Parliamentary Actions and Cooperation for Poverty Reduction

Thank you very much to you, Mr. Koenders [Bert Koenders, Member of Parliament, The Netherlands, Chair of the PnoWB], and Mr. Frey [Claude Frey, Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Switzerland]. It is very nice to see you and friends again. When I was first in Switzerland in 1959-60, doing some teaching in Lausanne, I dreamed of becoming a Swiss citizen. I was told that this could be possible if I knew some people in Berne. Never did I believe that I would one day be standing in the very Parliament, this important place, giving an address.

This is a pleasure for me because I feel that Switzerland has added enormously during the ten years of its participation in the World Bank. It has been a very constructive partner with us. We have done many things together and I see Walter Frei at the back who has just returned from Vietnam. After my seven years in office, he told me that things are actually working in the field. I said, "I told you so", to which he replied that "In Switzerland, seeing is believing, but touching is even better." He has seen that with our work in Vietnam, there is in fact a far greater contact with the people with whom we are working. I believe that all of you, as parliamentarians, can most assuredly continue your observations and your criticisms of the institution, but I think that I can report to you that there has been real progress. It is progress towards what Mr. Frey was talking about; participation and a true sense of trying to make our institution democratic.

That is the reason that we are particularly happy to have the opportunity to be with you here today, and also to have our colleagues in Burundi, India and Uganda with us by satellite. Let me quickly tell you where I think we are in relation to the development process that is ongoing. We had our meetings in Monterrey as President Whad told you. These meetings not only discussed NEPAD, the African initiative, but spoke also about a new partnership that is very similar in form to the partnership of NEPAD. The partnership is very simple to state but very difficult to achieve. It says basically that the countries that are in a stage of development undertake to manage their countries on a basis of building the capacity of their administration, and of dealing with the question of legal and judicial reform so that human and property rights can be protected. These countries would also have a financial sector that is transparent and makes funds available from the highest level of business down to micro-credit. This would be a transparent and deep financial system. Finally, this partnership involves the combat against corruption, a cancer that affects so many parts of the world, including the developed world.

This was the set of undertakings that was given by the leaders of the developing world; not conditional, not imposed, not insisted upon, but offered. These undertakings were offered because it makes sense for the citizens of developing countries to live in environments where they can enjoy equal access, equal opportunity and voice. That was on the one side.

The other side included the undertakings that were given by the developed countries. They simply said, "If you do that, we will assist on capacity building, we will open our markets to trade and we will increase development assistance." This is a very simply stated partnership but one where there is a mutual requirement to ensure that the conditions are fulfilled. This is of course, an issue that not only relates to the signatories of this agreement, the administrators. It is a set of conditions that exists on both sides and which comes directly back to the parliamentary bodies.

In this partnership, it is impossible for either side to perform without the support of the parliamentary bodies. Therefore, parliamentarians are facing a situation where there are undertakings from the leadership on both sides to have a form of partnership that requires support from the parliamentary bodies. It is clearly stated; it is out there and now it needs to be done. It is for the parliaments to decide whether they are willing and able to meet the conditions on each side. I can tell you that it is already being done in some countries and not being done in other countries. It is typically, in my experience, a tough thing to do if you try to introduce legislation on legal and judicial reform, replace judges and change legislation and try and change a culture that may not have been at the highest level of judicial procedure, equity or justice. It easy to state this but difficult to implement.

The same is true of corruption, particularly in countries where corruption is on both sides of the partnership, from the head of state down. I have had dozens of discussions in many countries – I have now been to one hundred and twenty countries – on the subject of corruption. These discussions are very often the same. The language used is always the same. "Corrupt? Not us. Me? No. Head of State? Impossible. Parliament? Never! Legal system? Incomprehensible. Nothing ever happens in any country." In fact, the opposite is true. People look at you as if to say that only a handful of minor civil servants are involved in corruption when both of us know that corruption often goes to the very top. This is not an issue that the bank can fix by edict or that any individual can fix by statement. This is something that requires momentum-building in terms of dealing with a question that is very often deeply ingrained in the functioning of the society. We are often told that a customs official cannot refuse bribes if he is not paid enough to live on. How can a government official fulfil the needs of his family if he is paid half of a living salary?

