The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) today held a special event in commemoration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development entitled “the right to development and the global partnership for development”. The Council also held a panel discussion on “Building on Istanbul: Financial support for the development efforts of the least developed countries, including through south-south and triangular cooperation,” and an interactive dialogue on reports of coordination bodies.

Opening the special event, Abulkalam Abdul Momen, Vice-President of ECOSOC, said it was critical that the right to development be supported through the global partnership for development. Human-rights based policy coherence in efforts to support the right to development should be jointly ensured by both the Economic and Social Council and the Human Rights Council and, in this regard, they should work together to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

Navi Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, introducing the panel, said that the Council provided the central forum for discussing international economic and social issues. As a venue for formulating and addressing policy recommendations to Member States and the United Nations system, it could provide strong support for the implementation of the mandate given by the General Assembly to the High Commissioner to promote and protect the right to development. All areas specifically addressed under Millennium Development Goal eight, aid, market access, debt sustainability, and access to affordable essential medicines and to new technologies, stood to benefit from the application of the constituent elements of the right to development. The Declaration on the Right to Development could help States to formulate, adopt, and implement policies and programmes for just, equitable and sustainable development for all.

Laura Dupuy Lasserre, President of the Human Rights Council, speaking as a key-not speaker, indicated that the right to development was a fundamental human right; and that the respect of human rights and human freedoms and development were interdependent and mutually reinforced each other. An enabling environment for development, national and international, was a necessary component to this end; similarly, this special panel and the ongoing work of the Council must serve to identify practical measures to promote and employ the synergies in the United Nations system in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 and to improve coherence in policy and actions taken to achieve the right to development. In this regard, one of the greatest advantages of respecting the right to development was the creation of just national and international environments that ensured the continuous improvement of common welfare.

Henry Shue, Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for International Studies and Professor Emeritus of Politics and International Relations, Oxford University, speaking as a key-note speaker, said the historic project of sustainable development, guaranteed by the Declaration on the Right to Development, was rapidly being undermined. The most fundamental and potentially devastating threat to sustainable development was the rapidly accelerating climate change that was now underway. However, while everyone increasingly agreed in theory that basic human rights were threatened by climate change and many solemn pronouncements contained commitments to preventing temperature rise above two degrees centigrade, very few Member States were facing up to the stark practical reality of what was involved in this commitment. Member States should use the Council to provide the leadership to breath new life into a global partnership.

In the interactive dialogue moderated by Ms. Pillay, it was noted that the Declaration on the Right to Development, in its definition of the right to development, did not reduce development to purely economic aspirations or goals, but articulated a broad, comprehensive understanding of development as national and international goals. The right to development emphasized the multi-faceted, multi-dimensional and complex nature of development processes and the need for development to be inclusive, equitable and suitable. Twenty-five years after the adoption of the Declaration on the Right to Development, the right to development was far from being universally realized. Speakers said a confluence of factors posed grave challenges to fulfilling the right to development. The number of poor people continued to rise. Two billion people remained malnourished. Unemployment was rising. War and conflict diminished resources that could have been allocated to fulfilling the right to development. Developing countries faced issues related to financial, economic and political systems, intellectual property, health, technology transfer, migration, uneven terms of trade, shrinking official development assistance, restricted market access and growing debt, which impaired their ability to realize the right to development. This entailed an assessment of United Nations activities and development policies’ impact on the right to development.

Egypt, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, Bangladesh, the European Union, Cuba, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Ghana, Cameroon, and Civicus took the floor in the interactive dialogue.

In the morning meeting, the Council held a panel discussion on “Building on Istanbul: Financial support for the development efforts of the least developed countries, including through south-south and triangular cooperation.” Introducing the panel discussion, Mr. Abdul Momen, Vice-President of ECOSOC, said that the Istanbul Programme of Action helped renew the global partnership for development in support of the poorest and most vulnerable countries. Now, as ever, the challenge rested with the speedy and full implementation of commitments made and agreements reached in Istanbul. What was needed was a mutual compact between the least developed countries and the development partners toward the goal to halve the number of least developed countries by 2020.

Cheikh Sidi Diarra, Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States, moderator of the panel, said that least developed countries faced important structural impediments to economic growth and development and that removing these constraints would require resources that far exceeded those available in those countries. A sizeable amount of financial inflows was needed to accelerate growth and development.

Gyan Chandra Acharya, Permanent Representative of Nepal to the United Nations in New York, speaking as a panellist, said the vulnerabilities and inequalities of least developed countries had been aggravated by climate change, conflict and the economic and financial crisis. The mobilization of national resources but also private financing and strengthened international support was required.

Jeffrey D. Lewis, Director, Economic Policy and Debt Development, World Bank, speaking as a panellist, said that introducing duty-free and quota-free access would be necessary to transform the Doha round from a trade to a development round. Success in this regard could generate up to a 1.5 per cent in the GDP of least developed countries and lift over three million people over the poverty line.

Jean-Marie Paugam, Deputy Executive Director, International Trade Centre, speaking as a panellist, said that aid for trade was effective, provided innovative solutions for sharing the benefits of growth and contributed to the general consistency of development policies. The level of aid for trade should be strengthened for least developed countries; the diversification of targets of aid for trade was also required; and support needed to be shifted away from a commodity-based approach and evolved to take account of new potential in least developed countries, such as in tourism and services.

Vicente Yu, Programme Coordinator, Global Governance for Development Programme, South Centre, speaking as a panellist, said that international cooperation for development was at a crossroads during these times of multiple crises affecting developed and developing countries. In this context, international development cooperation would play a crucial role in addressing the crises.

