Class 13 and class 14 reference 2 what should world leaders focus on at the johannesburg summit by simon upton

The implicit - and uneasy -understanding was that tle ability of developing countries to engage on many environmental challenges was dependent on their own economic development - and the

Appendix 2

I

((o Organisation de Coopdrdtion ct dc Ddvcloppemqt Economiqucs

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developmcnt

English - Or English

What Should World Leaders Focus on at the Johannesburg Summit?

RL Hon Simon Uptor

Chair

OECD Round Table on Sust ireble Development

This speech was delivered by Rl Hon Simon Upton in NEw Delhi, India on I I February 2002 at the DSDS 2002 -Ensuring Sustainable Livelihoods: challenges for gove ments, corpordtes, and civil society at Rio+10 The papet wat written with the qssistance of Yangelis Yitalis, Chief Adviser OECD Round Table on Sustainable Developmenl

The views upressed do not necessarily represenl those ofthe OECD or any of its Member countries.

For furfier information please contact Vangelis Vitalis, Chief Adviser, OECD Round Table on

Sustainable Developmen! OECD, 2 rue Andre Pascal, 75015 Paris, tel: +33 1 45 2414 57;

fax +33 I 452479 31; email: Vangelis.Vitalis@oecd.org

￨

What should world leaders focus ou at the Johannesburg Summit?r

The paper addresses a single specific question: if world leaden decide to focus on the issues tlnt could make the biggest difference, what would they be (assuming they decide to aftend the Johannesburg Wortd Summit)?

T\e 1992 fuo Conference was about environment azd development The implicit - and uneasy -understanding was that tle ability of developing countries to engage on many environmental challenges was dependent on their own economic development - and the help of rich countries in faciliating it

Without that development part of the bargain being addresse4 there was never much prospect of truly global engagement on some ofthe environmental concerns tlat came to the fore at Rio

The paper is based on two premises:

l There is nothing remotely 'sustainable' about grinding poverty Being poor in human and physical resources is no passport to environmental sustainability - quite the opposite A

combination of all or some of

illiteracy,

.poor life expectancy,

.chronic public health challeuges,

.weak or dysfunctional govemment

.an absence ofclearly defined property rights and

.over-use ofcommon assets like clean water

makes for a spiral ofdecliniag ecological services and deepening poverty

2 Leaders who spend time going to conferences should focus on the big issues first

If world leaders really want to make a difference to the development prospects of the 2.8 billion people who live on less than US$2 per day, what are tbe policies they should target for immediate and urgent attention?r The following provides a feet for the relative magritude of some of the options

Offi ciel Development Assistence

Written with the assistance of Vangelis Vitalis, Chief Adviser, OECD Round Table on Sustainable

Development

Official development assistance is the most familiar Current transfers from rich countries to the rest of the world total $53.7 billion - that's down from $60.8 billion in 1992 (and represents, in real terms, a fall of

7/o).2 Since the Pearson Commission in 1969, a target for ODA of 0.7/o of the GDP of donor eounties

has been in vogue It has been formally endorsed as a target to be aimed for on numerous occasions, most recently in the Millennium Development Goals and again in the Zedillo report on Financing for Development

Should leaders focus on this option? Meeting it would take the total quantum ofODA from $53 billion to

$ 160 billion.3 It would certainly make a good deal of basic humaaitarian assistance possible But there is

l.

not the slightest indication that anl,thing like this is going to be made available - indeed some donor countries are looking at significant cuts

Philanthropy

It would be anomalous indeed if world leaders decided to spend their time exhorting private citizens to step

into the breach given the yawning gap between their owu rhetoric and performance But for the sake of

completeness it is wortr recording the cunent state ofphilanthropy as a source ofdevelopment assistance

-if only to calibrate whether this is a source potentially worth waiting for

Taken together, the available dara fr6m fhs US and Europe, the figure is significan! but not critical when set against the other sources Last year, charitable foundations on both sides of the Atlaatic donated some,Iwhere between US$3 - 4 billion - and that's a generous estimate.a