These are issues that are known very well to you. To me, they represent very serious challenges to this partnership. This is because I am concerned about the fact that the partnership is now very clearly stated and it can now be very easy for neither side to perform. Or, in the event that the performance is not up to a standard that the donor countries are looking for, then they can say, "Look, you have not done what we said. Where is the honest legal system? Where is the corruption being eradicated? Where is the organisation? What have you done on Capacity Building?"

This agreement that was reached in Monterrey - which on the surface is wonderful - requires an enormous and consistent pattern of behaviour that will not change the current situation overnight. I therefore simply say to you that what is now most critical is that if these undertakings have been given, we work together over a period of years in order to insure that these undertakings are met. I would add the dimension of time to the agreement that was signed. This will not happen overnight. It requires consistent and most effective work by the parliamentary bodies to make sure that this gets done. This is because the pressure in countries comes from parliamentary bodies, which sometimes need to clean up their acts themselves. It is therefore really quite important that the group that is here, that understands these issues and that is committed to this sort of programme, can take a programme that is clearly stated but also recognise that it is a challenge that will take five to ten years to implement. The changing of a culture is not completed overnight. We need to be honest with each other that these cultures do not change overnight, any more than the culture of the World Bank has changed overnight. Changing our culture to be a listening, non-aggressive, consultative culture that also listens to cultural differences has taken time. It has taken me seven years with my colleagues to try and turn the ship around and I believe that we have succeeded. It is no easier in a country and it takes time, commitment and honesty to say what are the real problems.

This leads me to the second point. What we have decided at the Bank is the philosophy that we have discussed tonight. We decided at the Spring meetings that we have had the needed discussions and debates, so now let us talk about implementation. It is now the time to implement what we know needs to be done. There is no debate on the fundamentals.

For our next meeting, we have decided to take two or three specific objectives in which we can see whether each side will perform. These are based on the consultative process of the Comprehensive Development Framework and the Poverty Reduction Strategies which have led to discussion with governments, with our colleagues in the international institutions, with civil society, with the private sector, and with parliamentarians. I do not go to a country now without seeking permission to see the parliamentarians.

The problem of consultation between partnerships and the administrations of the country is not a problem that is created by the World Bank. It is something that we come into. You can blame us for not consulting with you. You can say that it would be so much better if you were to deal with parliamentary committees than dealing with those people who are in the administration. After all, we have the power. I would ask you to consider for a moment that it is not we who create your relationship with the administration. We are obligated to deal with the administrations of the countries with which we deal. They are our shareholders and our governors. The governor from each of the countries is not a representative of the parliament. It is the Finance minister or the Development minister. They are the people who are my bosses, according to statute. When I come to parliaments, and it varies by country, I have to obtain the approval of the ministers. Can you imagine me coming to a country and setting up independent meetings with parliamentary supervisory bodies without the approval of my host? It is simply not possible. If you open the doors, I want to speak to Parliament. We want to consult. Who is more representative of civil society than elected parliamentary bodies? But you have to help us by dealing with the government officials if you want a broader and deeper contact. We will welcome you at the Bank. We will do anything that is reasonable. As you know, we have done it very often for gatherings like this and for groups.

The effectiveness of either the Bank or the Fund dealing with parliamentary bodies is a function of your existing domestic relationship between the Parliament and your Administration. That is something that I cannot solve. It is something that I can be supportive of or be ready to follow enthusiastically. I would however urge not simply to shoot the messenger. We are there to try and work with you because we know that if we are coming up with something, it needs parliamentary support. I must tell you that in many cases when that does not happen, the Administration says that it is the Parliament that will not approve this. We are ready to fulfil any undertakings but I would urge you to think in terms of that linkage that is essentially domestic and your problem. We will be supportive but help us.

