Reinventing UNCTAD

[CUTS-TradeForum]

From: Guy de Jonquières

 

Dear Pradeep:

 

You entitled this debate "Re-inventing Unctad". But I think the real issue is this: if Unctad did not exist, would anyone bother inventing it? Judging by the numerous contributions so far, my conclusion is no - or at least that nobody has yet come up with a valid reason that would justify doing so.

 

There seems to be widespread, if not universal, agreement that the organisation a) lacks any clear mission b) is poorly governed and managed and c) has failed, at least in recent years, to deliver any value to its members, other than as a talking shop. Nobody, as far as I can see, has been able to answer my request to name three worthwhile tangible outcomes that it has produced in the past decade. I have certainly seen no evidence to support the claim that, for example, Unctad's statements criticising austerity policies have had any impact on those implementing them, be they in Berlin, Brussels, London, Athens or Madrid. Indeed, I should be surprised if decision-makers in those capitals even know that Unctad had pronounced on the issue or, if they do, could care less about it.

 

The arguments I have read in Unctad's defence fall broadly into six categories:

 

1) That Unctad does no harm. This is not only a feeble justification for keeping any organisation in existence; it is powerfully challenged by Grant Aldonas's well-argued submission that Unctad actually damaged the welfare of many developing countries by acting as cheerleader-in-chief for the misguided Prebisch-Singer policies that many of them have since wisely consigned to the dustbin of history.

 

2) That Unctad is not the only international organisation lacking a clear raison d'etre or effectiveness. While undoubtedly true, that is simply to say that all of them should be kept in business, regardless. Surely, nobody really thinks that that is a great idea. If you are going to shake up - or, indeed, abolish - sprawling international bureaucracies that lack any real purpose, you have to start somewhere.

 

3) That Unctad meetings provide useful opportunities for informal conversations at the margins. First, if true, it is far from obvious that that justifies the cost of holding them; second, there are plenty of other venues in which they could equally well take place, not least the WTO which, incidentally, holds ministerial twice as often as does Unctad. Since the WTO is the pre-eminent institution for managing the international trade system, discussions between developing countries on how best to promote their interests would be more likely to yield tangible results if they took place there, rather than in what is at best purely an advisory organisation.

 

4) That Unctad provides a dumping ground for poorly performing officials whom governments want to get rid of. If this is a case for the defence, God help us.

 

5) That the blame lies with lack of commitment by developed-country members. But how many developing countries have demonstrated by their actions that they really value whatever it is that Unctad does and work hard to support and strengthen it? The case of the African countries leaving it to the secretariat to write their evaluation of the secretariat's own performance, mentioned in my last email, hardly suggests that they take the organisation or their responsibilities towards it very seriously, either.

 

6) That the Unctad secretariat generates useful research. This is, in my experience, decidedly questionable. During my 10 years as the FT's world trade editor, I had access to all the sources of research on trade policy. I cannot recall more than a couple of occasions when I found anything coming out of Unctad worth reporting. The one exception is the World Investment Report (declaration of interest: I edited it one year). This is useful chiefly as a compendium of facts and figures about global FDI. But there is no particular reason why it needs to be part of Unctad and it might well benefit from being hived off as a separate unit where it would be free from the editorial and bureaucratic constraints imposed by its current affiliation.

 

To put it bluntly, what exactly is the problem to which Unctad is the solution? Unless a clear and compelling answer to that question can be found, there seems no good reason for its continued existence. That is not to say that it will be wound up: the world is littered with organisations, both national and international, that either perform poorly or long ago outlived their usefulness but which stubbornly defy both reform and extinction. The more likely future for Unctad, as Mark Halle suggests in his informative posting, is a continuing steady drift into marginalisation and irrelevance.

 

Best wishes,

 

 

Guy

 

 

 

 

From: T.K. Bhaumik, Economic Advisor, JK Paper Limited, New Delhi

 

Dear Pradeep,

 

Many thanks for the debate you have generated around the outcome mandate of UNCTAD XIII. As I can see it from responses from various participants, the debate is more about the relevance of UNCTAD. Do we need it? And if we need it, what kind of recasting that needs to be done to make UNCTAD, a relevant and constructive multilateral body. I agree that there is no point in blaming the Secretariat. If UNCTAD has lost its sheen, it is the member governments who are responsible for it. The Secretariat will behave the way the Masters would want them to.

 

When it was established in the early 60s, it was very appropriate in the context of the time, and the world economic order that was prevailing at that point of time. Moreover, UNCTAD was modeled along Prebisch-Singer idea of development economics. Before that, people were not talking of development economics. In my view, UNCTAD was going along with the mandate and the objectives for which it was established. But with the onset of globalization, the institution began to lose its relevance, mainly because the member governments failed to guide it according to needs of the changing time.

