The Curious Case of the Poverty Report

Chakravarthi Raghavan *

The more heads of the UN, OECD, IMF and the World Bank, and UN organisations explain or explain away the origins ,process and targets of their “ A Better World for All” report - the curioser and curioser the story is getting.

The explanations and clarifications offered Monday evening at a panel discussion by representatives from the IMF, the OECD, the UNDP and the UN Development Group - on the origins and processes of the preparation of the report, its target audience and purposes - only added to the confusion and controversies.

And perhaps most intriguing of all was the view at the panel from the IMF representative that the 25-page publication was the ‘institutional view' of the four institutions, whose heads have signed the foreword, and that there would be future annual reports.

The report, was officially launched Monday by the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan at a press conference (where several other UN agency heads and the IMF, World Bank and OECD representatives also spoke). But it had also been previewed and commended in advance by Kofi Annan on Sunday at the opening of the Global Forum 2000 --an official NGO event, and in his opening speech to the UN General Assembly.

Development groups and non-governmental organisations and coalitions at the Special Session, who became quite concerned over the report and the 'high level marketing effort' behind it, and the confusing message about the UN that this would arouse, voiced these concerns Monday at the meeting of the Committee of the Whole (COW) of the UN General Assembly.

After the official launch and the press conference on Monday, representatives of the OECD, IMF, UNDP and the UN Development Group shared a podium with the coordinator of the international NGO coalition Social Watch where their answers and explanations left the critical audience pretty confused.

At the COW, Meena Raman of the Development Caucus agreed with the Chairman of the COW, Amb. Cristian Macquieira, that the UN was at the cross-roads and the outcome of UNGASS would mark the direction for social development.

 This was precisely why "we have very serious and grave concerns" about the "colourful pamphlet" she said in reference to the report. The pamphlet was presenting a series of recommendations to developing countries as being the result of international agreements, such as recommendations to open up their markets for flow of imports, exports and finance.

"The high-level marketing effort to promote this 'BW for all' as a new manifesto at the beginning of this special session confuses the public with a message that can be easily understood as emanating from the UN General Assembly itself. We are extremely concerned with the co-authorship of this document between the UN's SG and the OECD, World Bank and the IMF -- three institutions that are recognised as being responsible for the deepening of poverty and inequalities and social disintegration in the developing world.

"It is with deep regret we note that the UN Secretary-General, who should speak for all, is speaking in one voice with a minority of rich nations and two international organisations, which the same minority control."

At the panel, Roberto Bissio of the Social Watch gave an account of the civil society concerns over the pamphlet.

"The report," Bissio told the panel meeting, "is not about monitoring progress (on Copenhagen). It is a highly political document. It has goals on open markets for trade, technology and ideas, and refers to globalisation offering opportunities to the developing countries through better technology for delivering products and service.

"There has been no agreement on these issues," Bissio pointed out. "The WTO's TRIPs Agreement is an obstacle to technology transfer. And there is also no international agreement on developing countries opening up their markets to imports, exports and finance. Even the WTO has no agreement that developing countries open up their financial markets. This is highly controversial. There is no international agreement. But there is no hint of this debate in the report."

Noting that at the press conference for the launch of the report, the media had been told that the G-7 had asked for the report, Bissio added: "This is a scandal! This report represents the views of the OECD, the 28 richest countries of the world.

"It is fine if the OECD attends to the needs of the G-7. But why should

the UN be involved?" he asked.

The explanations of the OECD made the whole thing more curious. The request for a report on progress towards poverty reduction and how well aid was doing had come from the G-7, but the goals set in the report, he claimed, were goals derived from the UN conferences.

But the OECD was challenged on this, and it was pointed out that the target for reducing poverty by year 2015 was one found in the OECD document about the 21st century, and not the Copenhagen documents. And the $1 a day as defining extreme poverty was a level set by the World Bank, and not as set by Copenhagen by national governments. And there was no satisfactory explanation

By signing on to the report written from the G-7 perspective, the SG was seen, by other comments, as deviating from the mandate of the UN to represent all member countries.

Some of the explanations just did not seem to add up. A UNDP representative said that the preparation of the report had involved many parties. It was not possible to say that all the recommendations contained in the report were agreed to by all the parties, and " we do not equate this report with the definitive policy statement, rather it is a partnership compromise."

The UN Development Group said that the process of the report did not engage member states, and "it was not the Secretary-General's report."

Then why sign on to the report? There was no explanation. But the UNDP representative said it was "difficult to get developed country politicians to focus on their obligations. So if this report manages to do that, it would have met the objective."

Brian Hammond from the OECD gave another explanation: the report was intended to make OECD Trade Ministers to look at the issues and it was designed to be accessible. He added: "It is intended for both the G-7 and 15-year old school children!"

Maybe the ability to understand complex issues by G-7 heads and 15-year old school children is the same. If that be the case, the world is in worse shape than it appears. (end)

Read TerraViva

The IPS renowned international newspaper will publish a special edition in Geneva, at the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (Copenhagen+5). Follow the conference on line day by day from June 26 through July 1, with exclusive reports by a team of 13 IPS journalists from Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, Europe, North America and Latin America.

A selection of the IPS Coverage from Geneva will also be carried by TerraViva Daily Journal (New York) and TerraViva Europe (Brussels),.

Read the IPS special reports by correspondents in

Kenya, Lesotho, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe

Solidarity 2000 starting 17th of June!

MS's big summer event Solidarity 2000 will start very soon now, with a week-long variety of debates and arrangements. The activities range from encounters between young people from Balkan, Africa and Central America to big conferences on the planet's social development and environment.

Judge by yourself:

The 1996 Copenhagen Social Summit final report in English, French and Spanish.