Let me now pass to what we are doing in terms of our development strategy and this partnership. We are going to focus on three specific things. First, we are going to do a fast track on education in ten countries. This is because our own research and the general principles arising out of the Millennium Development Goals have shown that education is clearly central. We are therefore going to take ten countries of varying levels and try and see how we can work within the framework of this partnership in order to deal with what we call "Fast-Tracking Primary Education in Ten Countries." We will look at the inhibitions, the need for funding and how we can frame programmes that are not those required for one year but those that are instead needed for ten years. Remember that you cannot change an education system in one or two years. We have to start at the beginning and retrofit some of what we are doing over a protracted period. The key change that we will have in the world is with the education system. So we are seeking to do this and will then confront the donors and say, "In these ten countries, this is the additional support that we need." It will not be theoretical but will be practical. We can then see what it feels like to commit for ten-year programmes in countries to ensure that they get universal primary education for boys and girls.

The second area that we are prioritizing is healthcare and in particular HIV/AIDS; HIV/AIDS because we have an international trust fund and assistance from the bank. There is actually a lot of money available for fighting HIV/AIDS - but what are the inhibitions? Are they social, cultural, administrative or due to a lack of will? I nearly always wear an AIDS button when I go to certain countries because although they are full of AIDS problems, people are not recognising that it is the main challenge. We are therefore going to focus on it and see what are the opportunities and difficulties.

The third thing that we will look at is rural development and in particular enfranchisement of local communities. We have discovered that not making poor people the object of charity but instead part of the solution - by giving the responsibility to the people in poverty and in the field - is the most effectively proven way of leveraging up the activities that we have. Very often, this can be done through existing levels of governance. In India, the Punchayat level is very effective in running things. This is not true in all countries. Sometimes, it has to be done directly. That will be the third thing that we do. So from our point of view, you can expect no more philosophy. At the partnership level we will take these three specific areas and bring them to the annual meeting and to Johannesburg where of course, we will add the other issues of sustainability and environmental considerations that will be part of the Johannesburg conference.

I believe that we are now at the stage in the whole development paradigm where we have established that it should be consultative, that it should include parliamentary bodies as well as civil society and private sector. The donors need to get their act together in order to work better together. The partnership between the developed countries and developing countries is now set up in a framework and we are now going to test it in practice. I believe that this represents real progress. It will mean that we will be coming back to you in order to see, in many cases, whether the parliamentary bodies are also prepared to act. This will be a test of the relationship between the administration and the parliamentary bodies because all of us have to work together. This is the message that I want to give you. We have moved philosophy towards action and we look forward to working with you. I will be delighted to take questions if there are any. Thank you very much.

A representative from India: This is Ramanja Mishra, a Member of Parliament in the Upper House. I was formerly Chief Justice of the country and Chairman of the Human Rights Commission. We have very carefully listened to your address, Mr. President, and we feel that we are at one with you in the philosophy; that it is a question of implementation. India is a large country and we have areas of every type available in the world awaiting development. We need a lot of co-operation, a lot of funds and continuous reaction. We are prepared, as members of Parliament, to co-operate fully with your activities. We are prepared also to work out the administration and develop the understanding so that there may not be any difficulty in implementation. What is necessary is the continuous flow of friendliness. We must have the feeling that this is not a gift from one part of the country or world to the other part. It is a continuous process of discharging the universal responsibility that is on every shoulder of mankind for the development of the world home. It is in India that we realise that the world was one family and the whole world was one home. This was about 7,000 years ago. This realisation has held humanity together and has given a philosophy to mankind that has been persistent in trying to improve mankind to a higher order. The question is how much co-operation you require and how much co-operation you are looking for. If you look for co-operation, it will be ever flowing from parliamentarians in this country. We agree about the questions that you have raised and believe that it is necessary. We will maintain these questions in our working. Please kindly tell us what exactly will be the process of activity of working and what will require our constant attention on the work that you are trying to look at through participation. Participation can be at many levels and we are prepared to participate in a whole way in order to support the activity. The three branches that you indicated – Education, Health and Rural Development – seem to be of great importance to India. At the moment, we are also engaged in these activities and have to work it out.

