Voices Of The Least Developed Countries

Voices of the Least Developed Countries

of Asia and the Pacific

Achieving the Millennium Development Goals Through a Global Partnership

LONDON, Asia 2015, March 6-7, 2006

Keep the promiseVoices of the Poor from the Asia-Pacific LDCsAchieving the Millennium Development Goals through Global Partnership

Overview Asia-Pacific – the fastest-developing part of the world

With the world’s two most populous and fastest-growing countries, China and India And the “tiger” economies of East and South-East Asia

No country is expected to ACHIEVE ALL the MDGs – concern

No country expected to FAIL ON ALL MDGs - potential

But Asia-Pacific is a region with extreme contrasts - highly heterogeneous With some of the most economically disadvantaged countries: 14 (of 50) Least Developed

Countries inhabited by nearly 40% of worldwide LDC population

The “tyranny of averages” hides extreme poverty in Asia-Pacific LDCs

Structural and geographic impediments result in persistence of poverty in its many dimensions; conflict aggravates problems

A global partnership through ODA, debt relief and trade is necessary to accelerate development in these countries A three-pronged argument beyond the fundamental moral basis: strategic, commercial and

efficiency

Progress in Asia-Pacific LDCs benefits the world - a ‘win-win’ for all


Who are the LDCs? Criteria for identification

Low income level Low stock of human assets (nutrition, health, education) Economic vulnerability (X concentration, unstable X earnings,

unstable agri, low share of manuf & services, small population)

LDCs face severe handicaps Disadvantaged location Small domestic markets Limited infrastructure Low domestic resources – savings for investment Conflict in some Environmental hazards


Location & population of LDCs In 2003, the UN listed 50 Least Developed Countries

28% (14 LDCs) in Asia-Pacific account for almost 40% of worldwide LDC population - disproportionately high population share

72% (36 LDCs) in other regions account for 60% of worldwide LDC population

34

14

2

Africa

Asia-Pacific

Others

440

30260Africa

Asia-Pacific

Others

Number of LDCs Population (million)


Key indicators of LDCs in Asia-Pacific and other regions

Weighted averages (2003)

GDP per- capita US$

Aid per-capita

Exports of goods and services as % of GDP

HDI value

Asia-Pacific LDCs (Asian developing countries)

513

(2130)

19 21% 0.52

Other LDCs 310 43 26% 0.39

Geographic status Asia-Pacific LDCs

7 Small Island Developing States (SIDS)

Kiribati, Maldives, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, Vanuatu

4 Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs)

Afghanistan, Bhutan, Lao PDR, Nepal

3 Coastal LDCs Bangladesh, Cambodia, Myanmar


Proportion of Population Below US$1 (PPP) Per Day

Heterogeneity of Asia-Pacific

2130

513310

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

Asiandevelopingcountries

Asia-PacificLDCs

Other LDCs

The Asia-Pacific LDC population accounts for 7% of the total population in the Asia-Pacific region. However, as much as 12% the region’s extreme poor (or 90 million) live in these LDCs.

Per-Capita GDP, 2003

22%

38%44%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Asiandevelopingcountries

Asia-PacificLDCs

Other LDCs


Current trend Vs MDG target in Asia-Pacific LDCs

Proportion of population below the national poverty lines in Asia-Pacific LDCs

46.8

37.9

55.0

27.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1990 2000 2015

Year

Per

cen

t

Current trendMDG target

About 35.1 million more people will live below the national poverty line under the current trend

Even if MDG target is attained, about 92.5 million people will still live below the national poverty line


Some successes, but MDGs are far from attained…

Despite handicaps, Asia-Pacific LDCs have made progress in achieving some MDG targets such as: Net enrolment ratio Under-five mortality rate Proportion of the population with sustainable access to improved

water sources and sanitation But are far from achieving other MDG targets such as:

Poverty reduction Minimum dietary needs - malnutrition Literacy rate Infant mortality rate


Resource gap in Asia-Pacific LDCs

A key structural impediment is the low savings rate in LDCs: Most of the income of the poor has to be spent on essential consumption (food, clothing and shelter)

Low savings lead to low investments and slow capital formation, resulting in slower economic growth (“classic poverty trap”)

-32

-5

-21-12-8

-15

0

-77

-4 -2 16

21

1 0-8

8

-7

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30A

fgh

an

ista

n

Ba

ng

lad

es

h

Bh

uta

n

Ca

mb

od

ia

La

o P

DR

Ne

pa

l

My

an

ma

r

Tim

or-

Le

ste

Va

nu

atu

Ch

ina

Ind

ia

Ind

on

es

ia

Ma

lay

sia

Pa

kis

tan

Ph

ilip

pin

es

Sri

La

nk

a

Th

aila

nd

Vie

t N

am

Resource gap (% of GDP) = Gross domestic savings - investment

% of GDP (2003)

