1
Distinguished Co-Facilitators,
Thank you for giving me the chance to speak.
And I subscribe to what was said by our colleague
the Ambassador of Montenegro in the role you have
and that playing. We share the views expressed by
G77 and China, the LDCs and the LLDCs.
The means of implementation is not everything
in this process. There are so many other things that
we have to do right, to ensure that a transformative
agenda makes a difference at the national level.
Resources have to be used efficiently and in an
optimal way; and no less critical is the fact that
unless governance is sorted out and accountability
to citizens is ensured, all the resources in the world
would not mean much in terms of succeeding to
make progress to eliminate poverty. And at the end
of the day, ownership that we insist upon has to go 2
along with accountability and discharging one’s
responsibility at the national level. One can go on to
elaborate this narrative. While all this is valid, it
remains very obvious nonetheless that what is done
at the national level is also affected by what takes
place at the global level, with the very important
difference that at that level, particularly, on matters
relating to economic and financial governance, the
developing world, is subject to norms and rules over
whose formulation and crafting, it has very little
role; norms and rules which are often detrimental to
development. We should thank the committee on
Development Policy for doing so much in
highlighting this issue in its latest reports.
Renewed global partnership would need to find
ways of addressing this anomaly, all the more so
now when there is readiness to embark on a
transformative agenda for the post-2015 period.3
There is little doubt that the linchpin for the
success of our transformative agenda is the means
of implementation.
Dear Co-facilitators,
The needs are obvious; and how much
addressing them is in our common interest is
equally obvious. No less obvious is the fact that
there are ample resources at the global level.
“Global savings are robust,” say our
Intergovernmental Experts in their Report, “even a
small shift in the way resources are allocated,” they
stress, “would have an enormous impact.” Let may
say, co-facilitators, in parenthesis, that Report
contains many good ideas, and, therefore, it should
not be pooh-poohed; no one has tried to do that, I
meant in case.4
Given the limited time, we cannot raise all the
issues that we feel ought to be raised, therefore, let
me focus on two or three matters.
So much has been said about domestic resource
mobilization and no doubt on many instances it is
the major source of financing development. But as
the Secretary-General said in one of his reports
A/69/35 “Domestic resource mobilization needs to
be viewed in the context of differing capacities of
countries.” For instance, our Intergovernmental
Experts tell us and I quote “Tax revenues account
for about 10-14 per cent of GDP in low-income
countries, which is about one third less than in
middle income countries, and significantly less than
in high-income countries, which achieve tax to GDP
ratios of 20-30 percent” End of quotation.5
There are efforts that need to be done at the
national level — including with respect to increasing
the level of saving —, but whether in connection with
tax avoidance and evasion or illicit outflows, there is
a need for robust international cooperation in line
with the commitments made in the Monterrey
Consensus. As our experts say in their report, “Due
to insufficient resources and lack of specialized
knowledge, many developing countries are at a
disadvantage when dealing with tax evasion and
avoidance practices.” These is a great need for joint
work between our tax authorities, it just does not
help pointing figures here, because the culprits are
many, both national and international.
That is also why “in many developing countries,
particularly in the least developed countries, public
international finance remains crucial.” That is a
citation from the Report of our experts. So much
has been said about ODA, but what is often 6
overlooked is the fact that ODA is not only
resources, it is also a commitment, with all that it
symbolizes with respect to how much resolutely we
will pursue a reinvigorated global partnership.
In terms of who might have benefited in relative
terms, our exports say the following:-
“ODA to least developed countries,
particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa,
has fallen in recent years, and
according to preliminary results from
donor surveys this trend is likely to
persist.”
We must agree with them that this trend
should be reversed and including when they
emphasize the large financing gaps in Least
Developed Countries and other vulnerable
countries” and when they argue that” further 7
efforts are needed to maintain and increase
ODA allocated to least developed countries and
those most in need.”
These countries cannot for the moment count on
savings, which obviously are low, and abysmally so.
There are a number of issues that equally
deserve stressing, including trade related matters
and debt issues, including sovereign debt
sustainability concerning which we are very hopeful
progress would be made arriving at a consensus on
crafting a framework for addressing the issue. In
General, all sources of finance highlighted by the
Intergovernmental Committee should be utilized to
the maximum level possible.
Let me conclude by expressing appreciation for
the very excellent work being done by the cofacilitators,
Ambassadors George Talbot and Geir 8
Pedersen. They have been really very helpful and
indefatigable, as are our co-facilitators for this
process have been.
I Thank You
