|
United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service |
||
|---|---|---|
|
||
|
|
NO 95 DECEMBER 2002 — JANUARY 2003 CALENDAR
| UN UPDATE | NGO AND OTHER NEWS | FOCUS |
| S-G Says Global Response is Necessary WHO Nominates New Director-General UN Special Envoys Warn of HIV/AIDS and Famine UN Launches International Year of Freshwater S-G’s Message to World Social Forum S-G Calls for Women-Focused Strategies in Africa S-G Commemorates Morocco’s G-77 Leadership Population Conference Adopts Plan of Action Commission on Human Rights Elects Chairperson 2003 World Economic Prospects S-G’s Report on Children and Armed Conflict Security Council Considers Protection of Civilians Year in Review: UN Peace Operations 2002 ESCAP Predicts Sustained Regional Growth SIDS Comprehensive Review UNEP Releases Report on Occupied Territories UNEP Assessment of Afghanistan UNEP Conducts DU Assessment UN (Right to Know) Treaty on Pollution CITES Adopts Conservation Measures Basel Convention COP-6: Cell Phone Partnership Ramsar Convention COP-8 Meets 20th Anniversary of Law of the Sea ILO’s World Commission on Globalization UNICEF Opens Office for Public Partnerships |
UN/NGO News Student Conference on Human Rights Held at UN Elimination of Violence Against Women NGO News MSF Top 10 List of Underreported Crises in 2002 Human Rights Watch World Report 2003 Kimberley Process Launched: NGOs Remain Cautious WTO TRIPs Council Fails to Reach Agreement Greenpeace Action to Protect Mahogany Pays Off International Conference on Conflict Prevention Interaction on the Millennium Challenge Account Other News EC Releases Communication on Non-State Actors WEF: Survey Points to Lack of Trust |
Chronic Poverty and the Millennium Development Goals 25 State of World Population 2002: People, Poverty and Possibilities 26 UNCTAD Board Reviews Poverty Reduction in LDCs 28 State of the World’s Children 2003: Child Participation 29 New ILO Report on Global Employment Trends 2003 30
|
| Student Conference on Human Rights Held at UN | ||
|
|
In commemoration of Human Rights Day, a student conference on human rights was held at UN
headquarters in New York on 6 December 2002. The event, hosted for the fifth consecutive year by the UN Department of Public
Information and co-sponsored by several NGOs, brought students from grades 5-12 together from 12 sites in six countries in a
video-conference. The proceedings were also webcast, with hundreds more following the programme online and participating through
discussion forums set up on the UN’s CyberSchoolBus.
The theme for the conference, Human Rights and Sustainable Development: A Better Future for All, linked issues discussed at the recent World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg (South Africa) with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs, see NGLS Roundup 98), under the umbrella of human rights. Students joined in drafting a declaration and plan of action on human rights and sustainable development, in order to determine ways in which they could individually and collectively contribute to the promotion of both the WSSD and MDG processes. Their declaration addresses a number of issues, including health care and promoting education/awareness about HIV/AIDS; access to safe drinking water and proper sanitation; promoting clean technology; making available alternative and renewable sources of energy; encouraging environmentally-friendly farming; and urging efficient consumption and productivity patterns. “The ultimate human right is the right to a future, and a healthy and productive planet is essential to making that future a positive one,” the declaration said. Through their declaration, students also called on governments, organizations and peoples of the world to: Contact: Dawn Johnston-Britton, UN Department of Public Information, Room GA-057, United Nations, New York NY 10017, USA, telephone +1-212/963 6984, fax +1-212/963 0071, website (www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/index.html).
|
|
| Elimination of Violence Against Women | ||
|
|
The United Nations and NGOs across the world observed the International Day for the Elimination of
Violence Against Women on 25 November. The date was chosen to mark the death of the Mirabal sisters: three political activists in
the Dominican Republic who were brutally assassinated during the Trujillo dictatorship in 1961, and who became international
symbols of the victimization of women in the fight against gender violence. Although women activists had been marking 25 November
as a day against violence since 1981, UN General Assembly resolution 54/134, adopted in December 1999, formally designated 25
November as the International Day, inviting governments, international organizations and NGOs to organize activities designed to
raise public awareness of the problem of violence against women.