Furthermore, the immediate outlook is bleak for private phitanthropy It is a sector that has been hard hit

by the collapse in high tech stock values making any near-term upside look remote.s

Foreign Direct Investment

Would iq altematively, be plausible to maintain that private investrnent flows from developed to developing counties should be the principat engine fdr development? First the statistics

Certainly, FDI has shown more promise in terms of its t'ajectory than ODA In 1992, flows to developing

countiei totalled $36 billion By 1999 tlat figure was approaching 160 billion.5 Unquestionably, iucl

investment brings with it a range of direct and indirect benefits - employment skills and the 'crowding in'

of additional investment

What can the political leaders of rich counties do to stimulate additional foreign direct investment? There are some available policy tools, t\e_bg!!1!!!g legal capacity, or helping to cree&-Egns.pjte1!-4!4bq!trels friendly environments Some might be tempted to tum to export credit guarantee agencies to expand !'ade flows and credit lines - but it has to be asked whether these are not even more seliserving than some oftle

direct aid grants that have been designed to create business for donor count-ies

Ironically, many companies that are potentially large foreign investors would point to both the qtality and quantity of ODA as a pre-condition to many markets becoming attractive Without minimum levels of

education and personal health and security, the attractiveness of many countries is slight

It is also important to acknowledge that white overall FDI figures are large, a small number of developing counEies have attracted the lion's share of investnent China alone, for instaace, has swallowed up US$321 billion or 45% ofall ofthe investment flowing to the Asian region since 1990

The reality is that not all developing countries are equally attractive to investors - and it's not always a

question of the quality of govemance and institutions Take the Kyrryz Republic which, despite all its text book reforms, attracted in 2000 only 10% of the FDI that poured into the Cent"al Asian Repubtics Countries with serious comrption and governance problems, but huge natural resources, have proved much more attractive than this little country of 4 million people with few natural resources but hard-won WTO membership

At the most optimistic estimate, roughly one third of the 2.8 billion people refened to earlier live in counties that are, at least currently, attractive to foreign investors FDI will be a powerful engine for development but it is by no means a complete solution

But aside from that, it is hard to see why leaders would afiend a conference to promote something over which they have relatively limited conrol.

Teking trede liberelisation seriously

Unlike the destination of capital flows, governments have very considerable influence over the basis on which goods are permitted to flow across their own borders Perhaps world leaders should choose to give real impetus to pulling down some ofthe bariers that keep developing country goods out of their markets,

and eliminating the subsidies that help keep them uncompetitive? The numbers certainly male this look a promising area

Subsidies paid out by OECD countries amount to berween US$560 billion and US$725 billion per year.' Thal's more than tea times the figure for ODA and about three times the value of FDI flows to developing countries

Take the main offender, agriculture This sector absorbs some $362 billion a year in subsidies from OECD counties, or 1.4Yo of those countries GNP Compare this figure to the O.24Yo of GNP provided in development assistance by those same countries

The specific statistics are barely conscionable Last year, the EU spent over US$2 billion on subsidising

EU sugar farmers alone to produce a product which can be produced more efficiently and cheaply in the developing world Similarly, in the US, individual oilseed farmers received nearly US$12,000 per year in support.r Compare tlat to the average wages in most developing countries Overall tariffs and subsidies in the developed world cause annual welfare losses of almost US$20 billion for developing countries.e This

is equal to some 40% of annual ODA provided by OECD countries to the developing world.lo

Regional snapshots of the impact of these policies paint an even grimmer picture Sub.Saharar AAican countries, for instance, suffer an annual bade loss ofUS$20 billion because of the combined effect oftadff quotas, barriers and subsidies That figure is US$6 billion more than ODA disbursed in the region

What would the value of trade liberatisation be worth to developing countries? Estimates vary Based on what we know of other liberalisation efforts, the outcomes can only be positive Take NAFTA, which

increased trade and b-oosted employm ent by 22Yo ia Mexico, l0% in Canada and 7% in the United States.lr

Opening borders to people

It has become commonplace to describe the planet as a global village The Intemet and television have made it possible for one half of the world to see a glamorised version of how the other half lives People are understandably determined to try to gain access to this.enhanced quality ard quantity of life To this general pressure for migration mUst be added the specific - but related - pt€ssures of war, persecution, violence and the denial of human righs.