 

Lot of things have happened in the global economy since the 1980s. There was need for a re-think on the role and relevance of UNCTAD immediately after the establishment of the World Trade Organisation, if not earlier. I am not at all surprised, therefore, that the outcome documents of UNCTAD XIII is nothing but a cluster of English words with vague meanings, and that there is no substance in the mandate. I found a very interesting phrase in this mandate “development-centered globalization”. I simply could not understand what exactly this means.

 

It seems to me that the ministers assembled there had something like a duck with two heads, both speaking different languages. Naturally, the body and the heart of UNCTAD is suffering from great contradictions. What exactly it wants to do, it does not know. Certainly, one cannot blame the Secretariat for this. With my nearly three decades of working experience with the world of chambers of commerce, I can tell you, we in the Secretariat did what the bosses wanted. But point is this that UNCTAD needs a serious re-think and reform. In its present form, it cannot deliver anything except wasting huge money of the member countries. If you ask me, we should merge UNCTAD with WTO as its development wing, which should be focusing on capacity building and other needs of the member countries.

 

We also do not need the kind of analysis and research reports that UNCTAD come up with from time to time, because UNCTAD Secretariat is not very competent. The Secretariat comprises of bureacrats from member countries whose services are not so much required in their own home countries. The member states have converted UNCTAD into a parking lot for such people. For research, analysis and policy guidance, if necessary, we need to strengthen the competitive institutions such as the World Bank, IMF, OECD, etc. Further, it is my experience that UNCTAD usually holds ideological perspectives on issue rather than pragmatic and realistic approach. Most of the member states, particularly those from the developing countries are ideologically confused. I am sorry, the UNCTAD cannot emerge as an effective think-tank for developing countries, nor can it emerge as an Advisor Body.

 

With warm regards,

 

 

T.K. Bhaumik

 

 

 

 

From: Grant Aldonas, Senior Advisor (Non-resident), Centre for Strategic and International Studies

 

I have been reading this long running exchange with interest and feel compelled to add something at this stage simply to remind everyone that UNCTAD owes its very existence to a thesis - Singer-Prebisch - that was to be proved spectacularly wrong and, in fact, immiserating for millions of people globally. Indeed, the progress of the developing world in the past 30 years has paralleled the widespread adoption of basic institutions that support the basic human instinct to engage in exchange and the deeper engagement of the developing world in the global economy. In short, a direct contradiction of UNCTAD's basic operating premise.

 

One need look no further than Latin America's trade with China to illustrate the poverty of UNCTAD's approach and it's operating assumptions about the terms of trade. Latin America owes its current success to commodity trade with China and China's growth, which, of course, began with Deng's trip south in 1979 and the gradual opening of China's economy to the world. None of that fits with the dependency theory that provided the reason for UNCTAD's existence and the rationale for its many, many harmful proposals over the years.

 

Of those ideas, none has proved more insidious than the idea of trade preferences. I am always shocked by the string defense that so many mount in support if preferential trade if this sort, while decrying truly trade-liberalizing plurilateral, regional or bilateral trade agreements as trade-distorting perversions if the MFN principle. In fact, I would thought they would all have suffered whiplash from the head-snapping hypocrisy that position implies.

 

Having managed the implementation of our Caribbean Basin Initiative while at USTR in the 1980s, overseen its expansion in the 1990s (together with the enactment of the African Growth and Opportunity Act) while serving as chief trade counsel on our Senate Finance Committee, and concluded negotiations with our Central American trading partners on the knottiest political problem of textile trade, I can attest that none of what we did on CBI made as much of a difference economically as our free trade arrangement with the same trading partners. The value, if at all, was only to create a constituency for full trade liberalization, which has not been the case with India, Brazil, or South Africa in the case of GSP and AGOA.

 

It is not simply that UNCTAD's time is past, it is that UNCTAD's time never was in terms of a positive contribution to development and poverty reduction. The money would all have been better spent in strengthening the developing world's engagement in international institutions that matter, particularly, the WTO, and on creating institutions that actually helped an individual in the developing world start a business, improve the productivity of his or her farm, or invest in their own human capital by acquiring an education.

 

That, or better still, return the money to taxpayers in both the developing and developed world and let them make their own choices as consumers, producers, savers and investors within a framework of rules that empowers them to engage in the simple and very human activity of exchange, from which specialization, rising productivity, and a higher standard if living all ultimately flow.

 

 

Grant Aldonas

 

 

 

 

From: Anonymous (former senior UNCTAD staffer)

 

The developed countries have written UNCTAD off and see their involvement there purely in terms of damage limitation. Efforts were made to get them more constructively involved but very, very few responded positively. More usually they were very dismissive.

 

While this polarisation between developed and developing countries exists, while parts of the UNCTAD Secretariat are running their own agendas, and while mismanagement persists, it’s going to be difficult for the organisation to realise its undoubted potential. One truly believes it has a lot to offer, especially in the current vacuum, but it seems at present unable to drag itself out of the mire. This is not however to say that parts of UNCTAD do not do excellent work.