Such violence remains a daily and often deadly fact of life for millions of women and girls around the world, impeding development in every nation. Violence against women is increasingly being forced out into the open and recognized for what it is—an unacceptable violation of the basic human rights of women. “States are acknowledging their obligation to take preventive and punitive steps to combat violence in communities,” UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) Executive Director Noeleen Heyzer said. “Civil society organizations and women themselves are speaking out to tell the world that this abuse of women and girls will no longer be tolerated.” A study by UNIFEM shows that as the economic and social costs of gender-based violence keep escalating, so too do the number of initiatives offering a comprehensive approach to ending violence. However, UNIFEM’s recent publication Progress of the World’s Women 2002: Ending Violence Against Women shows that interventions designed to combat violence against women will not be effective until the levels of political will and resources match the scale of the problem. Also marking the Day, NGOs around the world participated in the 12th annual 16 Days of Activism against Gender Violence, from 25 November-10 December 2002, coordinated by the US-based Center for Women’s Global Leadership. The campaign theme was Creating a Culture That Says No to Violence Against Women. “It is important that we continue to critically explore and challenge the history and construction of claims that use culture as a justification for violence against women,” said Lisa Clarke, the campaign coordinator. Contact: UNIFEM, 304 East 45th Street, 15th Floor, New York NY 10017, USA, telephone +1-212/906 6400, fax +1-212/906 6705, e-mail <unifem@undp.org>, website (www.unifem.undp.org).
|
|
|
|
NGO NEWS | |
| MSF Top 10 List of Underreported Crises in 2002 | ||
|
|
Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières
(MSF), the international medical aid
organization, has issued its list of the Top 10 Most Underreported Humanitarian Stories of 2002. The fifth annual list calls
attention to human crises that MSF considers to have been largely ignored by the media in the United States in the past year.
“These stories must be told,” said Nicolas de Torrente, Executive Director of MSF-USA. “In MSF’s experience, silence is the
best ally of violence, impunity, and neglect. Media attention to dire crises can have a tremendous impact on mobilizing the
resolve needed to bring solutions. But for most Americans, it is as though these vast human catastrophes do not exist.”
The Democratic Republic of Congo and Colombia appear on the list for the fourth consecutive year, as does the crisis of
access to medicines for diseases that kill millions of the world’s poorest people. MSF says also receiving scant coverage has
been a growing disregard for international humanitarian law that has resulted in a general erosion of protection for people
fleeing war.
The 2002 list of underreported crises includes: —End of War Reveals Nutritional Emergency in Angola; According to the Tyndall Report, which monitors US television network news, the major networks’
nightly news programmes devoted more airtime from January-November 2002 to the British royal family (26 minutes) than to eight of
the crises highlighted on the MSF list combined (25 minutes). The famine that claimed thousands of lives in oil-rich Angola
received only one minute of coverage, whereas the war in Liberia received none at all. The forcible return of Chechen refugees
to their devastated and still dangerous homes, and the intensification of wars in Colombia and Sudan, were virtually shut out.
“People throughout the United States have told us how hungry they are for substantive, indepth coverage of international
issues,” Mr. de Torrente said. “Unfortunately, apart from a handful of dedicated journalists, the US media’s increasingly narrow
focus leaves many Americans woefully under-informed. This is happening at a time when understanding and addressing global issues
is perhaps more important than ever.”