Asian developing countriesAsia-Pacific LDCs


Resource Gap Per-Capita

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000A

fgh

an

ista

n

Ban

gla

desh

Bh

uta

n

Cam

bo

dia

Lao

PD

R

Nep

al

Myan

mar

Tim

or-

Leste

Van

uatu

Ch

ina

Ind

ia

Ind

on

esia

Mala

ysia

Pakis

tan

Ph

ilip

pin

es

Sri

Lan

ka

Th

ailan

d

Vie

t N

am

Resource gap (% of GDP) = Gross domestic savings - investment

US$

Asia-Pacific LDCs Asian developing countries


Addressing MDG impediments Asia-Pacific LDCs are trying to achieve the MDGs with very little resources

Landlocked and small island LDCs face additional geographic challenges (distance from markets,

proneness to natural disasters, etc.)

Conflict in some LDCs is also an impediment – diverts scarce public resources & inhibits private flows

MDG 8 advocates global partnership through a combination of three strategies:

1. Increased and more effective aid in the short run, with a phase-out plan

2. Debt relief to severely indebted poor countries

3. Increased market access and aid-for-trade consistent with poverty reduction (will also help in tapering off aid)

From the LDCs a clear recognition of governance issues – addressing corruption upfront

Complementary support from partner countries within and outside the Asia-Pacific region could

make an enormous difference


Increasing Aid to Achieve the MDGs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Other LDCs

Asia-Pacific LDCs1990 2002

US$

Average Aid Per-Capita, 1990-2002

Average aid per-capita has consistently been lower in Asia-Pacific LDCs, compared to LDCs of other regions.

In 2003, aid per-capita was US$19 for Asia-Pacific LDCs, compared to US$43 in other regions.


In 2003, import duties on apparel exported from Bangladesh, Cambodia and Nepal to the US amounted to US$520 million, more than 3 times the net disbursed bilateral aid of US$150 million received by those countries.

Disbursed Aid Versus Collected Duties by USA

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Bangladesh Cambodia Nepal

Mill

ion

US

$

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Per

cen

t

Duty Paid (Mln US$)

Aid Disbursed by USA (Mln US$)

Duty Paid as % of Aid

Aid vs. Trade: making aid work for trading out of poverty


Estimated MDG financing gap in the 14 LDCs – 12 to 26 billion, 2006 to 2015

(based on UN Millennium Project estimates for Bangladesh and Cambodia)

Projected for 2006 Projected for 2010 Projected for 2015

Total (US$ billion)

Per-capita (US$)

Total (US$ billion)

Per-capita (US$)

Total (US$ billion)

Per-capita (US$)

Total MDG investment needs

20.7 76 31.0 104 47.3 145

Sources of financing

Household contributions

Government expenditures

Total

2.3

6.4

8.7

8

24

32

3.2

10.1

13.3

11

34

45

4.8

16.3

21.1

15

50

65

MDG financing gap

12.0 44 17.7 59 26.2 80

ODA for direct MDG support (2002)

1.9 7 2.0 7 2.2 7

Shortfall in ODA for direct MDG support

over 2002 level10.1 37 15.7 52 24.0 73


The additional ODA required to bridge the resource gap of Asia-Pacific

LDCs is not an unreachable sum

An estimate by the Millennium Project shows the cost of meeting the

MDGs in all LDCs will correspond to 0.12% of the GNP of OECD-DAC

countries in 2006

Roughly double the current share of ODA in donor GNP to these countries

(0.06% in 2002)

Still well below the 0.15% to 0.20% target as called for in the Brussels

Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries

Effective utilisation of aid: Asia-Pacific LDCs recognise the importance of

addressing the “leaky bucket syndrome” through improved governance

and institution-building

ODA: increase, coordination, and effectiveness

A small amount of support from more developed partners would make

a huge difference to Asia-Pacific LDCs.