Mr. Wolfensohn: Thank you for your question, Mr. Justice Mishra. Let me first of all say that India is a special case because it represents 1 billion people out of the 6 billion people on the planet. We are therefore dealing with not just a country but with a world. As I have discovered, as I have travelled all over your country, there is everything in your country from the very poor to the very rich. It is clear that the Bank can have an influence but even with the very substantial programme that we have, it is very difficult to affect the whole country. What we are doing in your country is something that is occurring in quite a number of areas. We are working through the central governments in order to reach the provincial governments who, essentially in your country, are competing for funds. They are saying that we will adopt the following programmes under the direction of the federal government and we will work together at the provincial level and sometimes even at the city and state levels. This is because in a country of your size, we find that in order to be hands-on, we need to be dealing at a smaller level than in dealing at a level of 1 billion people. We are therefore working with your government at two levels; first at the strategic level centrally and then at the implementation level through the states. We have found, Sir, that this is the way in which we can be effective except then we have two elected bodies to deal with; the federal body and the state body. So we are finding that the course of consultation is doubled and then when we go from the state to the city level, one has another group of elected officials to deal with. So as we get closer to the project itself, we have to deal with multiple agencies; three lots of officials and three lots of elected officials. This is where it becomes very wearing on the part of our colleagues because you need to have everyone on-side but you must also have the support of your elected colleagues as you move down. So India is a special case with which we have now been working for several years at the state level. I can give you one example. If you take Andhra Pradesh of which there is a representative here, it is a state of 80 million people. We are seeking to assist the government in their work on technology and on e-government. They are laying fibre optic cables to reach 80 million people so that they can do e-government in every village and every town. For most of our clientele, their countries are not 80 million people in size. In your country, in one state, we are hitting 80 million people with the state leader and we have moved from federal to state and now we are moving to city level in your state, as you know well. The point that I am trying to make is that the scale of this enterprise is enormous. We need to work together to ensure that successful examples can be replicated in other places. It is terrific if we deal with 80 million people but we still have another 920 million people in India who may not have that same experience. So we need to do two things in the work that we do. We have to bridge parliamentary elections so that we can have these programmes that go beyond a parliamentary cycle. This is because changing things is not typically done in two or four-year cycles. It requires a ten-year commitment. Secondly, we need to think of the issue of scale, how we can take projects that work and scale them up. Sir, the question that you ask is very specific and I am giving you just a sketchy answer. However, I am telling you that in India, the problems are very different than they are in smaller countries. We are essentially dividing India up, with the assistance of your government, into a series of smaller countries where one state can have 80 million people. That gives you a sense of the scale of the problem that we have to deal with.

A representative from Burundi: Good morning from Bujumbura. The first statement will be made by Honourable Angel Nihuhiru who is the Secretary General of the National Assembly.

Angel Nihuhiru: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, Good Morning. I have no specific issue to raise for the moment on what has just been said. I would just like to take this opportunity to convey sincerely my gratitude to the World Bank for all the activity that has so far been accomplished to assist Burundi, particularly during the last nine years of social and economic crisis. Mr. Chairman, Burundi has never before been in such need of help in order to fight an increasing poverty that nowadays deeply strikes all the strata of its population. Allow me to take this opportunity to ask you to increase the loans granted to our country in order alleviate poverty and fight against the scourge of Aids. I would also like to say that our National Assembly is happy and proud to belong to The Parliamentary Network on the World Bank. I would finally like to launch an urgent appeal to the World Bank to be our faithful intermediary towards the donors. Thank you.

Mr. Wolfensohn: I would simply say that I hope to be in your country in eight weeks time and that we are certainly trying to give you the support that you are seeking and we look forward to our continuing work in a more peaceful environment.

A representative from Uganda: Thank you very much. My name is Ifram Kamuntu and I am a Member of Parliament and Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Finance, Planning and Economic Development. We have a team that is present in Berne and so I am making a comment from home. My first comment is to the President of the World Bank, Mr. Wolfensohn. You talked about partnership. Meaningful partnership can only be a partnership of equals based on shared vision, comparative advantage and the specialisation of skills. I would like to hear your comments on the relationship between the World Bank and member countries, particularly Uganda. To what extent can you say that the partnership that you have with Uganda is a partnership of equals based on those comments that I have made, both in terms of policy analysis and implementation and monitoring of outcomes. That is my first comment. My second comment, Mr. President, relates to the three areas that I have mentioned, areas of education, health and rural development. In Uganda, the introduction of universal primary education has had a positive impact and you can see that the number of students enrolled in primary school has jumped from 6 million to 6.7 million children. That has posed new challenges in terms of the quality of education being received, the student-teacher ratio and the teaching materials. But more seriously, 88% of our children are stunted because they do not have sufficient food. I would appreciate your comments on whether universal primary education should not be taken in tandem with nutrition.