In the interactive discussion, speakers said that focusing on the implementation of the Istanbul Programme of Action was important to ensuring concrete development improvements in least developed countries. In Istanbul, world leaders committed to helping countries graduate out of the least developed country group by 2020; yet, the situation of least developed countries continued to deteriorate in the context of the global economic and financial crises. Speakers asked what could be done to support countries in the meantime and discussed the development of targeted cooperation initiatives with least developed countries, covering the issues of sustainable development, economic and technical cooperation, debt relief and trade. Assistance should be adapted to the specific conditions and sovereignty of receiving nations, allowing governments to set their own priorities. South-south and triangular cooperation had the benefit of knowledge sharing among partners and could be considered more in terms of partnership and the private sector could play an important element in transformative change.

Representatives of Finland, the International Labour Organization, Turkey, Morocco, Venezuela, Barbados, Brazil, the United States, Bangladesh, Norway, Ghana and Thailand took the floor during the interactive discussion.

Also today, ECOSOC discussed reports of coordination bodies. Introducing the Annual Overview Report of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination, Thomas Stelzer, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, said that the report provided an overview of the major developments in inter-agency cooperation from fall 2010 to spring 2011. It demonstrated how the Chief Executives Board for Coordination and its subsidiary mechanisms had advanced coordination efforts to promote a more coherent and effective United Nations system working together to deliver on intergovernmental mandates. The Chief Executives Board for Coordination would continue to ensure that the system aligned its collective strengths to meet the mandates established by the Member States and the outcomes and decisions of the governing bodies of the United Nations system.

After the presentation, Mr. Abdul Momen, the Vice-President of ECOSOC, moderated an interactive dialogue in which representatives from the Food and Agriculture Organization, Japan, Algeria and the United States participated. Speakers touched on topics related to the Board, including food security, cyber security, the Millennium Development Goals and accountability and monitoring mechanisms to track the fulfillment of commitments, and the agenda of the Rio+20 Conference.

ECOSOC will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 13 July to continue its Coordination Segment and in the context of reports on the role of the United Nations system in implementing the internationally agreed goals and commitments in regard to gender equality and empowerment of women, and on mainstreaming a gender perspective into all policies and programmes in the United Nations system, it will hold a panel discussion in the morning on “Leadership, coordination and accountability: Evaluating the United Nations system’s work on gender equality and women’s empowerment.” In the afternoon meeting, ECOSOC will hold a panel discussion on “Countering gender discrimination and negative gender stereotypes: Effective policy responses.”


Panel Discussion on “Building on Istanbul: Financial support for the development efforts of the least developed countries, including through South-South and triangular cooperation”

Opening Statements

ABULKALAM ABDUL MOMEN, Vice-President of the Economic and Social Council, said the Istanbul Programme of Action had helped to renew the global partnership for development in support of the poorest and most vulnerable countries. The Istanbul Programme of Action provided a sound framework for development cooperation over the next decade. Now, as ever, the challenge rested with the speedy and full implementation of commitments made and agreements reached in Istanbul. What was needed was a mutual compact between the least developed countries and the development partners toward the goal to halve the number of least developed countries by 2020. In the run up to the conference, the Economic and Social Council paid special attention to the development challenges of the least developed countries.

Mr. Momen said he would share some of the outcomes and findings of the discussions. First, there seemed to be a common view that the international community needed to take a more holistic, targeted and integrated approach in their efforts to support least developed countries. Many speakers highlighted the importance of domestic resource mobilization. The private sector played an important role in providing technology transfers and fostering production linkages. Many participants recognized the importance of the conclusion of the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations for increasing the benefits of trade for the least developed countries. The full implementation of official development assistance commitments was crucial for the last developed countries to meet their development objectives. Donors should set concrete timetables to meet their aid commitments so that recipient countries could plan their budgets in the long term. The debt sustainability of the least developed countries needed to be ensured, as many of them remained in debt distress or at a high risk thereof. South-South and triangular cooperation had an important role to play. There was a common view that such cooperation should not be limited to finance but should also include trade, infrastructure, industrial projects, energy and energy security, as well as research and development. Mr. Momen said it was time to build on the important discussions of the Council and ensure the international community would swiftly implement its collective commitments to bring dignity, development and prosperity to the poor and most vulnerable.

CHEICK SIDI DIARRA, Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States, said least developed countries faced important structural impediments to economic growth and development and that removing these constraints would require resources that far exceeded those available in those countries. A sizeable amount of financial inflows was needed to accelerate growth and development. The importance of adequate resources for the development of least developed countries had re-emerged in the context of important initiatives such as the Millennium Development Goals, the Brussels Programme of Action, the Monterrey and Doha Conferences and the Istanbul Programme of Action. Commitments had been made by the donor community and met by pledges from recipient countries, including least developed countries, to scale up efforts aimed at mobilizing domestic resources and working towards an improved environment that would ensure better value for money from these resources. Innovative sources of finance had also been implemented to mobilize additional resources, such as levies, taxes, voluntary contributions, insurance schemes, among others.

An important remaining challenge was to ensure that new trade and financial linkages contributed to building productive capacities and accelerating structural transformation rather than locking least developed countries into production structures that entailed lower economic growth and development to remaining sources of raw materials solely. Additional resources would be required to deploy adaptation and mitigation measures required by least developed countries in the context of climate change. Addressing all these challenges related to development financing in least developed countries required national and international responses and called for strong partnerships between least developed countries and their development partners and harnessing South-South and triangular cooperation as acknowledged in the Istanbul Programme of Action.

Statements by Panellists

GYAN CHANDRA ACHARYA, Permanent Representative of Nepal to the United Nations in New York, said the Istanbul Conference was important in considering least developed countries in a holistic manner and encouraging efforts to support least developed countries. There were 48 least developed countries, two-thirds of which were in Africa. Least developed countries were small and big, some were landlocked and some were small island states, but on the whole, least developed countries represented the poorest and weakest states. Only three countries had graduated out of the group. Productive capacity was limited, severe infrastructure deficits existed and human and governance capacities were lacking. Many least developed countries were either in conflict or emerging from conflict. The vulnerabilities and inequalities of least developed countries had been aggravated by climate change, conflict and the economic and financial crisis.

