URU, Alm.del - 2010-11 (1. samling) - Bilag 12: Parlamentarisk høring i De Forenede Nationer den 2.-3. december 2010 i New York.

The global economic and financial crisis is far from over. By most accounts, the recovery isweak and may stall. Yearly growth estimates for many leading economies are lower thanexpected. Worse still, unemployment remains at historic highs in many countries and shows nosigns of abating. The problem is more intractable than anticipated and a stronger, morecoordinated global response is needed.One year ago, the immediate response to the crisis emphasized the need for a counter-cyclicalstimulus to the global economy. Today, several leading economies are going into reverse gear,making budget cuts to reduce government deficits, both short and long term. While fiscalprudence has its merits, many fear that it is poorly timed, penalising the global recovery andthe economic prospects of the countries directly concerned.More important, some of the fundamental macroeconomic imbalances that led to the crisis inthe first place appear unchanged. Surplus exporting countries continue to have difficulties indeveloping their own internal demand, with the corresponding inability of deficit countries toovercome their competitive disadvantages. The international trade and finance regimecontinues to restrict domestic reform necessary to carry out policies to diversify the economyor protect against external shocks.Without a firm intention to correct these imbalances through new institutional arrangements,with better coordination of national macroeconomic policies, growth patterns may remainskewed and lead to further economic instability down the line.

-2-Leading questions:On balance, how do we assess the global response to the crisis?Are structural issues in the global economy being adequately addressed and areinstitutional arrangements up to the task?Have prospects for development and the Millennium Development Goals in particularimproved as a result of the response?Is this a good time for austerity measures and how should they be tailored to lessen theirnegative effects?How to ensure that the recovery is strengthened and will not be jobless?

Invited discussants:Rt. Hon. Malcolm Bruce, MP, Chair of the International Development Committee, Houseof Commons (UK)Mr. Robert Vos, Director, Development Policy and Analysis Division, Department ofEconomic and Social Affairs, United NationsAmbassador Lazarous Kapambue (Zambia), Co-chair of the ad-hoc Working Group of theGeneral Assembly on the global financial and economic crisisMr. John Cavanagh, Director, Institute for Policy Studies

3 p.m. – 6 p.m.Session IIReforming the international financial system: a critical look at key issues onthe UN agendaThe international response to the crisis over the last year has left a number of issuesunresolved, including key questions about debt management, capital movements, andcurrency reserves.Unsustainable debt levels have been a problem in the developing world for decades. Whilemultilateral initiatives have helped, the crisis has caused many countries, including middleincome ones, to incur new debts. A new debt crisis may be on its way. The recent upheavals inGreece highlighted how developed countries are not immune to the possibility of sovereigndebt defaults. One suggested remedy that has received particular attention is the establishmentof an international debt workout mechanism. Broadly, the proposal calls for an internationalsystem of debt restructuring, in the form of a court or other impartial arbitrator, similar to manycountries’ bankruptcy laws. While some countries would like to see this proposal come tofruition without further delay, others raise political or technical concerns.Excessive capital and financial liberalization was one of the root causes of the global crisis.Since the financial crisis, a few emerging market countries have instituted capital controls, andthe IMF has acknowledged that the use of capital controls can be effective under certainconditions. Yet, two years into the crisis, the general policy stance about capital movementsremains unclear. Innovative proposals such as the institution of a modest tax on short-termfinancial movements have yet to be agreed on. Some also question the capital liberalizationprovisions that are embedded in many trade agreements.Well before the crisis it was clear that the current reserve system was flawed. It has a tendencyto create excess global liquidity, volatile exchange rates, and by extension, generally unstablemacroeconomic conditions. However, the question of the feasibility of a global reserve system

-3-based on a basket of currencies – as opposed to a dominant currency - remains unresolved.While there is agreement today that the IMF-managed Special Drawing Rights should play abigger role, the potential of this remains far from clear.Leading questions:What is the problem with today’s debt management regime? How would an internationalworkout mechanism work in practice?Are capital controls necessary to stabilize the global economy and how should they beapplied?Should there be a tax on short-term (speculative) financial flows?How should the global reserve system be shaped to ensure stable exchange rates to helpsupport growth and development? Is a basket currency of sorts feasible?