Thal pressue is currently held at bay by skingent immigration contols in rich countries One other way to improve the development prospects of poorer countries would be to extend the argument for free trade in

More generally, the World Bank has estimated that removing obstacles to trade would boost the incomes of

developing counties by anlthing from US$200 billion to US$500 billion a year.'2 Even if one takes the lower estimate, this is almost the same as current FDI and ODA flows combined If world leaders were going to talk seriously about t'ade liberalisation, therefore, they would be talking about some seriously big

numbers.

goods and services, to the free movement of people It would be a powerful - and controversial - way

おぃv"d

The most direct benefrt migra.tion provides to developing countries is through expatriate remittances The total value ofglobal remitances has risen from less tlran US$2 billion in 1970 to aknost US$I00 billiogj! 1999.13 The importance of remittances varies but for a number of developing countries they are a critically important source of income and foreign bxchange Egrp! for instance, received US$5.1 billion in remittances - not far short of the US$6.9 biltion income received from the Suez Canal, oil expotu and

tourism combined According to the Central Bank ofthe Philippines, that county's economy has benefited

by upwards of US$7 billion in the form of remittances (easily dwarfi4g ODA and FDI flows over the same period).la Jamaica has benefited from a stee! increase in remittances, with an increase over a ten-year period from 4% of GDP to nearly l0%."

Suppose, for instance, the five leading economies ofthe G7 could be persuaded to approve work permits for an inflow of migrant workers equivalenl to 4Yo of their current work force The returns to developing

-cout-y

economies alone can plausibly be estimated to be of the order of US$200 biilion (while the gains

to global e.conomic welfare are much higher again).'o Contrast ttrat with the potential gains from the Trade Round which, if delivered, might on past experience not acoally accrue until as much as fle years aJter

the Round is completed - whenever that is.

Conclusions

Putting these possible engines for development side by side, it is not hard to see where the largest possible gains could be made Table One (below) shows these numbers They are rough - but defensible - estimates.

They show that the sort of development gains that a combined cross-border liberalisation of product and

labour markets would produce are roughly an order ofmapitude greater than the current level ofODA for which there appears to be little prospect ofupside

So does this mean dlat leaders will weigh their priorities accordingly? This remains unclear Any fair presenBtion of this table would have to observe that the political diffrculties of opening borders to more migrants are probably an order of magnitude more difficult than voting a little more for ODA budgets

The figures tell their orln story One important point is worth emphasising: leaders should not try to cover their inaction on any of these fronts with words That has been the past practice Developed countrieS

have been 'aiming' to lift their ODA to 0.7% GDP for a very long time It hasn't happ€ned The draft text for the forthcoming Monterey Conference on Financing for Development limply 'acknowledges' concem

on a raft of issues such as non-tariff baniers and tariff escalation

There is a fairly high level of summit fatigue out ther€ There have been too many declarations without

follow through - and not just on development One thinks of the FCCC with is 'aim to, target of

stabilising greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels If leaders are not in a position to make commitrnents they should be plain about that It will be small comfort for those hoping for major gains, but a concrete list of positive initiatives - however modest - would be preferable Whether that would be enough to give environment ministers hope of progress in their field is another matter Besause it is as clear today - as it

Some doubt the development benefit of migrant remittances on the grounds that they tend to fund oonsumptiorL not inveshnent But it is undeniable that many forms of consumption such as housing better food education and health will improve productivity and thus development prospects A more toublesome issue may be a potential loss of skills to economies that have few enough in the first place For all tha! whafmight one expect from even a relatively minor easing of the migration rest-ictions currently in place

in developed countries?