The focus of the conference in Istanbul was to keep the concerns of least developed countries in mind when looking at international development aid. There was a renewed call for strengthened partnership, which had to take into consideration the causes and consequences for least developed countries. The conference focused on the enhancement of human capacity and building resilience against external threats, among others. The ambitious goal of graduating as many least developed countries as possible by 2020 was vital, but there had to be extensive national efforts and renewed global partnership. In the Istanbul Programme of Action, 7 per cent annual growth was set as the target necessary for making a dent in poverty and making sustainable development a reality. In order to ensure this goal was met, enhanced resources were needed. The mobilization of national resources but also private financing, and strengthened international support was required. The lack of financial resources was one of biggest constraints for least developed countries and if least developed countries wanted to achieve sustainable and inclusive growth, a business-as-usual approach was insufficient. At least 25 per cent of gross domestic product should be invested in productive sectors as well as in human capacity. Therefore, there had to be a greater mobilization of resources, under leadership of countries themselves, but with renewed partnership with the international community. Development expenditures and development expenses in least developed countries were highly dependent on official development assistance.

The quality and effectiveness of development support needed to be made more in tune with the priorities of the least developed countries. Official development assistance had grown but had fallen short of commitments made by developed countries. By 2015, the goal of 0.15 to 0.2 per cent of gross domestic product attributed to official development assistance should be delivered on. Even with this official development assistance, because of many challenges and vulnerabilities of least developed countries, there had to be an enhancement of this share after 2015. This would be reviewed in 2015. The quality of aid was important as well. Distribution across sectors and countries was even. More even distribution of official development assistance was required, based not just on performance, but on need. Official development assistance should be redistributed toward productive sectors, which would have spillover effects in attracting private investment. Official development assistance had been volatile, but should remain focused, disbursement stable and timing of aid flows counter-cyclical, particularly when crises emerged. If new mechanisms were discussed, they needed to be additional. New, innovative financing had been considered with great interest, but needed to be stable and sustainable, additional not substitute. Coherence meant delivering on trade, including better market access through duty-free, quota-free access. On external debt, there had been some progress but continued and new support on debt relief was needed. Foreign direct investment and private sector development were important sources of development. Coherence and coordination across sectors, institutions and the United Nations, as well as between development partners and recipients, were critical. What was provided in one sector should not be undermined by provisions in another sector. South-south and triangular trade were important but could not be a substitute for north-south cooperation. Mr. Acharya said he looked forward to the day when least developed countries were not delegated that status.

JEFFREY D. LEWIS, Director, Economic Policy and Debt Development, World Bank, said that despite concerns that growing fiscal pressures from the recent crisis would have a negative impact on the flows of development assistance, there had not yet been a major impact on aid flows and there had been progress in the international development framework. The number of aid donors was increasing, trade integration and facilitation remained key elements for inclusive growth and poverty reduction; but countries should aim to avoid barriers to trade and the emergence of protectionist measures. International financial institutions had increasingly focused on results-based lending, reviews and impact assessment to inform project design, as assistance strategies and resources had progressed and development finance had evolved. Furthermore, knowledge support, particular from south-s0outh knowledge sharing, had continued to increase. Global programmes and partnerships were also growing; the World Bank in particular was very active in preparations for the Istanbul Conference and had provided continued support for least developed countries through its International Development Association facility, which was designed to channel concessional funding to low-income countries, including the vast majority of least developed countries. The International Development Association IDA16, which had just been developed, would give a special focus to addressing gender issues and helping fragile and conflict affected countries. The International Development Association framework allowed for flexibility to help address the vulnerabilities of low-income countries with special rules for small island states, differing levels of concessionality, a revised debt sustainability framework and a newly established response window.

Mr. Lewis said in 2011 the World Bank committed $ 4.1 billion for social protection, including safety net programmes for the poorest and most vulnerable, $ 20 billion for infrastructure, critical for job creation and future productivity, and $ 1.4 billion for natural disaster management, critical for adapting to climate change, among many other areas. The Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative had been largely implemented in 32 completion point countries and 4 interim countries out of 40 eligible heavily indebted poor countries willing to avail themselves to relief under the initiative; debt burdens had been reduced by 90 per cent compared to decision point levels and key debt burden indicators had substantially declined; and as of 2009 poverty-reducing expenditure increased in similar priorities as the debt-service reduction. Supporting trade integration and liberalization remained important; the global community could support poverty reduction through improving trade integration in low income countries. Introducing duty-free and quota-free access would be necessary to transform the Doha round from a trade to a development round. Success in this regard could generate up to a 1.5 per cent in the GDP of least developed countries and lift over three million people over the poverty line. The focus on trade policy had shifted from economy-wide reductions in tariffs and trade restriction towards targeted interventions aimed at reducing trade costs and promoting efforts and the World Bank remained the largest multilateral provider of aid for trade with 216 trade-related lending operations in 90 countries since 2007.

JEAN-MARIE PAUGAM, Deputy Executive Director, International Trade Centre, said he would focus on how aid for trade would meet the challenges faced by least developed countries. Aid for trade was a recent concept but one of the fundamental elements of development assistance. Since the end of the 1980s, there had been a consensus and balanced vision that trade liberalization would not have an effect on development without capacity building. Aid for trade was effective, provided innovative solutions for sharing the benefits of growth and contributed to the general consistency of development policies. Aid for trade was effective and productive by leveraging funds for development in least developed countries. The aim was to sustain growth through exports.

The first level of action in aid for trade was supporting businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises, throughout the value chain. The second level of action was aiding trade support institutions, namely trade associations, chambers of commerce and trade agencies. The objective was to set up institutional infrastructure to support businesses to create self-sustaining exports. Aid for trade also supported innovative solutions for inclusive growth. There was no automatic link between growth and poverty reduction. Aid for trade did not focus simply on quantitative expansion of growth but targeted the most vulnerable parts of the population. There was a major income effect for populations that had very low income levels. Aid for trade also contributed to the overall consistency of development strategies because it was a global approach. Inter-governmental, inter-ministerial and inter-international agency discussions were required, making the approach coherent and global. By organizing discussions between governments and businesses on cross-cutting issues, aid for trade could help countries develop cross-sectoral strategies. The International Trade Centre helped governments to draw up export strategies and supported least developed countries’ accession to the World Trade Organization. Support for public-private dialogue helped to establish trust and identify trade opportunities.