 

 

 

 

From: Edouard Bizumuremyi, Permanent Mission of Rwanda, Geneva

 

Dear all,

 

I wish to thank all of you for the interesting debate. I was part of the negotiating process leading to Doha. Let me clarify some issues/language and their background so to understand why negotiators had to discuss the whole night and to reach a consensus at 6 o'clock morning of the last day in Doha. Also, I wish to underline that such dialogue among UN member States is important and necessary - we cannot hope to bring about changes by simply sitting on our desks, writing papers and wishing the world to change. We need to meet face-to-face, discuss, iron out our differences and see if we can come up with policy solutions. Such 'multilateralism' is particularly needed in times of crisis and weak economic performance.

 

- About the lengthy discussion on language. The focus on language is very critical. In the negotiations of the Doha Mandate, we had the language, "Building upon" or "reaffirming" the Accra Accord (remember that Accra accord provides UNCTAD with full mandate on all the three pillars!); "delivering measurable results"...; "UNCTAD to work under the existing resources, etc. etc. all those wordings had a motive and a driving policy behind. Hence, the negotiations were relevant from both parties (developed and developing countries). It does have to do with UNCTAD's mandate particularly on macro-economic analysis. Some OECD countries (not all by the way!) wanted to deny UNCTAD to continue its policy analysis on finance and the current financial crisis as well as other macro-economic issues; on all multilateral outcomes such as WTO Agreements; on WIPO-development-related issues; on Free-Trade agreements (particularly between developed and developing countries) etc. Hence the proposal that UNCTAD should focus its work on areas where it can deliver tangible and measurable results. These relate to technical assistance, for instance in helping countries in simplifying and streamlining domestic regulations in doing business (it's very simple to achieve measurable outputs, where you can simplify from 10 steps to only 3 steps in starting business). This is just one example among others. So, by turning UNCTAD into a simple organization delivering on technical assistance and denied to make any analysis on key macro-economic issues such as the issue of debt; finance and financial crisis where UNCTAD has been ahead of the curve, this would have been a success (from this perspective) in eliminating from the scene one of the key organizations that have been challenging the neo-liberal paradigm and offering alternative views. So, we need to be careful in considering some criticism against UNCTAD. We need to separate the right ones from the biased ones driven by a purpose. Otherwise, I totally agree to making UNCTAD an effective organization. In any case, it has to keep and strengthen its policy analysis and intellectual independence. Both in theory and policy advise, UNCTAD has been useful in putting some water in the Washington Consensus (wine) policies. UNCTAD has demonstrated some anomalies of the paradigm; and has proposed recommendations which were adopted by other key stakeholders. Increasingly, UNCTAD's analyses since the global crises has been on policy measures that can benefit countries individually and collectively for the benefit of all.

 

Indeed the recent economic crisis has shown once again the intellectual independence of UNCTAD and the relevance of its policy advice. UNCTAD has strongly rejected the austerity measures proposed/applied in some developed countries (Greece and others) and proposed alternative policies for growth and job creation. In this context, UNCTAD's work is no longer relevant to developing countries only. Developed countries also need UNCTAD's help. The victory of François Holland who rejected austerity measures reaffirms the relevance of UNCTAD for all. This victory also illustrates that the Orthodoxy has got many challenges, not only from the theoretical point of view but also from the policy making perspective. In conclusion, by reaffirming and building upon the Accra Accord, UNCTAD has been recognized as a strong organization in policy analysis on relevant macro-economic issues with legitimacy to advise developing countries on right policies for trade development, growth, job creation and development as a whole. But let me assure the advocates and supporters of the dominant orthodoxy. The paradigm is still very strong. It is backed by an very influential academic publication and commentators. Nor UNCTAD, neither any policy change in some major economies will threaten the paradigm. But let's recognize the importance of pluralism in policy analysis. UNCTAD has the right to offer an alternative view on macro-economic issues. And it has competence. In particular, UNCTAD has intellectual independence. By the way, UNCTAD's analysis since its creation reflects exactly a set of policies followed by all current developed countries during their early stage of development process. These policies are still relevant NOW! But this is another debate.

 

Cheers

 

 

Edouard

 

 

 

 

From: Mehmet Ogutcu, Chairman, Global Resources Corporation

 

That is an excellent analysis to which I fully subscribe as a former OECD executive and now a businessman.

 

When there is lack of a clear vision, purpose and tangible deliverables befitting the needs by member governments and the political will to steer it effectively, the gap will be filled by the secretariat, naturally keen on justifying its survival.

 

No matter how skilful the Secretariat is its staff need effective governance and performance measurement by political masters (in addition to some discretionary space for stimulating innovation, fresh perspectives and initiatives beyond politically correct common denominators).

 

The duplication of efforts by mushrooming multilateral organisations is a reality and can only be rationalised/streamlined by pay-master member governments perhaps on the basis of recommendations a powerful wisemen group.