I am a Member of Parliament and visit these schools. By 11 o’clock, the children in Primary Two, Three, Four and Five – who are very young and have nothing to eat at school– will not be learning anything from this time for this reason. Does the partnership consider that it is not just a question of going to class to learn Arithmetic, English and History? The student has to have something in his stomach in order to help him to learn. This is an issue that is critical. On the question of HIV/ADIDS, I think that an effort has been made but still, when one has 1.9 million affected by HIV and 1.7 million children under the age of the fifteen being orphaned, this challenge is still formidable. My last comment relates to rural development. I represent a rural constituency and 90% of Ugandans live in rural areas. If we can measure the priority that is put on rural development, we could look at the budget and find out if 90% of the budget corresponds to 90% of the people living in rural areas. To what extent, for instance in your relationship with our country, do you see the budget allocation of national resources going to where most people stay, the rural areas? My last comment, Mr. President. You made a reference to your interaction with countries and heads of state in relation to corruption. You mentioned, "You talk about corruption and everyone says that he is not corrupt but behind this you know that this is happening." What have you done or what should be done? If you know that it is happening, in your own words you know that it is happening. And then what? If the issue is implementation, then what? Mr. President, I would like to thank you very much indeed. I was invited to be present in Berne but cannot attend because Parliament is in session. Let me add that lack of means have added to my problems. I am privileged that the technology has made it possible for me to participate while still at home.

Mr. Wolfensohn: Thank you very much. Let me try quickly to answer the questions. Firstly, on the question of partnership of equals, I truly believe that we have moved away from trying to dictate what is done in a country before we visit the country. The whole basis of the consultative process now, of the Comprehensive Development Framework, and of the Poverty Reduction Strategies is to have consultation. The evidence that we have had thus far from 38 countries is that clearly the consultative process is working, but at different paces. Some are working spectacularly well and in other cases, less well. The one thing that I can tell you is that the momentum is now clear and the existence of a comprehensive process has now been acknowledged by the G-8, by the Monterrey consensus and by the preliminary work being done for Johannesburg. So all I can say is that there has been a seismic shift in the last seven years towards a more equal process. I believe that we have made a lot of progress and I think that we will continue to make progress. The battle is not yet won but I think that as we get a better trust on either side, it will develop. On Education For All, let me say that we are the people that have, I think, introduced the notion that education is not just getting the kids to the school door. It is about getting them to the door, giving them an education and making sure that they finish knowing something.

In that sense, the Millennium Development Goals need to be examined more carefully than just number crunching. That is the way in which we are proceeding in all our education programmes, looking at both quality and sustainability. I would add to that point that we always link nutrition to the education process. This is because in too many of our countries, 25-30% of the kids are physically damaged by the time that they get to school, because of lack of nutrition, or continue to have damage done to them in their early years, once again because of lack of nutrition. So the linkage between health and education is undeniable and it needs to be part of the programme - otherwise you have children who are seeking to learn but who are incapable of learning because they are being physically affected. On the attribution of budget in your country, I really can not tell you very much because I do not know other than to say that of the 1.2 billion people living in poverty around the world, 80% of them live in rural areas. It is therefore crucial that one deals with the question of rural areas and that it what we are trying to do.