Contact: Doctors Without Borders, US Headquarters, 6 E. 39th St., 8th floor, New York NY 10016, USA,
telephone +1-212/679 6800, fax +1-212/679 7016, e-mail <doctors@newyork.msf.org>, website
(www.doctorswithoutborders.org).
|
|
| Human Rights Watch World Report 2003 | ||
|
|
Human Rights Watch has published its thirteenth annual review of human rights practices around the
globe, Human Rights Watch World Report 2003, covering the period from November 2001-November 2002. The report addresses
developments in fifty-eight countries, including the status of international law and treaties, the protection and promotion of
the rights of women, children, refugees, and victims of HIV/AIDS, and the freedom of local human rights defenders to conduct
their work. It also examines the response of global actors, such as the European Union, Japan, the United States, the United
Nations, and various regional and international organizations and institutions to these developments. The report identifies positive trends, such as the formal end to wars in Angola, Sudan, and Sierra Leone, as well as peace talks in Sri Lanka. It also reports on negative developments, including the outbreak of serious communal violence in Gujarat (India), and the continued killing of civilians in wars from Colombia to Chechnya, from the Democratic Republic of Congo to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Attention was also drawn to governments that continue repressive policies, including Burma, China, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Liberia and Viet Nam. The report finds the United States is undermining its global antiterrorism effort by failing to act consistently to protect rights at home and abroad. The report points out that countries such as Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Russia have persisted with rights abuses with little challenge from the US, “tainting Washington’s traditional leadership role in improving rights standards worldwide.” World Report 2003 also highlights that fact that in 2002, the US tried to undermine human rights initiatives such as the International Criminal Court; a new international inspection regime to prevent torture; and a UN resolution calling for the war on terrorism to be fought in a manner consistent with human rights. The report also says the US refuses to be bound by the standards it has preached to others, citing the government’s abuse of immigration laws to deny criminal suspects their rights, its refusal to apply the Geneva Conventions to prisoners of war from Afghanistan, and its misuse of the designation of “enemy combatant” to apply to criminal suspects on US soil. Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, speaking at UN headquarters on 14 January, said that Washington has a special responsibility to uphold rights standards. “We are not claiming that the United States is the world’s worst human rights offender. But because of America’s extraordinary influence, the Bush administration’s willingness to compromise human rights while fighting terrorism sets a very dangerous and counterproductive precedent,” Mr. Roth said. The report finds that the war against terror has provided an excuse for other countries to slacken their support for human rights. European leaders virtually abandoned efforts to pressure Russia, an anti-terror ally, to end its conduct of the war in Chechnya. US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said that the US has not weakened its support of human rights. He said that Washington has moved to make rights a central part of helping strengthen societies in the fight against terrorism. “Democracy has been a hallmark of our policy around the world, and we’ve made very clear in the war on terrorism we think one of the best defenses against terrorism is to have the kind of society that is able to sustain itself, have the kind of society that’s based on economic and political freedom, where terrorism has a harder problem growing and a harder problem existing,” Mr. Boucher said. The full report can be found online on the Human Rights Watch website (www.hrw.org/wr2k3/). Contact: Human Rights Watch, 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th floor, New York NY 10118-3299, USA, telephone +1-212/290 4700, fax +1-212/736 1300, e-mail <hrwnyc@hrw.org>, website (www.hrw.org).
|
|
| Kimberley Process Launched: NGOs Remain Cautious | ||
|
|
Campaigners representing a broad coalition of lobbyists and development agencies, including
ActionAid, Amnesty International, Fatal Transactions, Cenadep (Democratic Republic of Congo), Global Witness, Oxfam International,
Network Movement for Justice and Development (Sierra Leone) and Partnership Africa Canada, welcomed the launch on 1 January 2003
of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) on conflict diamonds, but at the same time expressed deep concerns about
the diamond industry’s ability to self-regulate.