was ar fuo - that no country is going to sign up to a serious environmental agenda by surrendering its right

to development

Table One

′ ■ ヽ、

′‐ヽ

:il‐ O O●1■■■

13■ tiOp tnt‐■ AsSis●

nce‐

`c″

:‐ M`″ら′￨り :

(0.7%of GNP

ofOECD DAC Members)17

:il Foreign 11二 Direct lnvestment

・ ‐ 、 ‐

_ :

USS160 billion19

Rteducdons in

・

IJSS200-350 billion20

:・‐ R〔 i=ra饉o ‐

`σ

″ ′￨′を ″″ッ ′D5SIθθ

lJSS200-220 bil1lon22

"Ballpark Figures"

Possible Sources

of Assistance to Developing

- Countries

End Notes

' OeCO 1ZOOI4, The DAC Journal: Developnent Co-operation 2000 Report, OECD, Pads

2(2002)野セDИC Jο″″″,D″ノοp"`″ C●″ ″α′:の 2θ θノRηο4 0ECD,Pas(お!■cOmhD

r

Alt calculations adjusted to current prices and exchange rates, based on data Aom OECD (2001a).

o US figurc drawn from The Chroniclc of Philanthropy (2002) Washitrgton (hsp://philanthopy.com/) European

figures for philanthropic foundation wort with developing counties are drawn from a range of sources, including in particular the European Foundation (2001 and htp://www.efc.beA No Japanese figures were available.

6■

R9ο″ rο

"ι`ω′D″′ οP′′ Cο ν″″′o,United Natios,New Yoよ and m″ (2000)ヽたorld Economic Outl。。L pF,W¨hh」On.

″″′r S2b∫ ′ ″

“

,Zα′ ′′ 〔 ′s`α″ど 訪′E昴,″ ο

I″P′ ″ ″ g′ 力′E″″ο

“

4′ ″

`″

(1998)Subsidies m World Fishedes:A Re→ xammaio■ World Bmk T(ェhnic」 P`ゃ け406,World Ban、

『

on);● mspo“ (OECD 1998)agiculmre(OECD(1999),И

『

“

′ OECD

c″″ガ

“:Mο″″ο″″gα″′E″′ 2″ わ″,OECD,P″is and(2000),′,賓た

“

′ :″ ● I Pο ′ ,ぉ :″ OECD

cο ″ :″ ′

“

f Mο ″′ ′ ο″

“

g″:ピ Eν ″″″わらOECD,Pals)and Vm Bees,C.,錮d de Moor"A.(2001)Policy

8 0ECD(2∞0)Aglculird Policies h OECD Cotm es:Mo

"rhg and Ev」

ua」on 2000,OECD,Pais

'WOrld B“ k(2000)Global B∝)nomic PЮspecヽ and Develophg Colmdes,W^hmびon

l。

〈OECD 2001)

1l zoelict k,(2001)Ameica Should S●■Cachhg Up,In“maional Herdd T bune,18 May

12 wOrld Baよ

`Si WOrld Bmt W^hmびOn

13 Estimatngぬ ese nows is dificult and■ lere is as ya no universal agreement as to howit should be dO!le.The

mres us“ here"de ved by addhg dr∞ categones hぬe htem」on」 Mone"Funds bahce Of

payme魔

"面SiCS(W。ま

erS"mitan∞ S,mi32nt mnstrs md cOmpensaion mcOme).Unお mmate″ ,thS

ESpt TШkり mdぬo Phmpphes,a∝ounting for aound one‐ thid of tte tot■ 0"mlor weahess th

ぬ ese ip"S(2nd thoSe Cited SubSequently)ヽ ぬ at■ ey tti1 0 Capttre the● aヽ 発

“

,WhiCh● ke place

■rOuま hおlmal chamel,Mi∝osmdes hdicate hat brins●nce,h■e Ph ppines,less than half Ofthe

remitalce nowぬrou」 o価cial chameL(Brom、 R,(1995)Cοな

`″ Prわ"α″′ I″ ‐

":´ ″ ′ ο″ 1′

『

α鷹

'' R`,"″α

““:″ 講′Sο″清′αεc htemational Mitttion P"c、 no 2,lLO,Geneva)

