Government response to the second report from the Committee, Session 1997-98 : The development white paper second special report / International Development Committee.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. International Development Committee.
Date:
1998
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Government response to the second report from the Committee, Session 1997-98 : The development white paper second special report / International Development Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    6/10 (page 6)
    reflects the government’s commitment to ethical business and the development of voluntary codes of conduct in this area. A review of the Guidelines will take place later in 1998. Paragraph 24: Recommendation 10 The British Government had “put in reservations on the MAI on the question of poor labour standards and environmental protection to make sure that countries are not driven into creating incentives to attract investment that mean constantly cutting labour standards or cutting environmental standards”. We welcome this concern to protect core labour and environmental standards. The Government shares the Committee’s concern for the protection of core labour and environmental standards under the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). This is to be achieved through three “anchors”: the Preamble to the Agreement, the association of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, and a clause on “not lowering standards”. On this last provision, the Government is supporting a binding obligation not to derogate from labour or environmental standards in order to attract a specific investment. In addition, we are working with our negotiating partners to make it clear that the MAI should not interfere with the ability of governments to regulate in a non-discriminatory way to protect labour or environmental standards. Paragraph 25: Recommendation 11 We recommend that the Government provide more detail of its macroeconomic policy, and in particular the advantages and disadvantages of globalisation and the kinds of pro-poor policy which can be adopted to avoid marginalisation. We also recommend that the Government press for “poverty audits” to be applied to the proposals and structural adjustment programmes of multilateral institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. The Government notes the Committee’s concern for clarification in matters of macroeconomic policy and refers it to the note submitted by the Department to the Lomé Hearing (10 December 1997). Globalisation offers our partner governments an opportunity to engage in trade and to attract the investment which can help generate broad-based sustainable development. We share the Committee’s concerns about the dangers of marginalisation. DFID is currently leading efforts to take forward recommendations from a recent High Level Meeting hosted by the WTO to enhance market access and provide technical assistance for the least developed countries. DFID is also involved with the Commonwealth Trade and Investment Access Facility and a UNCTAD/ITC/WTO initiative which provides a broad programme of assistance to eight African countries. The Government welcomes the Committee’s recommendation for assessment of the poverty implications of stabilisation and adjustment packages. DFID has been working with other donors within the Special Programme for Africa to improve the treatment of poverty in adjustment, especially within the poverty and social policy working group which we co-chair with the World Bank. This group both identifies and communicates good practice approaches to the treatment of poverty, and seeks to monitor trends in poverty and the evidence on the effects of policy change. As part of this effort, DFID has for the last three years reviewed the treatment of poverty and gender issues in World Bank adjustment credit and policy frameworks for the poorest African nations. These issues are also addressed via our efforts at meetings of the Executive Board to improve Bank practice. There has been evidence of positive change in the last year. The Secretary of State for International Development met the IMF’s Managing Director, Michel Camdessus, on 20 February, and stressed the importance we attach to the attainment of the international development targets. She welcomed the emphasis Mr Camdessus placed on promoting high quality growth and reducing poverty at last year’s IMF/World Bank Annual Meetings, and encouraged him to look at how the IMF could co-operate further with the World Bank and other international financial institutions to tackle poverty. A report by external evaluators of the IMF’s Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility (ESAF), looking particularly at the impact of economic reform programmes on different poor groups, is to be considered by the IMF Board in March. DFID is studying the results carefully, and will be working with the Treasury (which leads within HMG on the IMF) on the UK’s response. The Government has also made proposals for improving the process by which the IMF, governments and donors work together in aid dependent countries.