 

Regards

 

 

Mehmet Ogutcu

 

 

 

 

From: Professor Jim Rollo, University of Sussex

 

Dear Pradeep

 

You are right not to blame the secretariat but only because the membership of any organisation gets the secretariat it deserves and the secretariat behaviour it (the membership) allows even if not encourages. If you allow the agent to become de facto the principal then poor performance of the organisation will follow.

 

The key problem for UNCTAD is to decide what it is for. Confusion over purpose is a sufficient condition for vacuous communiques. It is not a necessary condition as Jean Pierre has pointed out; but the difference in the case of the WTO and the climate Change negotiations is that they are in pursuit of objectives that will regulate and/or mandate policies and policy instruments that will affect the day to day behaviour of individuals and firms so the vacuous statements are cover for disagreements over substance that will have real effects once (if) agreement is reached.

 

UNCTAD's outputs on the other hand are largely analytical and advisory and above all are not mandatory. And there are many competing providers (the WTO, the IMF, World Bank and regional development banks, UNIDO, UNDP, UN Regional Economic  Commissions, private and public sector research organisations, NGO, some of which carry either big sticks (the IMF) or big carrots (the World Bank and the regional banks)) .

 

The nearest equivalent organisation to UNCTAD that I can think of is the OECD Secretariat. It also has long lost a large practical task (all the way back to the Marshall Plan) and now has largely advisory and analytical functions. The difference is that the membership is both much smaller and much more economically homogeneous than UNCTAD so common objectives and work programmes are easy (if not that easy) to agree. But it too has it problems. It also is (as far as   can see) much more driven by the membership committees that oversee the work of the individual directorates than is UNCTAD where no doubt the huge membership allows Secretariat to divide and rule. Nonetheless there are regular bouts of existential soul searching and refocusing in Paris (see OECD's failed grab to become the secretariat of the G20) usually driven by the membership. But if the size and diversity of the membership is the problem then the OECD may have no useful lessons for UNCTAD.

 

I am tempted to say that if UNCTAD is mainly harmless (the financial cost being the main negative) and may do some good as:

• a forum for airing developing country interests and views on the management of the world economy in particular (albeit without changing anything),
• a parking place for senior people out of favour at home but who can't be sacked,
• the producer of some useful analysis, data (trade, investment and tariffs) and services (ITC)

 

Then perhaps we should be more relaxed than any affronted taxpayers of North London allow. Maybe we could reduce the cost/increase the relevance by moving it to a developing country and cutting back on huge jamborees every 5 years.

 

If we want to make UNCTAD into an organisation with impact then it needs a practical function in the trade and investment policy and multilateral development areas. These potential roles all seem to be taken, which is a bit of a problem to add to the size and diversity of the membership! Even improving its performance on the restricted scale of becoming an effective think tank for developing countries seems needs a way to change the relationship between the membership and the secretariat so that outputs are seen to be directly relevant to members. I am insufficiently knowledgeable on the governance of UNCTAD to make practical suggestion s but I am sure others on the CUTS Blog will have that knowledge.

 

 

Jim Rollo

 

 

 

 

From: Pradeep S. Mehta, Secretary-General, CUTS International

 

Inye Briggs’ contribution is bang on dot, constructive and forward looking.

 

We need a healthy debate rather than blaming the Secretariat for all the ills of UNCTAD, but not forgetting that many in the Secretariat indulge in dirty politics and hurt the organisation.

 

 

Pradeep S Mehta

 

 

 

 

From: Inye N. Briggs, African union, Addis Ababa

 

First, I want to thank CUTS for keeping this forum alive with thought provoking issues.

 

Following the discussions on the current topic, sometimes, one is however wont to think things are taken too far. Before we drive this issue too far, I think the starting point should be asking a number of fundamental questions which can bring us back to what may be considered the home truths we seem to be overlooking. What is the UNCTAD all about? Who drives the UNCTAD, the member states or the secretariat? If the outcome document from Doha is vacuous, should we blame the secretariat? If time is wasted in meaningless debates at the conference, who is engaged in the debates, the Secretariat? Since time immemorial that the UNCTAD was established and it seem not to have shown clear measurable outcomes, who should we blame? Shall we make the UNCTAD an International Policeman that has the power to whip all member states (both developed and developing) into line, for recommendations made at the successive conferences to be implemented? Oftentimes, the discussions tended to forget that the major problem lies with the member states and not the Secretariat, so why whip the Secretariat instead of the member states? So much resources are wasted organising conferences which either fail outright even before they are convened or whose outcomes at the end of the day are considered meaningless: the WTO; climate change, UNCTAD, name them. Who attends these conferences? Who are those engaged in the debates? Who prepares for these conferences? Who even decides that these conferences should even hold at all? Who approves the budgets for these conferences? The simple answer: Member states! So if those who have primary responsibility in deciding the fate of the conference do not see anything wrong with their actions, shall we then put the blame on the secretariat? How should that then translate into holding staff of the organisation accountable for failures of the membership?