14 Far E¨ tem Economic Re ew(1994)F″″

"″:E″

s′ ο″ι

“`2 13 JanuaV 15.■

。m¨_Hope,E"(1998)R∂ ′″ :″ g`力

`D″`′οP″ ′鷹Pο″″Iα ′グ R′ ′ ″″И

『

″わ

"frを C“`ゲカ ″αたらPTer

Force On Basic Socia Selvices t)r All,■ le Ha31ernie muliplier eflecも of migant remitances have been alalysed

by Duraad, J., Panado, E., ad Massey, D., (1996) Migradollars and Dzvelopment: A Reconsideration of the M*ican Case, lnternational Migration Review 30, no 2

15

Figures based on the assumption that the five leadilg economies of the G7 approved wort permits for al inflow of migrdnt worters equivalent to 4% of tleir currcnt work force Estimating the impact of such changes is always

difficult and wlnerable to the vagaries of econometric models The figures used here have been pulled together Aom

data held by the Intemalional Migration Organisation (2000) and the Intemational Labour Organisation (see in

particular Stalker, P., Q000) Workers withoul Ftotttie6,ILO, Geneva) The distfuution ofprojected migration flows

was based on past flows to the economies concemed and a breakdown of the skille4 semi and unskilled worker

categories, with the proportions used for the 4% incrcase mirroring the growth,lorigin t'ajectories for immigration

extant in the preceding three years and weighted accordingly Some of the figures have been re"ised dowawards in

light of concems expressed in the literature about the methodologies applied

" Figure assumes that all DAC members meet the 0.7% of GNP stipulated by the Pearson Commission in 1969.

Figure is derived Aom the author's calculations based on data contained h OECD Q002) The DAC Journal: Development Co-operation 2001 Report, OECD, Paris (forthcoming)

rE

US figure drawn from The Chronicle of Philanthropy (2002) Euopean figures for philanthropic foundation work with developing countries are drawn from a range of sources, including in particular the European Foundation (2001 and http://www.efc.ben No Japanesc figures were available.

re

The figures cited are drawn from Intemational Monetary Fund (2001) World Economic OntloolqBvff, Washington.

Given that economies in c'ansition do not quafiry for ODA funds under the DAC criteri4 FDI data to these economies

has beeu excluded

?0

World Bank (2001) and other sources These figures are all based on a ralge of assumptions and use a wealth of data, frequently based on the GTAP model.

2r

Estimating thesc flows is difficult and there is as yet no universal agreement as to how it should be done The figures

used here are derived by adding three categories in the IntematioDal MoDetary Funds balance ofpayment statistics

(workers remittances, migrdnt tra$fers and compensation income) Unfortunately, this is an imprecise science Tbe interpretation ofthesc categories differs &om county to counry and banks do not report the data consistently The

top group of countries in totalremittance terms in 1999 were Mexico, Eryp! Turkey and the Philippines, accounting for around one-third ofthe total One major weakness with these figures (and those cited subsequently) is that they fail to capture the transfen, which take place through informal channels lvlicrostudies indicate that, in many

counEies, less than half of the remittances flow through official channels.

2 Figures based on the assumption that the five leading economies ofthe G7 approved work permits for an inflow of

migrd workers equivalent to 4% of their current work force Estimating the impact of such changes is always

difficult and wlnerable to the vagaries ofeconometic models The figures used here have beeo drann from data held

by the tnternational Migra.tion Organisation (2000) and the htemational Labour Organisatior (see in particular

Stalker 2000) and brought together by the author's calculations The distribution of projeaed migration flows was based on past flows to the economies concemed and a breakdown ofthe skille4 semi and unskilled worker categories, with the proportions used for the 4o/o incrcase mirroring thc gro*tVorigin Fajectories for immigration extant in the preceding three years aad weighted accordingly Some of the figures have been revised downwards (author's calculations) in light ofconcems expressed in the literatue about the methodologies

applied-V