“Conflict” or “blood” diamonds are diamonds that originate from areas controlled by forces or factions opposed to legitimate and internationally recognized governments, and are used to fund military action in opposition to those governments, or in contravention of the decisions of the Security Council. In countries like Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sierra Leone, the profits from the unregulated diamond trade are used to fund armed conflicts and human rights abuses. In 2001, under intense pressure from NGOs, the diamond industry agreed with world governments to set up a code of conduct/scheme of self-regulation guaranteeing that the industry does not trade in conflict diamonds. Under the scheme, jewelers must have evidence that they can show to consumers that their diamonds are purchased from legitimate sources and are conflict-free. As of October 2002, however, research by ActionAid had shown that many in the trade were unaware of either the industry’s agreement or a European directive on conflict diamonds that enforces self-regulation. “The diamond trade is totally unprepared to implement [the KPCS],” said ActionAid Policy Officer Amboka Wameyo. “The World Diamond Council, the industry’s trade body, has not made public, even to its own members, details of its self-regulation scheme. No attempts have been made to educate jewelers, yet they are the ones who have to prove to buyers that they are selling clean diamonds.” On 5 November 2002, governments from nations that mine, trade and cut rough diamonds formally adopted the KPCS at a meeting in Interlaken (Switzerland). The Interlaken Declaration outlines in detail all the steps governments will take to comply with the certification scheme. Implementation will be based on the respective laws of the countries as well as on a system of internal controls with penalties for violations to prevent conflict diamonds from getting into rough diamond shipments. Import/export authorities will verify sealed diamond shipments and authorize official KPCS certificates guaranteeing diamonds are conflict-free. The KPCS governments will meet annually to discuss the effectiveness of the scheme. They will also appoint review missions of nations reported as being in non-compliance with the Kimberley Process. South Africa will chair the group in 2003, handling investigations into possible violations and all exchanges of information among the countries taking part in the KPCS. While welcoming the industry’s commitments to working with governments and civil society on the private sector’s role and responsibility in tracking rough diamonds, NGOs expressed concern over the system’s failure to include intrusive and independent monitoring and auditing of diamond transfers and the absence of a strong secretariat for data collection. “Any government, any company, any individual that argues against regular, independent monitoring, is arguing for a retention of the status quo and for a continuation of theft, smuggling, instability and war in Africa,” asserted Ian Smilie of Partnership Africa Canada. In related news, on 13 January 2003, an occasional paper of the Diamond and Human Security Project, entitled Diamonds in the Central African Republic: Trading, Valuing and Laundering, revealed the strong likelihood that conflict diamonds from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and elsewhere are being laundered through the Central African Republic (CAR). The 8-page paper concludes with recommendations for the Government of the CAR and for the Kimberley Process. It can be found online on the Partnership Africa Canada website. Contact: Jane Moyo, ActionAid, Hamlyn House, Macdonald Road Archway, London N19 5PG, United Kingdom,
telephone +44-20/7561 7614, fax +44-20/7272 0988, e-mail <mail@actionaid.org.uk), website
(www.actionaid.org) or (www.kimberleyprocess.com). Susan Isaac, Partnership Africa Canada, 323 Chapel Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 7Z2, telephone +1-613/237 6768, fax +1-613/237 6530, e-mail <hsda@partnershipafricacanada.org>, website (http://partnershipafricacanada.org).
|
|
| WTO Trips Council Fails to Reach Agreement | ||
|
|
Delegates at the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPs) of the
World Trade Organization (WTO), meeting in late December in Geneva, were unable to reach an agreement on the implementation of
paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPs Agreement and Public Health.
According to paragraph 6, the TRIPs Council was charged to find an expeditious solution by the
end of 2002 to the problems countries may face in making use of compulsory licensing (i.e., allowing the use of a patent without
the consent of the patent-holder under certain conditions) if they have insufficient or no pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity.
The perceived need to address this issue arose from concerns related to Article 31(f) of the TRIPs Agreement, which requires that
production under compulsory licensing must be primarily for the supply of the domestic market.
One hundred and forty-three of the 144 WTO members agreed on a solution, which was opposed by the United States who objected
to the broad wording of the draft proposal. Instead, the US preferred to limit the medicines to those used for treating AIDS,
malaria, tuberculosis, and other infectious disease epidemics.
WTO Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi expressed his disappointment over the failure to reach consensus in negotiations
on special and differential treatment for developing countries (see NGLS Roundup
97) and access to essential medicines for poor
countries lacking capacity to manufacture such drugs themselves.
“Failure to meet the deadlines in these negotiations has been quite disappointing. These two issues are of great importance
not only to developing countries but to the organization itself and to the broader trade negotiations that are part of the Doha
Development Agenda,” Dr. Supachai said, calling on “governments to summon the political will and commitment that will be required
to bridge their differences on these two issues.”