In the post-Istanbul environment, there were two major challenges for aid for trade. Consolidating aid for trade was important because it was a recent concept in international development. Better understanding the impact of aid for trade was needed, as knowledge of it was fragmentary. Procedures needed to be more effective in order to mobilize more resources, which could accelerate capacity for disbursement. The level of aid for trade should be strengthened for least developed countries. Diversification of targets of aid for trade was also required. Support needed to be shifted away from a commodity-based approach and evolved to take account of new potentials in least developed countries, such as in tourism and services. Dialogue with the international private sector was also important, which could contribute to mapping new opportunities for international trade. Multinational supply programmes now often included social, gender and environmental considerations. Inclusive growth was an important goal, as trade income could be used for the benefit of the poorest populations.

VICENTE YU, Programme Coordinator, Global Governance for Development Programme, South Centre, said that the South Centre helped developing countries to understand multilateral policy in developing issues and negotiations. International cooperation for development was at a crossroads during these times of multiple crises affecting developed and developing countries. In this context, international development cooperation would play a crucial role in addressing the crises, as least developed countries had become increasingly vulnerable and because of the high-export high-commodity dependence that many of the least developed countries had developed as part of their economic structures. In order to free up and provide additional financial resources for least developed countries to support rapid improvements in productive capacity and economic growth, it was necessary that a global assessment of financing gaps was based on transparent and multilateral mechanisms. As the Istanbul Programme of Action suggested, the financing needs of least developed countries were not being made by the resources made available including longstanding commitments from developing countries. Least developed countries should concentrate on developing capacity, diversifying their economies to make them more resilient to external and environmental shocks, and focus on the achievement of sustainable development.

In order to successfully address the existing financing gap, a discussion of the problem should take place within the United Nations in order to ensure a transparent and multilateral assessment. It should be recognized that official development assistance was needed in order to maximize productive capacity of developing States and productive capacity must be addressed by helping developing countries and least developed countries build innovation societies. The prospect of tightening of fiscal policies in the developed world reaffirmed the need to address the financing gap and capital flows from developing countries into developed countries. Official development assistance commitments should be fulfilled and ensuring this could only be achieved on the basis of a multilateral evaluation framework; accessible countercyclical multilateral lending facilities for developing countries should not have pro-cyclical policy conditionalities attached to them. Multilateral mechanisms to deal with outflows of capital, for instance debt payment moratoria, and controls on capital flows by the least developed countries to minimize potential negative impacts of fluctuation, would be beneficial. In conclusion, in order to support least developed countries to increase their productive capacity, it would be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of existing commitments; to develop multilateral mechanisms under the United Nations to ensure that financing reaches least developed countries; and to further south-south mechanisms as a means to channeling additional resources to development.

Discussion

In the interactive discussion, speakers said that focusing on the implementation of the Istanbul Programme of Action was important to ensuring concrete development improvements in least developed countries. In Istanbul, world leaders committed to helping countries graduate out of the least developed country group by 2020. Official development assistance was a crucial element in this regard. At a time when official development assistance should be expanding to compensate for the lack of certain private flows, it was disappointing to see significant shortfalls projected for 2011. The world financial and economic crisis should not be an excuse for delaying delivery of aid to the poorest. The situation of least developed countries continued to deteriorate in the context of the global economic and financial crises. Aid was an important source of revenue for least developed countries, but other financial flows needed to be examined. Domestic fundraising and resources were important. More time was necessary to mobilize domestic resources in order to reduce dependency on external financial flows. Speakers asked what could be done to support countries in the meantime. Conditionality prevented some eligible countries from receiving support. Official development assistance needed to result in increases in employment if it was to pull least developed countries out of extreme poverty and extend social protection. Official development assistance commitments had to be met. Speakers discussed the development of targeted cooperation initiatives with least developed countries, covering the issues of sustainable development, economic and technical cooperation, debt relief and trade. Assistance should be adapted to the specific conditions and sovereignty of receiving nations, allowing government to set their own priorities.

The role of the emerging economies was important in implementing the Istanbul Programme of Action. While it was true that south-south cooperation was growing, it remained a complementary instrument. South-south and triangular cooperation had the benefit of knowledge sharing among partners and could be considered more in terms of partnership. Speakers asked the panellists to discuss how emerging economies could contribute to least developed countries’ financing needs. Least developed countries had benefited little from foreign investment and were failing to make progress in the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Concerning the World Bank rankings on domestic enabling environment for businesses and entrepreneurs, speakers asked what measures could be taken at the domestic level to improve the domestic enabling environment for business. The private sector could play an important element in transformative change. Speakers asked to hear from the panellists how the private sector could be more closely involved in the dialogue on the Programme of Action and support for least developed countries. Speakers also asked for further discussion on commercial debt from the point of view of developing countries.

The focus on productive capacities in the Istanbul Programme of Action was important as it had been neglected by major donors, although supported by emerging economies. Improving productive capacity was important to building least developed countries development and strengthening them against structural and technical constraints. Speakers said a greater emphasis on technology transfer was needed, as it could catalyze knowledge-sharing. Targeted education programmes and the ability to move research and development to the level of commercially viable projects could also be beneficial. Capital investment alone would not be enough as absorptive capacity needed to be enhanced. Regional integration could have a catalytic effect for least developed countries and international support in this regard would be welcome. The participation of least developed countries in international trade would significantly boost their development prospects, but this too required international support for private sector development, trade negotiations skills and trade institutions. The conclusion of the Doha Round of trade negations was also important to advancing the least developed countries.