Recommendations on Aid for the MDGs(endorsed by the UN Special Body on LDCs and LLDCs in Bangkok, May 2005)

Actions by LDCs at the national level Good governance at all levels is a prerequisite for effective use of aid Better aid harmonisation and coordination – and a country-based approach that channels aid to

sectors where its impact is greatest Assessment of outcomes more important than assessment of available inputs – need to

strengthen domestic capacities for planning and project implementation, improve monitoring and evaluation, ensure better institutional coordination, and greater decentralisation of project implementation

Actions at the international level Aid should be front-loaded, primarily in the form of grants, not in the form of tied purchases -

meeting the targets in the Brussels Programme of Action, the Almaty Programme of Action and the Mauritius Strategy

Improving coherence among donors in areas such as policy conditionalities, trade regimes and technology transfer from donor countries – policy conditionalities should converge with recipient country priorities, thus promoting national ownership

Programme budget support as the main long-term strategy to assist LDCs – to indicate long-term donor commitment and to finance recurring costs, not only initial investments

Implement regional solutions to enable small economies to address costly issues by introducing economies of scale

Responding to the changing priority needs and concerns of Asia-Pacific LDCs over the years


Debt Relief in Support of the MDGsWeighted averages,

2002

Outstanding debt per-capita Debt relief per-capita

US$ Ratio US$ Ratio

Asia-Pacific LDCs

150 1.0 0.16 1.0

Other LDCs 255 1.7 1.64 10.3

Selected Asia-Pacific LDCs, 2002

Debt-to-GDP ratio Per-capita outstanding debt

Lao PDR 146% US$471

Vanuatu 71% US$785

Maldives 41% US$830

The debt burden and debt-servicing liability of Asia-Pacific LDCs have received little attention, compared to other LDCs. However, debt-to-GDP ratios and per-capita outstanding debt stand at high levels in some LDCs.


Debt Relief for Additional Resources

Severely indebted (4) Bhutan, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Samoa

Moderately indebted (2) Cambodia, Solomon Islands

Less indebted (4) Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal, Vanuatu

Not classified (4) Afghanistan, Kiribati, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu

•Since the introduction of the initiative for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) in 1995, 27 countries have benefited (US$ 70 billion)•No Asia-Pacific LDC has benefited from the HIPC initiative

•HIPC eligibility thresholds remain very high•Asia-Pacific LDCs have relatively good debt repayment records, relatively low debt-servicing ratios – reflecting their relatively prudent economic management

•In view of the pressing need to release additional resources to meet the MDGs in Asia-Pacific LDCs, it is imperative that this “better performance” not be penalized by exclusion from the HIPC Initiative.

All “severely indebted” and “moderately indebted” (as per World Bank classification, 2003) Asia-Pacific LDCs should be eligible for debt relief


Recent developments on debt relief• Mid 2005: Gleneagles G8 finance ministers announced 100% cancellation of debt owed to multilateral agencies by 18 of the 38 HIPC countries

-14 in Africa, 4 in Latin America-None of the beneficiaries are LDCs from Asia-Pacific

• Jan 2006: Multilateral debt relief initiative of IMF for 100% debt cancellation for 19 countries plus 20 more on eligibility under HIPC

• Bold and commendable - will enable poor countries to use resources saved for health, education and addressing income poverty

• But Asia-Pacific LDCs remain off the radar-Only 2 LDCs from the region (Lao PDR and Myanmar) are

classified as “eligible” on the HIPC list

Urgent need to re-examine the issue of debt relief from the perspective of generating additional resources to attain the MDGs


Recommendations on Debt Relief for MDGs (endorsed by the UN Special Body on LDCs and LLDCs in Bangkok, May 2005)

Any debt relief extended should be an add-on to ODA, not be at cost of ODA

Criteria for the selection of HIPC-eligible countries need to be reviewed, with particular attention to the unique challenges faced by the 4 “severely indebted” and 2 “moderately indebted” LDCs of Asia-Pacific

MDG-based needs assessments should prevail over arbitrary indicators such as debt-to-export ratios

Debt sustainability should be redefined as “the level of debt consistent with achieving the MDGs, reaching 2015 without a new debt overhang”


Degree of Openness and Per Capita Exports in 2003 for Various Groups of LDCs

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

APLDCs APLL-LDCs APSI-LDCs Other LDCs All LDCs

Country Groups

Deg

ree

of

op

enn

ess

(su

m

of

exp

ort

s an

d im

po

rts

as

% o

f G

DP

)

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0

Pe

r c

ap

ita

ex

po

rts

(c

urr

en

t U

S$

)

Degree of Openness in 2003 (per cent)

Per Capita Export, 2003 (Current US$)

Potential for trading out of poverty

Asia-Pacific LDCs have fairly open economies, most have embraced globalisation - potential for making trade work for development

6 are WTO members; 5 negotiating


STRUCTURE OF EARNINGS FROM GOODS EXPORTS AND REMITTANCE FLOWS IN ASIA-PACIFIC LDCs (% of foreign exchange earnings)