“Today, some people with AIDS in Malawi, Honduras or Cambodia can buy generic triple therapies that cost US$300 per patient
per year—because Indian and Thai producers are able to export them,” said Ellen ’t Hoen of Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans
Frontières (MSF). “But unless a real solution to the paragraph 6 issue is found, the source of affordable generics will dry up.
In the future, many patients will be excluded from access to life-saving treatment because they can’t afford brand name drugs.”
In future discussions, it will be vital that the text does not limit the solution to certain diseases, as pushed for by the
pharmaceutical industry and the US, MSF said. “If the agreement is too restrictive, developing countries will increasingly be
forced to rely on supply from originator companies, who sell at more than twice the price of generic manufacturers, even in
today’s competitive market,” Ms. ’t Hoen said. “There are almost thirty million people living with HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan
Africa, and the biggest obstacle to saving their lives is the price of treatment. Drug prices must drop further to enable them to
access these drugs. How will this happen if the generic industry is stifled?
In early January 2003, deliberations continued at the TRIPs Council with the European Union (EU)
putting forth a proposal to involve the World Health Organization (WHO) in decisions on whether a particular disease would be
covered by the solution. The initiative also drew up a list of “at least” 23 infectious diseases that could be further expanded
based on advice from the WHO, which the US had supported back in December.
Contact: Daniel Berman, Access to Essential Medicines Campaign, Médecins Sans Frontières, Rue du Lac 12, CH-1211 Geneva 6,
Switzerland, telephone +41-22/849 8407, fax +41-22/849 8404, e-mail <daniel_berman@geneva.msf.org>, website
(www.accessmed-msf.org/index.asp).
|
|
| Greenpeace Action to Protect Mahogany Pays Off | ||
|
|
A decade of NGO efforts to protect Amazonian mahogany has paid off, according to Greenpeace
International. The high-priced hardwood, known as “green gold,” has driven the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, but a
decision to regulate international trade of mahogany will give both the trees and the forest “a fighting chance,” according to
activists.
Mahogany is now listed on Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES, see article page 14), which means that trade of this highly valuable species will be from sustainable sources and strictly managed forests. “This is a victory for mahogany, the environment and the people of Latin American forests who depend on forest resources for their survival,” said Paulo Adario, who works in the Amazon for Greenpeace. The proposal to list mahogany on Appendix II of CITES was submitted by Nicaragua and supported by Guatemala during a meeting for the Convention held in Santiago (Chile) in November 2002. During the discussions, key countries like Brazil and Bolivia expressed strong opposition to the measure, but the Central American countries, backed by the European Union and the United Kingdom, emphasized that placing mahogany on the list would not only protect the species, but also safeguard the market and protect consumers from illegal trade. NGOs campaigned heavily in Brazil, as the new President Luiz Inacio da Silva had promised to protect the hardwood during his campaign. Brazil’s foreign ministry, however, emphasized that the country already had a moratorium on the exploitation, transport and commercialization of mahogany for more than year. According to Greenpeace, however, the “ban has utterly failed to protect mahogany against illegal logging, corruption, lax controls and international buyers who are willing to look the other way. Once the loggers bulldoze illegal access roads through pristine rainforest, it leaves the forest open to broader destruction.” Mahogany was placed on the CITES Appendix II by a vote of 68 in favour, 30 against and 14 abstentions. Greenpeace and other NGOs and activists are now calling on countries to accept the decision of CITES delegates and to ensure that sustainable logging practices and legal trade are implemented. Contact: Greenpeace International, Keizersgracht 176, 1016DW Amsterdam, the Netherlands, telephone +31-20/523 6222, fax +31-20/523 6200, e-mail <supporter.services@ams.greenpeace.org>, website (www.greenpeace.org).
|
|
| International Conference on Conflict Prevention | ||
|
In his report of June 2001 on the Prevention of Armed Conflict (A/55/985), UN Secretary-General,
Kofi Annan “urge[d] NGOs with an interest in conflict prevention to organize an international conference of local, national and
international NGOs on their role in conflict prevention and future interaction with the United Nations in this field.” The report
states, “NGOs can contribute to the maintenance of peace and security by offering non-violent avenues for addressing the root
causes of conflict at an early stage.” It also says that NGOs can be an important means of conducting track II diplomacy
(interaction between lower-level actors in a conflict) when governments and international organizations are unable to do so.