Climate change could have severe consequences, particularly for developing countries. Adaptation and technology transfer was needed to address this issue. Access to energy for all was vital for economic growth in least developed countries. The vulnerability of least developed countries in climate change should be taken in consideration in climate change negotiations. Speakers asked whether light could be shed on the prospect of financial support for least developed countries in this regard.

Finland, the International Labour Organization, Turkey, Morocco, Venezuela, Barbados, Brazil, the United States, Bangladesh, Norway, Ghana and Thailand took the floor during the interactive discussion.

Concluding Remarks

VICENTE YU, Programme Coordinator, Global Governance for Development Programme, South Centre, said that developing countries could contribute to the implementation of the Istanbul Programme of Action through south-south cooperation, solidarity, and horizontal partnerships. However, these instances of cooperation should not be seen through the same lenses utilized to analyze official development assistance, since the normative framework and underpinnings were different. Mr. Yu stressed that developing countries could assist least developed countries only in the context of their own development challenges and changing environment; thus specific commitments could not be attached and south-south cooperation should remain complementary. Nonetheless, developing countries could often make significant contributions to each other, as they often had gone through similar developing trajectories or faced similar challenges, for example, in the fields of technical expertise and knowledge transfers. Promoting south-south investment was also important, along with regional integration efforts, in order to ensure complementarity in productive capacity and access to greater markets. Furthermore, south-south cooperation at the regional level could provide additional funds and lending facilities. Climate finance, as Norway and Barbados pointed out, was a significant example of how technology cooperation would be very important.

JEAN-MARIE PAUGAM, Deputy Executive Director, International Trade Centre, said that there were several levels where south-south cooperation could make contributions to development. Besides providing aid and support for trade had been underlined, south-south cooperation played an important role by contributing to the dissemination of best practices and other forms of knowledge sharing which could benefit least developed countries, for instance the International Trade Centre had developed a trade promotion programme. Mr. Paugam indicated that in the context of trade, World Trade Organization accession could send an important signal to the private sector; and noted that since the Millennium Development Goals were introduced, some of the elements have been mainstreamed, such as gender and climate change, and had thus they contributed to shape the work of the International Trade Centre.

JEFFREY D. LEWIS, Director, Economic Policy and Debt Development, World Bank, said he agreed with the point that was made by a number of delegates regarding a greater focus on the private sector The tendency, however, was to have the pendulum swing from one side to another. The private sector emphasis was good, but should not be done at the expense of support to human development issues. Technology transfer and the adoption of technology measures had been neglected by the international community. These measures could have substantial impacts on inclusive growth. The World Bank had focused on the bottom of the pyramid, encouraging appropriate progressions towards opportunities in adopting technology for development. An overnight shift in heightened domestic resource mobilization was not possible. It was important to start now. It made sense for there to be norms or frameworks to ensure lenders operated responsibly and borrowers understood the terms of loans. The question was not where it was coming from, but how it was used. Investments made for infrastructure or transformative change made sense but those investments that did not work towards those goals did not make sense. The creation of business indicators provided targets for the public and government action, but underpinning the benchmarks were a much larger range of elements that were important to the business environment. At the end of the day the enabling environment was critical. Regarding disasters and climate change funds, the World Bank was doing what it could with existing and new instruments to support countries in facing these issues.

GYAN CHANDRA ACHARYA, Permanent Representative of Nepal to the United Nations in New York, said the challenges faced by least developed countries were complex and multidimensional. It was not sufficient to get countries out of the poverty trap, productive capacity building needed to be emphasized. Human capacity, technical capacity and private sector capacity in least developed countries were limited. Promoting small and medium enterprises, public-private partnerships and rules for the banking and investment sectors was critical. On the issue of south-south cooperation, this was a solidarity based approach and indicated the growing capacity of emerging countries. Sharing best practices for easily manageable technologies, rules of banking and other issues could be a significant benefit of south-south cooperation. Least developed countries were severely vulnerable to climate change. Least developed countries had the least capacity to adapt. More mechanisms for dealing with that issue in a focused and comprehensive manner were required.

CHEICK SIDI DIARRA, Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States, summarising the presentation and discussions, emphasised that that least developed countries faced significant challenges compounded by recent financial, energy and food crises. Building resilience and assuring economic growth for sustainable development was necessary, but domestic resources were not enough. That was why the mobilization of development assistance was necessary in quantity and quality in order to make external debt sustainable for least developed countries. Coherence and coordination in the delivery of support could be beneficial. Official development assistance had remained stable although the long-term impact of the crises was not known. Mr. Diarra indicated the role played by aid for trade and its emphasis on efficiency, innovation and coherence, in order to assure that countries could improve their economies in a sustainable manner although there was no necessary link between growth and equitable distribution. There had been considerable challenges in the context of the aid for trade agenda and south-south cooperation was also important in the context of the need for international development cooperation and the need to move away from dependency as well as the insufficient existing levels of official development aid. Aid for trade contributed to addressing ways of reducing the current financing gap.

Reports of Coordination Bodies

Documentation

The Council has before it E/2911/104 entitled the annual overview report of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination, which provides an overview of major developments in inter-agency cooperation within the framework of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination during the period leading to and covering its fall 2010 session and its spring 2011 session. The report highlights the activities of the Chief Executives Board in equally pursuing policy, operational and management matters to support a coherent approach that enhances system-wide coordination. The report provides information on efforts to enhance coherence and coordination in achieving the Millennium Development Goals and internationally agreed development goals and on efforts to further cooperation in advancing accountability and transparency in the activities of the Chief Executives Board.