Finally, on the question of corruption, the great difficulty about corruption is that probably everyone in this room and everyone on the screens knows precisely what we are talking about. They know where it is, they know who is corrupt, they can tell almost to the dollar how much they are getting, and they can quietly tell you how it happens and in some cases, some of the people to whom you are talking are corrupt themselves. So this is an extraordinarily difficult issue. It is reality and as I have said three times, it happens on both sides of the divide, both on the developing and developed sides. In Europe, I remind you, until 12 months ago, in many countries bribes were deductible for tax purposes. So this is a matter that you in Parliaments have fixed and are continuing to fix. It is clear that this is an endemic issue. The only thing that I can say is that it is necessary to stand up and fight it. It is also very difficult. Some of the comments made last night about our imperfections in terms of effectiveness - I know and the speakers know it – they can be the result of corruption. This is a hidden subject but is also a real subject. The only thing that we can do about that is to be transparent and try and put light on it. I remind you that until six years ago, the President of the World Bank was not allowed to speak about corruption. When I arrived at the Bank, I was told that, "You cannot use the "C" word." The "C" word was corruption. I asked why and they said it is political and " You are not allowed to speak about political issues." That is true. The General Counsel took me aside. No President of the World Bank, until six years ago, had ever made a speech with the word "corruption" in it. When I made the speech at the annual meeting and talked about the cancer of corruption, within six months it was on the agenda of the Development Committee and 12 months later every minister talked about corruption. The question is, if you talk about it, that is one thing but if you do something about it, that is another. What we need to do is to have the support of a group like this that is so transparently honest that you can lead your colleagues into understanding that this is for many, the central issue. I say therefore that we join you in the fight but that it is a fight that we have to do together.

I would like to make just one other point, if I may, Mr. Koenders, and that is this: The one other change that has occurred in Monterrey and in our thinking is as a result of 11 September. There is a greater understanding that of the 6 billion people in the world, 5 billion live in developing countries and 1 billion live in developed countries. It used to be the case that many people thought that if you live in a developed country, you could live behind a wall and that the developing world was out there. Many people thought that if you were kind-hearted or adventurous, you go out and do something in the developing world and then come back to the safety and the environment of the developed world. This has not been true for years, but it was a state of mind. 11 September brought to the attention, at least of the American public, that events that happen elsewhere can have a direct and specific impact on people behind that wall. For me, the image of the World Trade Centre collapsing was the image of this imaginary wall coming down. We are linked by environment, by crime, by finance, by trade, by drugs and by terror. What is necessary for all of us to understand in an inter-parliamentary group is that this issue of equity and of poverty is now something that is a universal issue. It is not an issue for each country; it is an issue of global stability and peace.

And it is not a static issue. The world will move from 6 billion to 8 billion in the next 30 years. All but 50 million people will go to the developing world. In the year 2030, it will be 7 billion out of 8 billion. Today, the split of income is 80:20; 80% of the income to one-fifth of the world. The real challenge that all of us have, from the developed and developing countries, is confronting that issue. I believe that 11 September was a point in time when at least some people recognised that there are no walls. I would urge this body to think in terms of a world without walls. That is why this group is so important to come together. This is because what each of you is doing is not from a separate country. You come together as parliamentarians of that single planet. Maybe we can fuse together an understanding of the interests of each of us, which are the same. The issue of global equity and the issue of global peace are the issue of poverty. If we cannot deal with the questions of poverty and equity, there will be no peace for any of us. I wanted to say that, Mr. Koenders, because I think that of all the things that happened since we last met, this needs to be addressed because it changes the nature of your group. It is not just one country talking to another in order to gain experience. It is fusing a group that faces a common problem and that problem is global stability. I think that it makes it even more important in what you are doing. That is just an aside that I wanted to add.