In response to the Secretary-General’s appeal, the European Centre for Conflict Prevention (ECCP), along with a host of conflict prevention networks around the world, have begun preparations for an international conference to take place at UN headquarters in 2004 or 2005. According to the ECCP, the young conflict prevention community needs to consolidate what it has learned over the past decade and consider changes in the nature of conflict, such as the shift toward civil wars and away from inter-state wars. The conference will address these topics as well as focus on a number of other areas, which include exploring fully the role of civil society and NGOs in the prevention of armed conflicts and improving the interaction between civil society, the UN, regional organizations and governments. The conference will also aim to strengthen regional networking and to establish regional conflict-prevention networks composed of NGOs, sub-regional networks, practitioners and academics. It will also take steps towards the development of a UN Action Plan. The conference organizers are encouraging involvement from all regions and actors at every level, including NGOs, civil society organizations, field practitioners, grassroots organizations, universities and research institutes, the business community, the UN and its agencies, regional organizations and national governments. Organizers have also pointed out the importance of contributions from women's organizations; religious leaders; development, humanitarian and human rights organizations; community groups; youth organizations; schools and colleges; community elders; and the media. Organizers are currently working on a preparatory meeting, scheduled for April/May 2003, which will bring together representatives from all regions to decide on structure and content for the conference. Plans will then begin for the regional conferences. Contact: Guido de Graaf Bierbrauwer, Coordinator UN Conference Programme, ECCP, PO Box 14069, 3508 SC Utrecht, Netherlands, telephone +31/30 242 7777, fax +31/30 236 9268, e-mail <g.bierbrauwer@conflict-prevention.net>, website (www.conflictprevention-dialogue.org).
|
||
| InterAction on the Millennium Challenge Account | ||
|
|
The following statement is InterAction President Mary E. McClymont’s response to the 25 November
White House briefing on the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), in which the Bush administration announced that the Millennium
Challenge Account would be separate from the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID).
“The Millennium Challenge Account can serve as an important tool to help improve aid effectiveness and fight poverty. We will continue to work with our member organizations to build legislative support and full funding for this initiative, including the US$1.6 billion pledged for Fiscal Year 2004. “The MCA, however, envisions assistance for a limited number of countries that qualify under the performance criteria set forth by the president. It does not address the basic needs of millions of poor people who live in non-MCA qualifying countries, nor the burgeoning humanitarian crises around the world that threaten to destabilize entire countries and regions. InterAction urges the president to exhibit similar leadership and commitment in addressing these growing humanitarian and development needs. We are calling for an increase of at least US$1 billion in the Fiscal Year 2004 budget over current funding levels for the core humanitarian and development programmes. “With respect to the MCA, InterAction has issued a policy paper outlining the basic principles
and priorities around which we think the new initiative should be organized. While we are encouraged that many features of the
administration’s planning appear to be consistent with those recommendations, two of the areas explicitly revealed at the
November 25 briefing raise important concerns: the implementation structure to administer the
MCA; and the inclusion of lower
middle-income countries in the pool of eligible countries.
“The administration has announced that it will set up a new independent entity to administer the
MCA. Creating an entirely
separate structure from USAID, the agency administering the current humanitarian and development programmes, may lead to
duplication of efforts, competing priorities and contradictory policies. We further believe that USAID’s experience, knowledge
and personnel on the ground will be critical to administer funds in an accountable way. In short, for the MCA to be effective,
it must be designed and implemented in a way that builds coherence and complementarity in all US development
programmes—establishing strong links between the MCA and ongoing development assistance programmes. The MCA can thereby draw
upon the best practices and lessons learned through 50 years of US bilateral foreign assistance while serving as an engine for
reforming and improving the overall development programmes of the United States.