 

One would have no problems with the proposals for reforming the organisation and this can be welcome, whether we want a lean secretariat; weeding out non-performers or dead woods or by whatever name they can be called. But the question I ask is: how does that fundamentally change the fact that ultimately no matter what the secretariat does, the member states must first of all agree, apply and implement recommendations of policy nature that emanates from analyses done by the Secretariat. So my point is that, if we replace from the top man (the Secretary General) to the least Admin Assistant in the UNCTAD, with first-rate Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge trained people, we still need the member states to apply the policy measures they will propose. Now for me that is the fundamental point. and ofcourse when you have a situation in which there is a very tangible, palpable divide between developing and developed countries, how far can the work of the organisation, not least the secretariat go?

 

Conclusion: I agree that some form of reform is necessary but I also agree with those who say the UNCTAD is still relevant (here Prof Hoda has given clear indicators) and indeed all developing countries in the UNCTAD strongly believe so. It will take going beyond reform of the secretariat, to getting member states to make UNCTAD function more effectively: free of the developed-developing country polemics; free from the attitude of he who pays the piper dictating the tune; and for a more objective, purpose-driven, targeted and result-oriented atmosphere to prevail at the UNCTAD, in order to achieve the kinds of result those who are currently lampooning the Organisation, would desire. As for the quadrennial conferences are they really necessary? My answer would be yes, they are; as somebody in this forum has earlier alluded to the much that takes place on the margins, side lines, lunch breaks, restaurants and elsewhere around the conference.

 

 

Inye N. Briggs

 

 

 

 

From: Sachin Chaturvedi, RIS, New Delhi

 

On the funding issue Pradeep you are right the developing countries must step-up their support. As you may recall, the recently held BRICS Summit in Delhi specifically called upon its members to collectively step up support for UNCTAD.

 

 

Sachin Chaturvedi

 

 

 

 

From: Pradeep S. Mehta, Secretary-General, CUTS International

 

Dear all,

 

Firstly, I have changed the subject line to keep our focus, and hope the googlegroup does not start a new debate.

 

And I would like to react to what Mark Halle has written. Indeed there is a strong need for reforming UNCTAD, particularly its human resources policy which has a clear link to its work programme. I am not sure whether an IEA type approach will be good, because one does need continuity for committed people to deliver their agenda. In my own opinion, about a quarter of the staff in UNCTAD do not do any substantial work, and many pursue their own interests in developing programmes which are tangential to the main goals of UNCTAD. There is a strong need to do a performance and organisational audit by an independent reviewer. The Joint Inspection Report can be a good starter, but it has not questioned the fundamentals.

 

On Mark’s point about the fact that rich countries are funding it, is something which I take issue with. No one is doing any favours, and the contributions are made according to what they can afford and do it because of their moral responsibility. Let me also disabuse Mark that developing countries should contribute more than what they are already doing. Even if the contributions are not in cash, they do contribute hugely in kind and through cerebral resources.

 

One cannot ignore the realpolitik of running any big intergovernmental organisation, like with all multilateral issues, so there is no point in getting entangled with that. However, no one is preventing UNCTAD from becoming a lean and mean organisation. This is something which the UNCTAD secretariat has to address themselves.

 

 

Pradeep S Mehta

 

 

 

 

From: Adrian Hewitt, Senior Research Fellow, Overseas Development Institute, London

 

Nice response by Mark Halle.

 

Of his two recommendations to make sure UNCTAD does something effective between its XIII and XIV, I warm to the second (term limits, elimination of timeservers/placepersons - if the former would in fact eliminate the latter) slightly more than his first (getting Qatar, UAE etc. to cough up). That was tried, alas, before - at the end of the 1970s after the second OPEC price hike, when UNCTAD did have the beginnings of some power over commodity negotiations (and so potentially multilaterally over supply management). They blew it precisely by allowing themselves to become beholden to those sectional interests within the G77; or put another way, the G77 failed to seize the opportunity of making UNCTAD broadly its representative body for such negotiations, beyond that on all matters of trade and development (obviously not excluding finance) and arguably beyond the UN system too: all things were possible then. I can't see it now, but a broad-based and broadly-financed movement back in this direction would not go amiss in 2012.

 

 

Adrian Hewitt

 

 

 

 

From: Mark Halle, Executive Director, IISD-Europe

 

Dear Guy,

 

Thanks for your very forthright assessment of the UNCTAD mandate. I attended the UNCTAD conference in Doha – my first and no doubt my last- and tried hard to understand what was going on. In the end, it all depends on what value you attribute to language, and specifically the language in the outcome document. The conference preparations – and the conference itself – all revolved around a huge squabble over language, with the developing countries seeking to preserve and where possible expand UNCTAD’s mandate to suggest alternatives to the economic orthodoxy coming from the IMF and World Bank, and the developed counties – who by and large have to foot the bill for UNCTAD – trying to keep the mandate within reasonable bounds.

