations conferences. Nevertheless, it does not fully meet the EU's expectations as regards the outcome looked for from the Conference. For instance, the innovative nature of the FfD process is not sufficiently reflected in the text, inter alia as regards involvement of all partners in the process. The next document submitted will have to be drafted in very
close collaboration with the multi-stakeholder secretariat. The text requires a number of changes of emphasis: it should focus less on systemic issues and attach greater importance to the global challenge of eradicating poverty and to mutual responsibilities as between developed and developing countries. Emphasis should be placed on the importance of good governance nationally, respect for human rights and the importance of preventing (or peacefully resolving) conflicts, as cross-cutting themes
essential to a climate attracting investment, to official development assistance, to trade liberalization and to sustainable handling of debt.
5. You called, Co-Chairmen, for delegations' comments on the nature of the outcome, which might be adopted in Monterrey. The EU would like it to be a political declaration identifying the main priorities and the measures to be taken in order to achieve internationally approved development objectives and reduce poverty.
6. In substance, the basic message we wish to convey via the FfD process is poverty reduction and achievement of the development goals set at the Millennium Summit and at major UN conferences. In the EU's view, the facilitator's new version should highlight the need to establish a favorable environment in order best to generate domestic resources for development and attract direct investment from the private sector. In return, the EU will be able to cooperate in creating that favorable
environment, in particular by means of capacity-building programmes in all relevant areas of the FfD process.
7. The new text will have to bring out an integrated approach making allowance for the economic, social and environmental aspects of sustainable development, reflected in a reminder of each State's primary responsibility for its own development. Greater emphasis should also be placed on a broader conception of partnership involving shared responsibility and on increased participation by civil society and the private sector. Such partnerships enable official assistance to have a multiplier
effect.
8. The EU does not wish to single out systematically different categories of developing countries, but the importance attached to the LDCs since the Brussels Conference still obtains, without excluding other realities, while we also hope for explicit recognition of the political
and operational importance of the New African Initiative as an example of ownership of that particularly poverty-stricken continent's development.
9. On trade, the EU will at this stage refrain from pre-empting the outcome of the Doha Ministerial Conference. We want to conduct the Doha process with the needs of developing countries in mind (including through support for their negotiating capacity and for their integration into the World Trade Organization and into the global economy). Success in Doha is bound to help make a success of the FfD Conference. Among other things, this entails calling on other industrialized countries to
implement the EBA initiative as specified at the LDC Conference and also calling on those countries to allow better access for our products. It further means improving trade between developing countries and opening up their markets, stepping up regional cooperation and integration (along the lines of the Cotonou agreements) and, lastly, strengthening developing countries' supply and production capacity.
10. The EU supports the facilitator's suggestions for making ODA more effective and hence also the strengthening of partnership between developing countries and providers of funds, on a basis of reciprocal obligations. The EU firmly believes untying of ODA to be a key part of such effectiveness including through the implementation of the Agreements reached in the OECD-DAC. National development programmes, especially poverty reduction strategy papers (PRSPs), should become the prime vehicle for
ownership and coordination of international aid. Significant progress needs to be made on the volume of aid, inter alia, if the development goals set in the Millennium Declaration are to be financed. In this context, the Union has reaffirmed its commitment to reach the UN target for official development assistance of 0.7% of GDP as soon as possible and to achieve concrete progress towards reaching this target before the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002. Lastly, as
regards ODA criteria, it would be worth referring, in the new version, to the Zedillo report's recommendation No 6.
11. The EU is in favor of giving further consideration to the concept of global public goods (GPGs), bringing a new approach to international cooperation for sustainable development. It seems desirable to arrive at a more precise definition of GPGs and at estimates of the levels and types of funding required. However contributions for GPGs are to be counted, there will clearly be a need for additional resources on a case-by-case basis.
12. The EU is prepared to look into the need to explore innovative sources of funding, without ruling out in advance any of the arrangements currently suggested, but also without any prior commitment in favor of any of them.
13. On debt, we firmly believe that the scope available under the enhanced HIPC initiative should be utilized before entertaining the idea of moving on to a new phase. This should allow some adjustments to be made to measures for countries affected by unforeseen factors beyond their control, but it cannot under any circumstances involve an automatic entitlement for HIPC-countries. Mention should be made of the relationship between debt relief and establishment of poverty reduction
programmes.
14. On global financial architecture, the new text will have to focus on general principles: increasing and improving cooperation and consistency, including at national level, adherence to institutions' remits and greater allowance for developing countries' needs and capacity. The main message should be one of greater consistency, coordination and cooperation between providers of funds and their developing country partners and especially between international financial institutions. We do not
feel it is appropriate here to decide on reforms of international financial architecture.
15. In the context of the Monterrey Conference, the EU is not in principle in favor of establishing new institutional structures. Reluctance to set up any new structures within the UN system does not mean that existing structures (Ecosoc and the Security Council) cannot play a stronger, more effective role in recognition of political aspects of major development issues. The aim is above all to foster closer cooperation between all international institutions. That caution regarding new
institutions also applies to the process for following up the Conference. The EU is wary of the idea of automatic review of the FfD process in 2005 in a new formal intergovernmental setting. We are, on the other hand, prepared to envisage follow-up as part of the regular proceedings of the Economic and Social Council. We invite all international stakeholders part of the FFD process, each within their mandate, to identify how they could contribute to the follow-up and implementation of the
Monterrey Conference.
Madam Chairman, Mr. Chairman,
16. We see the future Monterrey Conference as an opportunity to address the major challenges and objectives in the Millennium Declaration. You may rest assured of the EU's unreserved commitment to making the Conference a complete success. Monterrey will provide the venue for a new partnership for sustainable development, between countries, multilateral and regional institutions, civil society and the private sector. Of that we are convinced.
Thank you.
| Top |
European Union Member States
Alerts by email
Email this page
Print this page