Opening Statements

THOMAS STELZER, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, said that he was honoured to introduce the Annual Overview Report of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination for 2010 /2011. The report provided an overview of the major developments in inter-agency cooperation from fall 2010 to spring 2011. It demonstrated how the Chief Executives Board for Coordination and its subsidiary mechanisms had advanced coordination efforts to promote a more coherent and effective United Nations system working together to deliver on intergovernmental mandates. Over the reporting period, the landmark General Assembly resolution on system-wide coherence was adopted. Another crucial milestone was the outcome of the Millennium Development Goals Summit. In May, the Chief Executives Board for Coordination issued a statement of support to the Fourth United Nations Conference on Least Developed Countries. Mr. Stelzer also highlighted the Board’s work in preparation for Rio +20. A dedicated Principals Group to ensure a coordinated United Nations system contribution to Rio +20 had been established by the Secretary-General.

The three subsidiary mechanisms of the Board continued to work closely together to strengthen coordination across the system on programmatic management and operational issues. The High-Level Committee on Programmes focused on promoting greater synergy in the polices and programmes of the organizations of the United Nations system so as to enhance the system’s overall impact on helping countries meet the internationally agreed development goals. The High-level Committee on Management continued to focus on inter-agency cooperation to reinforce measures for the security and safety of United Nations system personnel, to promote accountability and transparency across the system and to disseminate best practices, modern management approaches and partnerships in all areas of management. On operational matters, the United Nations Development Group continued to promote coherence and coordination with regard to country-level operations in accordance with General Assembly resolution 62/208. The Chief Executives Board for Coordination would continue to ensure that the system aligned its collective strengths to meet the mandates established by the Member States and the outcomes and decisions of the governing bodies of the United Nations system. Over the reporting period, it had become quite clear that the United Nations system had benefited from increased and interactive dialogue with representatives of Member States.

Interactive Dialogue

ABDESSALAM OULD AHMED, of the Food and Agriculture Organization, inquired why, despite its increasing prominence, the report did not address the issue of food security while it had been addressed by other forums such as the G20.

THOMAS STELZER, Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, said that food security continued to be a very important issue to deal with. In 2008, after food riots took place in over 30 countries, the United Nations coordinated a response and established the High Level Task Force on Food Security, at the United Nations System Chief Executives session in Bern. The task force was chaired by the Secretary-General himself, and composed of United Nations agencies that dealt with food security and agricultural issues, meeting to discuss remaining challenges. This effort was later recognized by the G20 during the Aquila summit and Member States pledged to raise money to support United Nations and international efforts to secure food for everybody. The food situation had become aggravated. As the recent report by the Food and Agriculture Organization suggested, food issues continued to resonate and many people were concerned that the topic of food security might continue to gather importance. Food security had also been part of the agenda of the Secretary-General Millennium Development Goals advocacy group; the Secretary-General’s special representative on food security was working with advocates on a strategy.

KAZUYA OTSUKA (Japan) asked for an explanation of the agenda of the Rio+20.

THOMAS STELZER, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, said that the Chief Executives Board for Coordination always took up overarching issues or emerging issues of the United Nations system at its annual retreat. This year the Secretary- General put Rio + 20 on the agenda. After discussing the issue at the retreat, the Secretary-General and the Chief Executives Board for Coordination established a group on dedicated principles to lead the United Nations system in the lead-up to Rio +20. As the Secretary-General had stated, the United Nations considered Rio +20 as one of the most important events to come because it was an opportunity to define and conceptualize the United Nations strategy for the next decade. To bring together the three pillars of sustainable development and address the problem of 50-50-50 would be key issues in the coming several decades for the United Nations. The dedicated principles group was expected to forward a report to the Chief Executives Board for Coordination by October. Several other United Nations groups would become part of this process. The Secretary-General asked that the Chief Executives Board for Coordination forged a system wide strategy for Rio +20.

MOURAD BOUKADOUM (Algeria) asked Mr. Stelzer to discuss activities carried out by the Chief Executives Board for Coordination in the sensitive area of cyber security more in depth.

THOMAS STELZER, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, said the Chief Executives Board for Coordination was mandated to take up any issues relevant for the United Nations system brought up by Board members. The Secretary-General of the International Telecommunications Union had brought up the issue and discussed it in depth with the Board. The International Telecommunications Union was spearheading the United Nations system wide efforts on the issue.

COURTNEY NEMROFF (United States) said there were discussions about efforts of the Chief Executives Board for Coordination to track commitments to the Millennium Development Goals. There were numerous tracking systems across the United Nations and in donor countries themselves. The United States asked to hear more about the work of the Board on tracking the Millennium Development Goals.

THOMAS STELZER, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, said the Millennium Development Goals remained at the heart of the work and discussions on how to hold stakeholders accountable. Since the Millennium Development Goals had been adopted significant commitment had been made by governments, civil society, academia and the private sector and there was an increasing recognition of the importance of a sense of ownership for the success in the achievement of the goals. The Secretary-General had decided to create an integrated implementation framework to monitor and hold stakeholders accountable for the fulfillment of development commitments. The framework would be publicly available through an interactive web portal providing an overview of all development commitments since 2000, the nature of the commitments, tracking their delivery, identifying gaps and inconsistencies and promoting global partnerships; it would contribute to the work of the Millennium Development Goals task force, established by the Secretary-General as an open ended mechanism to overview the implementation of the goals. All stakeholders and Member States would be asked to provide information on the fulfillment of their commitments through the United Nations country teams to the specialized agencies. Further funding was necessary in order to implement this system, although the framework was ready.

Special Event in commemoration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development – “The right to development and the global partnership for development”

Opening Statements

ABULKALAM ABDUL MOMEN, Vice-President of the Economic and Social Council, said it was an honour to welcome the Council to the celebration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development. It was critical that the right to development be supported through the global partnership for development, namely Millennium Development Goal eight. Issues related to the right to development were on the agendas of both the Economic and Social Council and the Human Rights Council. Human-rights based policy coherence in efforts to support the right to development should be jointly ensured by both Councils. In this regard, the Economic and Social Council should work with the Human Rights Council to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Without the common approach, it was difficult to see how the Councils could be successful. Mr. Abdul Momen expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to discuss the issue and thanked the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Department of Economic and Social Affairs for taking the initiative to make the event possible.