 

In that context, words and phrases took on huge symbolic value. Weeks of precious and expensive diplomatic time were devoted to whether the mandate that emerged from UNCTAD XII was “reaffirmed” or “built upon”. In the end, in a predictable compromise, the members decided both to reaffirm and to build upon the Accra mandate. The fundamental question, of course, is whether this or the other contentious language matters at all, or whether it was all just a set-piece minuet that everybody went through because, well, that’s what they do.

 

My own feeling is that it doesn’t actually matter very much. In all likelihood the mandate will not be looked at again until UNCTAD XIV, when we will all go to battle to ensure that the Doha mandate is reaffirmed … and built upon.

 

My own view is that it is UNCTAD’s performance that will determine whether they serve the developing countries well, and not their mandate. I was in Doha as a member of the Civil Society Steering Group which I joined because I believe that deep reform of UNCTAD is an urgent priority. I went in with two specific suggestions: the first is that UNCTAD limit extra-budgetary funding (i.e. the funding that pays for activities) from OECD countries to 25% and insist that, if developing countries want an agency that represents their interests, they should pay for it. There is no reason why Qatar, China, Singapore, Brazil, the UAE and others should not fork over.

 

The second suggestion was that UNCTAD adopt the practice followed in the International Energy Agency, namely to limit the service of any individual to a set period of five or seven years, at all levels. This is the only way that I can see to clear out the accumulation of dead wood in UNCTAD that, at present, could profitably supply a major sawmill for decades.

 

Nor is my criticism of UNCTAD’s abysmal performance a lonely stand. The Joint Inspection Unit of the UN has recently put out a report that is devastating in its criticism of UNCTAD’s leadership, personnel policies, governance and internal communications. And yet my insistence that the civil society declaration at least urge UNCTAD to take the recommendations seriously was met with a response familiar to me from my student days in the 1970s – if we criticize UNCTAD, we play into the hands of the enemy.

 

So, in conclusion, like you I think that the outcome document will not be of much help in making UNCTAD an effective defender of developing country interests. Only a deep and thorough reform of the organization has any chance of doing that. And since the UN system has proved, over a sixty-year period, that it is essentially unreformable, we will end up with donors increasingly turning away, the organization sinking into oblivion, and its member-delegates increasingly indulging in the displacement behaviour of arguing about language that, in the end, does little to change reality.

 

Best regards,

 

 

Mark Halle

 

 

 

 

From: Guy de Jonquières

 

Dear Pradeep:

 

Thank you for sending this. I am writing on the premise that the excerpts from the Unctad XIII draft statements are both accurate and capture their main points. Since CUTS is an organisation of unquestioned integrity, I assume that to be the case.

 

As a veteran of innumerable international meetings, I have learned from hard experience to be sceptical of what they promise and of what they achieve. However, I can honestly say that in four decades as a journalist covering such events, I have never read a communiqué as utterly vacuous, self-serving and pointless as the one from which you publish excerpts. To call it a vast amount of hot air would be a disservice to ballooning. There is, quite literally, absolutely nothing of substance in it.

 

Furthermore, the statement says that "UNCTAD should, through the three pillars of its mandate – consensus-building, policy-oriented analysis and technical cooperation – continue to deliver meaningful results". The only definition I know of "meaningful results" is concrete and tangible outcomes that have a measurable impact on the course of events. Can anyone name just three instances of actions instituted by Unctad in the past decade that come even close to meeting that criterion?

 

Of course, there are many international organisations that lack relevance, purpose and effectiveness. However, in Unctad's case, the deficiency is especially reprehensible. It is an organisation that purports both to represent developing countries and to advance the interests and wellbeing of their citizens. Judging by its communiqué, the only evident way that Unctad did this was to enable thousands of public sector employees from around the world to fly to Jaipur, stay in comfortable hotels and gather in air-conditioned conference rooms for a week. This, at a time when public expenditure budgets, in developed and in an increasing number of developing countries, are under severe pressure. That scarce public funds should be wantonly squandered in this way, when they could be spent far better on those genuinely in need, is, to put it bluntly, obscene.

 

Lest anyone accuse me of being someone from the developed world with an axe to grind against developing countries, I would like to say that I am genuinely concerned about the fate of the poorest and donate money from my own pocket to organisations that seek to relieve their plight. I sincerely believe that it is a responsibility of those of us who can afford it to contribute to the provision of essential public goods, such as schooling and health care, and to the creation of economic opportunities.

 

The reported non-outcomes of Unctad XIII leave me wondering, however, whether those participating in it really share those beliefs. They also make me very, very angry. Not simply because of the amount of money wasted on this empty exercise; but because they make it that much harder for those of us who believe that helping developing countries develop is a noble cause to defend it against those who do not.

 

If Unctad is genuinely committed to advancing the objectives that it claims to espouse, perhaps it should start by cancelling all further exercises of this kind until its members are confident that they have something to show for them.