“In the area of eligibility, InterAction has advocated that MCA assistance be targeted to low-income countries that are
eligible to borrow from the International Development Association [IDA]. We are therefore concerned by the administration’s
decision to allow lower middle-income countries to compete for MCA
assistance after the second year. While lower middle-income
countries also face significant development challenges, these countries have many other means of attracting capital to finance
their development and are not as much in need of bilateral development assistance as the IDA countries. Extending MCA assistance
to non-IDA countries could place the poorest countries at a competitive disadvantage and further deprive them of much needed
resources. We continue to urge a focus on helping the poorest countries.
“We urge the president and Congress to consider these concerns, as more fully discussed in our White Paper on the Millennium
Challenge Account. InterAction and our member organizations are committed to working with the Bush administration, Congress, and
our partners in developing countries to improve and ensure the effectiveness and impact of all US assistance programmes.”
Contact: InterAction, 1717 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 701, Washington DC 20036, USA, telephone +1-202/667-8227,
fax +1-202/667 8236, e-mail <ia@interaction.org>, website
(www.interaction.org).
|
|
|
|
OTHER NEWS | |
| EC Releases Communication on Non-State Actors | ||
|
|
A European Commission Communication issued on 7 November 2002, entitled “Participation of Non-State
Actors in the EC Development Policy,” focuses on strengthening the role of non-State actors (NSAs) in developing countries, and
encouraging NSAs in developed countries to transfer their skills to their southern partners.
According to the policy paper, ownership by developing countries themselves is essential for the success of development policies, and should include the involvement of all sectors of society in partner countries, not just governments and public authorities. The policy paper also gives an overview of current practices and clarifies the European Union’s expectations regarding the level and scope for dialogue and consultation with NSAs. The European Union provides two main types of financial assistance to NSAs: either they can operate as implementing partners,
or they can operate on their own initiative. Each year approximately 20% (1.4 billion out of 7 billion Euros) of EU official
assistance is managed by or with non-State organizations. The Communication builds on a joint EU Council-Commission Statement on EU development policy issued in November 2000, and complements the principles presented in the EU White Paper on European Governance. The policy paper can be found online (http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/index_en.htm)
|
|
| WEF: Survey Points to Lack of Trust | ||
|
|
The World Economic Forum has released a global public opinion survey, conducted by Gallup
International (UK) and Environics International (Canada) from November-December 2002, which suggests that trust in many key
institutions has fallen. The Voice of the People, a survey of 36,000 people from 15 countries, reveals a “dramatic” lack of trust
in democratic institutions and global and large national companies; trust is even low when it comes to NGOs, trade unions and
media organizations around the world.
Fifty-six percent of the 36,000 respondents said they put “a lot” or “some” trust in NGO leaders; with the United Nations following with 42%; spiritual and religious leaders at 41%; leaders of Western Europe and managers of global economy tied at 36%; executives of multinational companies scored 33%, and leaders of the United States ranked lowest at 27%. The survey also reveals declining trust in the direction the world is moving. A majority of citizens across the countries surveyed disagree with the statement, “The world is moving in the right direction,” and this disagreement has increased from a year ago in half the countries surveyed, especially among citizens in the United States and its allies. The survey also explored several attributes of leadership that may help address the public trust deficit. Asked which of five characteristics is most important for them to trust individual leaders, citizens across the countries surveyed selected: honesty (49%), vision (15%), experience (12%), intellect (10%) and compassion (5%), with 7% volunteering “all of the above.” Asked which of five factors is most likely to cause them to distrust leaders, citizens across the 15 countries chose: “not doing what they say” (45%), self-interest (28%), secrecy (11%), arrogance (8%) and character flaws (5%).
Detailed findings from the survey include: In commenting on the massive research undertaking, Secretary-General of Gallup International Meril James said, “Gallup International’s core belief is that rigorously conducted public opinion surveys are an integral part of democracy. The annual Voice of the People survey actually gives the world a voice, helping ensure the accountability of society’s institutions.” Contact: Claudia Gonzalez-Gisiger, Senior Press Officer, World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland, fax +41-22/869 1394, e-mail <claudia.gonzales@weforum.org>, website (www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Homepage).
|
|
|
home about ngls un-ngo relations publications un news staff/contacts faq links |
||