NAVI PILLAY, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the twenty-fifth anniversary of the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development should be an opportunity to advocate on behalf of the victims to whom the benefits of freedom from fear and want were denied. Partnerships and determination were essential to raise the understanding of a right that, all too often, had been relegated to the backburner of public consciousness. The Council provided the central forum for discussing international economic and social issues and, as a venue for formulating and addressing policy recommendations to Member States and the United Nations system, it could provide strong support for the implementation of the mandate given by the General Assembly to the High Commissioner to promote and protect the right to development. While the international community prepared itself for the final push toward the 2015 Millennium Development Goals deadline, multitudes still struggled with the setbacks in progress caused by recurrent man-made crises, natural catastrophes and bad governance. The recent events in the Middle East and North Africa underscored this point: protestors in that region showed how violations of rights, economic, social, cultural, political and civil rights, were tightly linked and produced chain reactions. They asserted that a denial of peoples’ participation in shaping the destiny of a nation, the unfair allocation of its wealth, and the corrosive effects of abuses of human rights on livelihoods and dignity must be brought to an end. Although the primary responsibility for fostering equitable development rested with States, the realities of globalization demanded the engagement of all, including at the international level.

With an ever increasing pool of development actors, the need for policy coherence, based on the holistic approach enshrined in the Declaration on the Right to Development was obvious. The crucial question was how the realization of the right to development and, specifically, the achievement of Millennium Development Goal eight could reinforce each other and how the United Nations system could use these synergies. Development strategies that focused too narrowly on economic growth lost sight of broader development objectives. Development should be about access to opportunities leading towards the constant improvement of human well-being and about guaranteeing the right to a life of dignity and freedom. Along the road to Rio+20 it was important to recall and renew the commitment of the 1992 United Nations Declaration on Environment and Development (Rio Declaration) that human beings should be at the centre of development, and that the right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations. All areas specifically addressed under Millennium Development Goal eight, aid, market access, debt sustainability, access to affordable essential medicines and to new technologies, stood to benefit from the application of the constituent elements of the right to development. The right to development could help States to formulate, adopt, and implement policies and programmes for just, equitable and sustainable development for all.

Keynote Speakers

HENRY SHUE, Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for International Studies and Professor Emeritus of Politics and International Relations, Oxford University, said the historic project of sustainable development, guaranteed by the Declaration on the Right to Development, was rapidly being undermined. One great triumph of the Right to Development in 1986 was its embrace of the indivisibility of basic human rights. This represented a major step forward in both theory and practice because of its recognition of the inseparability of all fundamental human rights. A second realization about inseparability had also already begun to take shape. It was now accepted, at least in principle, that environmental protection and sustainable human development were inseparable too. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development and the adoption of the Framework Convention were only half a step forward because the yoking of environment and development was a political compromise. In political practice there was a division of labour. The sad and tragic discovery recently made debunked the belief that they could choose between the atmosphere later and the right to development now. The most fundamental and potentially devastating threat to sustainable development was that rapidly accelerating climate change that was now underway. The protection of the right to development meant that at least half of the proven resources of coal and oil had to stay beneath the surface of the earth, at least until the development of sequestration techniques far more efficient that anything remotely on the horizon.

Everyone increasingly agreed in theory that basic human rights were threatened by climate change and many solemn pronouncements contained commitments to preventing temperature rise above two degrees centigrade. But very few Member States were facing up to the stark practical reality of what was involved in this commitment. Development depended on additional energy. Those who were developing needed much more energy than they currently had. But if catastrophic climate change was to be prevented, most of future energy could not come from fossil fuels. A commitment to human rights meant that development had to proceed and indeed increase in pace, but also preventing climate change from undermining agriculture, threatening human habitat and wreaking various other kinds of distress upon those with the fewest resources with which to adapt. The world’s energy supply could not depend on fossil fuels much longer. Those who were best able to pay and those who had used up the available sinks should pay. Clearly, it was the now-richer countries which had driven the planet to the edge of the cliff, but it could be the now-poorer countries that helped to push it off the cliff. The most plausible exit strategy was the initially subsidized rapid expansion of renewable energy to speed the day when adequate energy became affordable for all. The world desperately needed unified leadership. The Member States represented in the Economic and Social Council needed to use the institution to provide the leadership to breath new life into global partnership.

LAURA DUPUY LASSERRE, President of the Human Rights Council, indicated that the right to development was a fundamental human right; and that the respect of human rights and human freedoms and development were interdependent and mutually reinforced each other. The right to development had both individual and collective dimensions and, as its counterpart, States’ obligations at the national and international levels based on the principle of international solidarity and in many instances that of common but differentiated responsibilities to address global challenges. The principle of international solidarity also inspired the Millennium Development Goals, a historical step towards an international consensus to address inequality and social injustice. Hopefully the Doha round of the World Trade Organization would reach a successful resolution, addressing trade disruptions and promoting trade flows that benefitted the least developed countries. Protectionism and other national measures could have negative impacts, such as carbon rates or taxes on food transportation and new forms of protection, unless they were framed by a global effort to tackle climate change. There remained important inequalities within and among countries and existing gaps should be bridged to achieve development. In the High-Level Segment of the Council the focus had been on the right to education, a key component for human rights and other Millennium Development Goals, the links were manifold, health, employment, etc.

In the context of the Human Rights Council, the work on the protection of many rights involved many of those reflected by the Millennium Development Goals, the relationship between them was addressed by the Special Procedures and the Working Group on the right to development and the special high level group on this topic had repeatedly produced criteria and indicators of the fulfillment of the right to development, which would be addressed during the upcoming meeting in November. An enabling environment for development, national and international, was a necessary component to this end; similarly, this special panel and the ongoing work of the Council must serve to identify practical measures to promote and employ the synergies in the United Nations system in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 and to improve coherence in policy and actions taken to achieve the right to development. As an example, the International Labour Organization worked on a minimum level of social protection, in favour of respect for the rights and fundamental principles in the work place, promoting a social dialogue and social justice, in which there was a national consensus between different actors involved and the formation of an association promoting development. They must move from mere commitment to practice and implementation. In this regard, one of the greatest advantages of respecting the right to development was the creation of just national and international environments that ensured the continuous improvement of common welfare. It would be necessary to define a new agenda for development after 2015 in order to maintain the current momentum and the upcoming COP 17 in Durban, the Rio+20 conference in 2012 and the high-level segment of the UN General Assembly in September 2011 dedicated to non-communicable diseases were some of the international opportunities to seriously address many national and global challenges.