 

Yours in sorrow,

Guy

 

 

 

 

CUTS International Daily Bulletin for 26 April 2012

UNCTAD XIII (21-26 April), Doha, State of Qatar

 

After five daily bulletins straight from Doha starting April 21, this bulletin covering the final day of UNCTAD XIII has been issued by CUTS International from Jaipur, India with excerpts from two unofficial press releases by UNCTAD: 1. Closing Plenary: UNCTAD XIII adopts two outcome documents at conclusion of Thirteenth Ministerial Meeting, Doha, 26 April 2012; and, 2. UNCTAD XIII quadrennial conference concludes with mandate affirming organization’s core activities, declaration of member states’ solidarity in quest for “a prosperous world”, Geneva 26 April 2012.

 

On the last day, that is Day 6, UNCTAD XIII adopted two outcome documents namely:

1.      Doha Mandate (a 15-page, 64-paragraph document which gives guidelines for the organization’s activities for the next four years), and

2.      Doha Manar (the closing declaration of UNCTAD XIII on behalf of 194 member States)

 

The highlights/excerpts of the Doha Mandate are:

·         Member States noted that the global financial crisis had struck in 2008 shortly after UNCTAD XII, and that its effects had spread very rapidly and widely. Its ripple effects had impacted, among other things, efforts to ensure food security, combat climate change and stabilize energy and other commodity prices

·         Several challenges have to be met to realize development-centred globalization. In this regard, finance should support the real economy in support of sustained, inclusive and equitable economic growth and sustainable development. All countries, developed and developing alike, can pay serious political, economic and social costs from financial shocks

·         Another challenge is eliminating hunger and achieving food security. Securing adequate access to food – one of the most basic human needs – is a priority

·         Issues related to energy must be addressed including volatile prices and access, including access to renewable energy

·         Development-centred globalization sets the stage for inclusive growth and development, and contributes towards reducing poverty and creating jobs

·         Discussions on globalization should be balanced, highlighting its benefits, acknowledging its risks and addressing its challenges

·         Other matters noted in the text are that UNCTAD should continue its research and advisory work on issues of public debt and on the dissemination or diffusion of technology to developing countries

·         Development-centred globalization sets the stage for inclusive growth and development and contributes towards reducing poverty and creating jobs. Development strategies should be inclusive and designed to meet human needs.

·         People have similar needs and aspirations, including freedom, human rights, in particular the right to development, decent work [and] all aspects of affordable health care and good governance at all levels. Since those ends were closely interconnected, development strategies should be based on an integrated and holistic approach, if the desired policy options were to emerge

·         UNCTAD should, through the three pillars of its mandate – consensus-building, policy-oriented analysis and technical cooperation – continue to deliver meaningful results, within available resources, while enhancing synergies and promoting collaboration with the efforts of other international organizations, according to the Mandate

·         UNCTAD should contribute to global efforts to transition towards a green economy; continue to monitor and assess the evolution of the international trading system and its trends from a development perspective; and continue to support the specific needs of least developed countries, Small Island developing States, middle-income countries and those with economies in transition.

·         For trade to serve as an engine of inclusive growth and development, the multilateral trading system must remain open, transparent, inclusive, non-discriminatory and rules-based. The successful conclusion of the Doha Development Agenda negotiations was crucial to the creation of new trade flows that would generate economic growth and development

·         In a time of fragile economic recovery, trade protectionism remained a risk, and efforts to fight all forms of protectionism should continue. Meaningful trade liberalization would also require addressing non-tariff measures and aim to reduce and eliminate other arbitrary or unjustified trade barriers

·         The Conference should also continue its work on commodities so as to help those countries achieve strengthened and more sustainable agricultural production, food security and export capacity. This work should also take into account the needs of small-scale farmers, as well as the empowerment of women and youth.

 

Following the Mandate’s adoption by the Committee of the Whole, UNCTAD Secretary General Supachai Panitchpakdi thanked participants for embracing the organization’s “capacious mandate and ambitious programme of work”, and for working intensively to chart the way forward for the next four-year period until its next ministerial meeting.

 

The closing declaration of UNCTAD XIII, called the Doha Manar – an Arabic word meaning a strong light visible from a distance that serves to direct travellers – came out on behalf of 194 member States. The highlights/excerpts of the Doha Manar are:

·         We commend UNCTAD as the focal point of the United Nations system for the integrated treatment of trade and development and interrelated issues in the areas of finance, technology, investment and sustainable development.

·         We recognize the need to make our common economic life more conducive to progressive structural change, more productive of inclusive and sustainable growth and development and more effective in fostering broad-based inclusion in a new and more robust social contract

·         The winds of change blowing in many parts of the world today attest to the desire of populations for responsive policies that foster participatory and inclusive approaches to development towards achieving prosperity for all

·         Together, as a collection of sovereign nations, we have endeavoured to construct a shared, interdependent and prosperous world through increased economic, political and social processes.