Invited discussants:Mr. Abdullaziz Yari Abubakar MP, Chairman of the Aids, Loans and Debt ManagementCommittee, National Assembly (Nigeria)Ambassador Morten Wetland (Norway), Co-Chair of the ad-hoc Working Group of theGeneral Assembly on the global financial and economic crisisMs. Isabelle Mateos y Lago, Head of the Policy and Strategy Unit, Strategy, Policy andReview Department, IMFDr. Rodney Schmidt, Principal Researcher (Finance and Debt), The North-South Institute(Canada)

FRIDAY, 3 DECEMBER10 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.Session IIIRethinking sustainable development within the current global economic andenvironmental frameworkThe need for enhanced global governance also applies to the question of environmentalsustainability. Current patterns of consumption and production are incompatible with longterm environmental sustainability. With further population pressures on the horizon, coupledwith developing countries’ adherence to the predominant growth model, there is little doubtthat more economic upheavals are ahead unless decisive action is taken. Governments mustlead, but real change will also depend on the private sector.The problem of global environmental governance is clearly illustrated by the issue of climatechange, where an agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol is still out of reach. The reasons forthis are complex, but they boil down to a concern that internalizing greenhouse costs into theeconomy may hamper competitiveness, job creation, and growth. The international regime oftrade and finance is not always supportive of national climate change policies either. A reviewof trade and finance agreements from the standpoint of environmental sustainability is morenecessary than ever. There also has to be more coherence between trade agreements andenvironmental agreements.

The problem of environmental governance is compounded by the complexity of institutionalarrangements at the global level. Developing countries’ efforts to protect their natural resourcesand biodiversity, and to curb greenhouse emissions, will continue to depend on a viableregime of technology transfers and financing. Yet, for climate change alone, financing is brokendown into several facilities with complex rules and regulations. More important, internationalfunding commitments for the environment are only a fraction of the estimated need.Leading questions:How could global environmental governance be improved?Can decoupling of growth from the environment be achieved under the prevailingeconomic model?How can global financing for climate change be scaled up? Should there be a globalcarbon tax?Should funding mechanisms for the environment be consolidated?What are some of the tensions between trade agreements and the environment and howcan these be resolved?

Invited discussants:Ms. Luisa Dias Diogo, MP (Mozambique), former Prime Minister, member of the Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Global SustainabilityMr. Laszlo Borbely, MP, Minister of Environment and Forests of Romania, Chair of theUnited Nations Commission on Sustainable DevelopmentMs. Marianne Fay, Co-Director, World Development Report, World BankMs. Yolanda Kakabadse, President of the WWF InternationalPrivate sector representative

The global economic crisis has exposed the need for stronger regulation and intervention in theeconomy, nationally and internationally. The G20, a forum of industrialized countries andemerging economies, took the lead in providing the most immediate response to the crisisleading to a coordinated global stimulus package of some $5 trillion. The G20 now definesitself “as the premier forum for international economic cooperation” and is acting as a centralcoordinator of national macroeconomic policies as well as the main driver in the reform ofinternational financial institutions.Yet, the place of the G20 in global economic affairs remains a subject of debate. As a recentdiscussion in a special Working Group of the UN General Assembly shows, many countriestake issue with the G20. As a self-appointed informal body of a few countries, they argue, itlacks legitimacy. While recognizing the economic weight of the G20 (representing some 85%of global GDP), several countries argue that the decisions of the G20 affect everyone and soshould be taken by a more representative body such as the United Nations. They furthercontend that the G20 lacks an enforcement and oversight mechanism to ensure accountabilityand transparency.

In short, the concern is that the G20’s pre-eminence undermines the authority of the UnitedNations as the only organization with global membership where every country has a voice.There is no shortage of ideas as to how the United Nations could strengthen its position as thesteward of global economic affairs. A commission of experts (Stiglitz Commission) thatexamined this question last year recommended the establishment of a Global EconomicCoordination Council composed of a small number of countries (each representing a largerconstituency of countries) to supplement the ECOSOC as a faster decision-making body, aswell as the establishment of an Intergovernmental Panel of experts to analyze systemic risks inthe global economy. Neither proposal has gained much support, however.While everyone recognizes that the G20 has a role to play, there is a need to better define thisrole vis-à-vis that of the United Nations.Leading questions:Should decisions of the G20 be subject to further debate by the full membership of theUnited Nations before they become “binding” on the international community?How, institutionally, should the G20 be linked to the United Nations?Should the proposals of the Stiglitz Commission for two new economic bodies be placedback on the agenda?What role should parliaments play in providing greater transparency and accountability inglobal economic governance?