The Committee on Trade and Development discussed the way forward for Aid for Trade on 25 February. Norway supported the roadmap presented by the Director-General, and underlined the relevance that the WTO Coherence Mandate has for Aid for Trade.
26/02/2008 ::
Mr. Chairman,
Let me first thank the Director-General for his presentation of a roadmap that in our view points in the right direction.
Norway is a firm supporter of Aid for Trade. The Norwegian Government launched an Action Plan on Aid for Trade last year which was presented at the global review of AfT. Additional financing has been set aside for the action plan. In line with the recommendations of the WTO Task Force on Aid for Trade, the increase in Norway’s Aid for Trade will mainly take place through multilateral channels, with particular emphasis on the Enhanced Integrated Framework.
Contributing to achieving more coherent global economic policy-making is one of the five core functions of the WTO, as defined by Article III.5 of the Marrakesh Agreement. The accompanying Declaration on the Contribution of the WTO to Achieving Greater Coherence in Global Economic Policymaking observes policy inter-linkages, inter alia, between trade and development, and calls for the WTO to develop its cooperation with the IMF and the World Bank, with the aim of each institution following consistent and mutually supportive policies.
In the DG’s report for 2007 on the execution of the Coherence Mandate, released last week in document WT/TF/COH/S/13, Aid for Trade has a prominent place. We appreciate very much that Aid for Trade is placed squarely within the Coherence Mandate. This is in our view the right analytical point of departure for a discussion of the WTO’s role in the further work on Aid for Trade.
We believe there is scope for further fine-tuning of the complementarities between the three corner organisations of the Coherence Mandate, as well as among other stakeholders within the broader Aid for Trade picture. This is a process which should be taken forward as we move towards the next Global Review in 2009.
Mr. Chairman,
For us, the roadmap that the DG outlined this morning is very welcome.
As far as monitoring is concerned, we fully support the focus on the measurement of the impact of Aid for Trade. Measuring impact is difficult but essential. If the link between input and impact cannot be demonstrated, the incentives for developing further Aid for Trade initiatives are weakened.
At the General Council debate regarding the global review of Aid for Trade in November there seemed to be a broadly held view that the WTO should not develop into a development agency. We share that view. We prefer a cautious approach to WTO involvement in implementation activities. We do not see the organisation assume responsibility for concrete implementation of Aid for Trade programmes. We therefore appreciate the DG’s focus on advocacy and monitoring in relation to implementation activities.
The DG underscored the importance of developing country ownership and the anchoring of Aid for Trade in national development plans. To us this is a must. It is of course first and foremost a national responsibility. We realise however that integrating trade properly in national plans will take time. We also believe the DG is right that the Integrated Framework in its enhanced form can play an important role in assisting LDCs in this regard. There are, however, already fairly robust planning processes and development strategies in place in many if not most of the WTO LDC Members. I am thinking in particular of the so-called PRSP processes.
The PRSPs, or Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, provide the basis for assistance from the World Bank and the IMF as well as debt relief under the HIPC initiative. PRSPs should be country-driven, comprehensive in scope, partnership-oriented, and participatory. A country only needs to write a PRSP every three years. Changes can be made to the content of a PRSP using an Annual Progress Report.
A PRSP is expected to contain clearly presented and costed priorities for macroeconomic, structural, and social policies as well as appropriate targets, indicators, and systems for monitoring and evaluating progress.
Mr. Chairman,
There are two reasons why I spend some time talking about PRSPs:
The first is to illustrate that there are already structured planning processes in place in some 70 low-income countries, many of which are members of the WTO, that address, inter alia, macroeconomic and structural policies.
The second is to underscore that the PRSPs are broadly endorsed by the World Bank and IMF Boards as the basis of concessional assistance from the two institutions. Both the Bank and the Fund are key partners for countries involved in PRSP processes.
The simple conclusion that we draw from this is that in terms of the Coherence Mandate, the World Bank and the IMF have a particular responsibility to assist in integrating trade into the PRSPs. The Enhanced Integrated Framework can add further to this process but there is no reason for the World Bank and the IMF – key partners also in the IF – to sit back and wait until the EIF is properly up and running. We think these are points that the DG could emphasize in the coherence dialogue with the two other institutions.
That said, we are eagerly awaiting a fully operational EIF. As I said in the beginning, this is a channel that we intend to use actively in the provision of Norwegian Aid for Trade financing.
We believe that Aid for Trade will be useful in helping Members harness the DDA results. Difficulties in accessing implementation assistance has led to many misgivings about the outcome of the Uruguay round. This should be avoided in the Doha round, and we believe it is time to start thinking about how Aid for Trade can be used to facilitate the implementation of a Doha deal.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.