From Bangladesh: Thank you Mr. President. First of all, I must say that it is always such a privilege to listen to you. I was a little disappointed last night but you assured us that you would be speaking today. It was indeed a pleasure to listen to you. Coming from Bangladesh, a very poor country, I would like to tell you at the same time that we have not been listed as one of the HIPC countries. Over the past 30 years, we have borrowed nearly USD 30 billion, mainly from the World Bank, Asian Development Bank and other bilateral donors. We kept up our repayments by using our own means and by working on the major policy of poverty eradication. Although we have not achieved many successes, somehow we have been able to carry on. One of the reasons why we succeeded was that we set our own agenda. As you rightly mentioned, one of the agendas that we picked up was education. We took a decision one month ago that in primary schools, each student will be paid 100 taka per month, the equivalent of USD 2 per month. This project was started with our own money. The World Bank came to support us as they assumed that it was a good project. We also supported Women’s Scholarship programmes in the girls’ schools up to the pre-university level. Each girl is given a free study stipend of USD 2 per month. Once again, this is a programme that was not initially supported by the World Bank. The World Bank came later to appreciate this programme and came to our support. These are some of the ways that we tried to go forward. More recently; with the globalisation and with the squeezing of the trade regime, we are facing problems with our foreign exchange reserves. The consequent reduction in the garment industry has led us to embark on a new area that is called the Information and Communication Technology. A new ministry was created last month and I have been given responsibility for the portfolio of this new ministry. This is an area where, I would like to say, we will need your support, both moral and substantial. Thank you very much.

From Kenya: Mr. President, the areas that you have touched on – Education, Health and Rural Development- are very important areas. As you are going to deal with them, I would like to ask: What you are going to do with the old neo-liberal policies that you had for countries like ours in terms of health, education and cost sharing. Are you going to change those policies to ensure that you actually deal with these issues effectively? On rural development, agriculture is obviously an important issue and through the earlier policies of liberalisation, you made us not subsidise our agriculture. This caused a lot of problems in various countries. Are you going to change these neo-liberal policies that you had implemented in the past? Thank you.

Mr. Wolfensohn: Let me try first of all to answer on Bangladesh and HIPIC. The fact is that we had to draw the line somewhere and in effect, your good behaviour counted against you because you have been able to live within the framework of your borrowings and paid back your debts. What this has done is give you greater access to the credit markets. We, I think, have been very supportive of your country and will continue to be so because of that. On the issue of technology, our institution is putting a lot of emphasis on it. One of the things I’d like to mention is that we have video facilities in 100 countries now. We are setting up distance learning facilities in 100 countries; we are already at 40. For you to meet your colleagues visually is now a practical reality. We run 1000 videoconferences per month in the Bank at this moment. So if you and any of your colleagues ever want to meet without the physical movement, we are more than willing to make it available to you. As for this last question on policies of the Bank and what we think and do not think in terms of neo-liberal policies, we do not espouse payment for education in public school systems or in health systems. We want to make it as open as possible for people to get access to education and the availability of information on our education and health programmes can be obtained on-line if you want the details, or you can write to me. It is enough to say that we were and are very supportive of universal education and healthcare in Africa for free. Those are the programmes that we are seeking to do. If that is a neo-liberal policy, then I am very happy that we have that policy.

I would also say that, in terms of agriculture, we are vigorously fighting against the issue of subsidies of the importing countries. The simple number is this. The developed countries are providing overseas development assistance at the level of around USD 55 billion per year. The level of agricultural subsidies today in developed countries is USD 350 billion per year. Agricultural subsidies in Europe and the United States run at six to seven times the size of the total of overseas development assistance. This represents USD 1 billion per day in assistance to farmers in developed countries. The issue of trade and in particular the issue of trade in agriculture and agricultural goods is the single biggest problem for many of the developing countries where the cost of production is much less but where access to the market is limited because of subsidies and tariffs. Consequently, the trade element is not made possible for the developing countries to work their way out of their problems and increase the standard of living. You will therefore find in all our statements a vigorous attack on subsidies. It is almost the most important issue in terms of development. If we get another five or ten billion dollars in ODA, it is important but if we could cut subsidies from USD 350 billion to USD 100-150 billion, it opens a space for developing countries to export. But that is the Doha round. We are trying very hard and you all need to work very hard in order to recognise that trade is integral to development assistance. That sort of decision is a very difficult decision for many of the countries to take. We have seen recently in the United States that they are thinking of increasing subsidies and it will not be too long, I am sure, before other countries respond. That is going in exactly the wrong direction. We are therefore fighting it as much as we can but we need all your help to do that. There is no question that trade is, if not the central issue, an equally central issue as the issue of Overseas Development Assistance. So if that is a neo-liberal policy then that is the one that we are following.