Discussion

In the interactive dialogue, speakers recalled that the Declaration on the Right to Development, in its definition of the right to development, did not reduce development to purely economic aspirations or goals, but articulated a broad, comprehensive understanding of development as national and international goals. The right to development emphasized the multi-faceted, multi-dimensional and complex nature of development processes and the need for development to be inclusive, equitable and suitable. The Declaration on the Right to Development proclaimed that all human rights and fundamental freedoms were indivisible and interdependent and equal attention should be paid to civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. There had been huge progress in the consideration of the right to development and its broad-ranging interlinkages. The lack of development should not be used as a waiver for respecting human rights obligations, but it had to be recognized that the lack of development impaired the capacity of states to fulfill the right to development.

Twenty-five years after the adoption of the Declaration on the Right to Development, the right to development was far from being universally realized. Speakers said a confluence of factors posed grave challenges to fulfilling the right to development. The number of poor people continued to rise. Two billion people remained malnourished. Unemployment was rising. War and conflict diminished resources that could be allocated to fulfilling the right to development. Developing countries faced issues related to financial, economic and political systems, intellectual property, health, technology transfer, migration, uneven terms of trade, shrinking official development assistance, restricted market access and growing debt, which impaired their ability to realize the right to development. This entailed an assessment of United Nations activities and development policies’ impact on the right to development. As indicated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, international political responsibilities and legal obligations required States to support the right to development. In fulfilling its duty to support the fulfillment of the right to development, the international community would do better to pursue shared responsibility and action. Political will was required. Speakers supported all efforts to enhance the fulfillment of human rights and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. To achieve the remaining goals, the structural issues of discrimination and human rights needed to be addressed, which were central in the right to development.

Speakers asked the panel to provide views on the future work of the Human Rights Council as it related to the right to development. Speakers welcomed views on the agenda of the Millennium Development Goals after 2015. They highlighted the moment as an example of how the Economic and Social Council could be strengthened, in collaborating with the Human Rights Council, and asked whether future collaboration could be envisioned.

Egypt, on behalf of the non-aligned movement, Bangladesh, European Union, Cuba, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Ghana, Cameroon, and Civicus took the floor in the interactive dialogue.

Concluding Remarks

LAURA DUPUY LASSERRE, President of the Human Rights Council, concerning the agenda of the Human Rights Council, indicated that Members and Non-members of the Council set the agenda even though subsequently only Member States took part in the decision-making process. Dealing with work on climate change, non-discrimination of women, and vulnerabilities that disempowered individuals from reacting in the cases of natural disasters illustrated that human rights were highly interrelated; this was also clear in the case of the rights to a healthy environment and development. The Council would not deal with specific issues in its agenda, however, the multidisciplinary approach employed in the Special Procedures and Rapporteurs allowed them to take into account a number of issues affecting human welfare, in particular the variety of factors that promoted marginalization. Tobacco was an example on how actions could be taken at the individual level, and an issue that involved a varied group of stakeholders, including international corporations.

HENRY SHUE, Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for International Studies and Professor Emeritus of Politics and International Relations, Oxford University, reaffirmed the importance of the principle for common but differentiated responsibilities and suggested that there was a perception that if those with most responsibilities failed to take action, there would be more pressure on others to fulfill theirs. Climate change was included in matters that fell within the right to development; similarly, it was very important that human rights issues of the kind that fell under the preview of the Council should not be separated from each other. As matters of climate change became more urgent, the issue should be conceived as one concerning development but also human rights. Mr. Shue recognized the efforts made by Canada through projects promoting the responsible use of carbon fuel and called upon the United States not to approve the keystone pipeline project.

NAVI PILLAY, United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, said the United Nations celebrated No Tobacco Day, and important points had been raised in regard to the negative impacts of tobacco use on health. Ms. Pillay said it was shocking that it was the first time in 25 years that the Economic and Social Council and the Human Rights Council were brought together on the issue of the right to development. The right to development was being mainstreamed into the work of the United Nations. Ms. Pillay thanked the United Nations General Assembly and the Secretary-General for supporting such cooperation through the United Nations as One programme. Ms. Pillay expressed hope that a session on the right to development could be made into an annual event.

SHA ZUKANG, Under-Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs, said that 25 years after its adoption, the ideals of the Declaration on the Right to Development were not yet a reality for all. The picture was a mixed bag. There had been much headway in fighting poverty. Billions of people still lived on under two dollars a day. Many went hungry every night and millions were without shelter or clean water. Recognizing development as an inalienable right was an important step, but it was not sufficient for achieving development for all. A right could only be realized through the formulation and implementation of appropriate policies. There was a clear gap between a declaration and implementation. Countries had to fulfil their duties by creating an enabling environment. The Economic and Social Council had an important role to play in facilitating such an enabling environment. The Millennium Development Goals were visible expressions of the right to development. They demonstrated a commitment to translate the Declaration into concrete achievements. Rights came with responsibilities. All were endowed with a right to development and should be conscious of the responsibility to use finite resources in a sustainable manner. In preparing for the forthcoming Rio +20 conference, it was important to engage and mobilize all actors, including the international community, governments, local authorities and major groups. The Declaration on the Right to Development underlined that States had a duty to cooperate. The United Nations conferences held over the last two decades contained a number of commitments on such cooperation. Those commitments should be fulfilled if parties were serious about the right to development.


For use of the information media; not an official record

ECOSOC11/013E