Country

Agricultural Products

(%)

Manufactured Items(%)

Other Merchandise

goods(%)

Total Merchandise

Exports(%)

Remittances(%)

Total Merchandise Exports +

Remittances (Million US$)

Afghanistan na na na 100 0 (100%) 135

Bangladesh 4.6 55.4 8.5 68.6 31.4 (100%) 10121.9

Bhutan 14.7 39.7 45.7 100 0 (100%) 116

Cambodia 0 88.2 5 93.1 6.9 (100%) 1815

Kiribati 88.9 0 11.1 100 0 (100%) 9

Lao PDR na na na 100 na (100%) 378

Maldives 67.3 31.9 0.9 100 na (100%) 113

Myanmar na na na 98 2 (100%) 2652.1

Nepal 8.1 51.7 28.1 87.8 12.2 (100%) 945.5

Samoa na na na 25.1 74.9 (100%) 59.7

Solomon Islands na na na 100 na (100%) 75

Vanuatu 54.1 5.4 10.8 70.3 29.7 (100%) 37

APLDCs (12) 7.7 59.4 10.0 81.9 18.1 (100%) 16427.2

Export structure reveals high contribution of labour-intensive exports, remittances and agriculture (for some) – trade-related support can lead to job creation and income generation for the poor

Earnings from remittances could be threatened by entry barriers to services markets in partner countries


Trading Out of Poverty: Some Concerns Phasing-out of the Multi Fibre Arrangement (MFA) and rise of textile/apparel

exports from China: adverse consequences for Bangladesh, Nepal, Cambodia and Lao PDR – particularly women

Supply-side constraints: inadequate domestic capacities limit gains from new market access opportunities offered under Generalised Schemes of Preferences (GSP)

Limited South-South trade: the structure of protection of developing countries often weighs more heavily on exporters from the LDCs than on those from developed countries

Fall in world prices of major exports from Asia-Pacific LDCs, for example, apparel prices

Non Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) negotiations: expected to bring down tariffs on manufactured goods, leading to considerable erosion of preferences currently enjoyed by Asia-Pacific LDCs

WTO Hong Kong, Dec 2005: limited progress Duty & quota free access for 97% of LDC products; new pledges on Aid for Trade End agri export subsidies by 2013; but no progress on ending domestic support New WTO deadline of April 30 2006 to agree ‘modalities’ (frameworks) for NAMA, agri and

comprehensive draft schedules of commitments based on agreed modalities by 31 July 2006


Recommendations on trade and market access(as endorsed by the UN Special Body on LDCs and LLDCs in Bangkok, May 2005)

Actions at the national level Mainstreaming trade into overall development plans Social impact assessments of trade liberalisation options

Actions at the international level Providing WTO-bound duty- and quota-free market access for all exports Enhancing market access under preferential schemes

A scheme similar to the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) could be extended to the LDCs of Asia-Pacific

More commercially meaningful commitments in terms of temporary movement of natural persons and cross-border supply of services such as outsourcing

Simplifying and streamlining WTO accession process – investing resources in ‘real’ priorities for LDCs

Increasing technical assistance for human resources development – negotiating capacity of trade negotiators, implementation capacity, etc.

Increasing funds allocated to improve productive capacity and other supply-side responses

Providing special and differential concessions to LDCs in regional and bilateral trade agreements

Addressing volatilities in the financial and monetary systems


Case for a Regional Compact Emerging positive trends in more south-south

cooperation Examples – China, India, Korea, Japan, Malaysia,Thailand

- more so in times of disasters (e.g., tsunami, earthquake) Address cross border issues – migration, trafficking, drugs,

diseases, conflict, environmental hazards

More could be done to help close the ‘development gap’ - no country benefits by having a poor neighbour Preferential market access Trunk infrastructure Ease legal labour movements


Key Messages Pro-poor growth in Asia-Pacific LDCs will raise standards of living of millions of people

contributing to peace, progress, and economic security all over the world – a “win-win

The moral argument is clear; in addition there is the Strategic argument: regional and global security will be enhanced

Commercial argument: dynamism of Asia-Pacific will permeate through the LDCs and markets for all partners will grow

Efficiency argument: LDCs have already demonstrated commendable progress towards achieving MDGs; with increased support, aid dependence will progressively decline

We appreciate the increased support to Africa; and call attention to the 120

million people from the poorest countries of Asia and the Pacific as well.

This is not a Utopian wish: it is realistic and possible in our generation

Travel

Voices Of The Least Developed Countries