·         By working to maximize the opportunities arising from globalization in international trade and investment, we have sought to promote economic growth and development with particular attention to reducing the inequalities between us and within our nations, and to improving our capacities to fulfil common purposes and exercise more effective and responsible stewardship of our natural and planetary resources.

·         Above all, we have sought to fulfil, individually and collectively, our peoples’ aspirations to live in peace and to enjoy in fullness lives that are rich and diverse, and ever more stable and secure.

 

 

 

[CUTS-TradeForum]

From: Mark Halle, Executive Director, IISD-Europe

 

Following on from the comment by Professor Picciotto, the reason why it is almost impossible to set up anything new in the UN family is that it is almost impossible to get rid of anything that already exists. Even Trusteeship Council Secretariat was kept alive for years after the last Trust territory attained independence!

 

One way to solve this would be a “cap-and-trade” system for international posts within the UN family, where no new posts may be created without an existing post being cut. This would create an international market in which those proposing a new organization or programme could compete with an existing one, with even-handed mediation guaranteed by an independent international team. A variant would allow the UN civil service to grow slowly, with all new proposed posts subject to global competition under the same arrangement.

           

I see no way of dealing with the inertia without a system like this. We need institutional innovation but it is virtually impossible while the self-interest of existing Secretariats – including but by no means limited to UNCTAD – rules supreme.

 

Best wishes,

 

 

Mark Halle

 

 

 

 

From: Sol Picciotto, Emeritus Professor, Lancaster University

 

As an academic who has had a few relatively minor involvements with UNCTAD’s work perhaps I can make a couple of observations. UNCTAD was created in a very different era when (i) the broad gap between developed and under-developed or developing countries was a major concern, and (ii) it was possible to propose the creations of new intergovernmental organisations, within the UN system.  In some ways it supplanted the role of the ECOSOC.  Today we see (i) a great disparity among the `developing’ countries, and (ii) a great reluctance to create new organisations or even provide adequate resources where they are sorely needed. I am thinking in particular of the issue of international taxation, where the OECD countries have blocked even the provision of extra resources to the UN Tax Committee (which has a tiny Secretariat), let alone the creation of an International Tax Organisation, for which a strong case can be made. The strategy of the developed countries seems to be to expand the role of the OECD in areas of economic governance, by expanding its membership, as well as creating Global Forums bringing in non-members.  This has certainly occurred with taxation.

 

Ideally, the dissolution of UNCTAD could be a positive step if the resources so released could be redirected, perhaps by enhancing the role of ECOSOC and its Commissions, allowing creation of a properly resourced Commission on International Taxation, as well as perhaps others taking over the best parts of UNCTAD. Bureaucracies do become sclerotic and need shaking up now and then.  Is there any realistic perspective of working towards such a strategic solution? Or am I being far too naive and idealistic?

 

Best wishes to all

 

 

Sol Picciotto

[CUTS-TradeForum]

From: Bipul Chatterjee, Deputy Executive Director, CUTS International

 

There is a dearth of good policy research in many developing and least-developed countries, particularly on possible impact of global economic changes on their development concerns. In the past UNCTAD has done many good quality policy research and should continue that role. In this context, it is worth noting the recommendations of a 2006 Report of the Panel of Eminent Persons: Enhancing the Development Role and Impact of UNCTAD.

 

One of their recommendations was: “UNCTAD needs to be a leader in identifying and analysing key emerging issues, such as "aid-for-trade", skills availability and "brain drain", and an investment-for-development framework, and to advocate pragmatic solutions to today's and tomorrow's most salient development challenges.”

 

Another recommendation was: “UNCTAD should strategically position itself based on three principal criteria: comparative advantages; differentiation and complementarity; and strategic and catalytic intervention, so as to put the organization's strengths to the best use in achieving development results.”

 

It was also recommended that “UNCTAD should increase the involvement of civil society and the private sector in its work, giving particular attention to "grass-roots” NGOs and small and medium-sized enterprises in developing countries.” Furthermore, “UNCTAD should consider establishing a global network of think tanks specialized in development policy advocacy and strategy-setting in different countries, with a view to exchanging views, experiences and best practices.

 

These recommendations should be revisited in the light of a fast-changing global economic situations so as to reinvent UNCTAD to enhance its development role and impact.

 

Read this Report of the Panel of Eminent Persons: http://cuts-international.org/pdf/Enhancing_the_Development_Role_and_Impact_of_UNCTAD.pdf

 

 

 

 

From: Guy de Jonquières

 

Dear Pradeep:

 

You entitled this debate "Re-inventing Unctad". But I think the real issue is this: if Unctad did not exist, would anyone bother inventing it? Judging by the numerous contributions so far, my conclusion is no - or at least that nobody has yet come up with a valid reason that would justify doing so.

From: Anonymous (former senior UNCTAD staffer)