DP Assistant Administrator and Director, Regional Bureau for Asia and
the Pacific, was in town last week to release the Nepal Human
Development Report. The Post caught up with Xu for a little discussion
where he emphasised the need to set national priorities for foreign aid
and investment. Excerpts.
What do you make of the development challenges Nepal faces?
Nepal still needs to complete the transition from conflict to
development. The current situation seems to be very encouraging. We
can’t have a stable and peaceful environment to focus on development
without completing this transition. One of the challenges is to draft
the constitution so that all the parties and society can focus on
long-term development. I don’t feel that Nepal at this time has a longer
term development vision and plan. The most important policy objective
for Nepal is to graduate from the LDC status by 2022.
Nepal is to graduate from the Least Developed Cou-ntry (LDC) status by 2022. Is that target achievable?
Yes, it is possible. It requires a high growth rate for which we need
more investments from both domestic and external sources and public as
well as private investment, including direct foreign investment. If you
want to attract investment, you have to improve the environment for
investment. Investors consider mainly governance and red tape. The
physical infrastructure and software (internet connection and
legislative environment) are equally important to attract investors.
People also invest if they find the kind of human resources they need,
be they unskilled or skilled labourers or management personnel. The
government should also invest in developing human resources. It is
important to build the national capacity.
How will the low investment in human capital affect Nepal’s plan to become a middle-income country?
It will be difficult for the country to achieve the goal. The country’s
income level is low, the size of the economy is small and government
revenue is limited. To invest in human resource development is to
compete with investment in infrastructure and other social sectors.
Here, the government has harder choices to make. Our argument is that
you cannot choose one over the other. You have to mobilise donors to
support your objective. I have been arguing that the best way to attract
international support is to have a well designed national development
plan. Then you can decide in which areas you use domestic resources and
external resources.
There is a lot of criticism about aid dependence and foreign aid in Nepal. Do you think it really needs foreign aid?
Ordinary citizens will see no difference after having graduated from
the LDC status. However, it is a noble objective, the right thing to
pursue. Policymakers need to understand the implication in terms of aid
and trade. Being an LDC, you have a lot of preferential privileges in
terms of access to trade and facilities and in terms of grant assistance
to Nepal. Once you become a middle-income country, donors will reduce
aid immediately. And you will not be eligible for certain preferential
treatment for trade. Nepal should not always depend on aid. It is better
to prepare for the exit, for which you have to build your capacity,
deal with the complexities of trade agreements and deal with more
effective management of limited resources.
Regarding the criticism of aid, I think the government has some
legitimate concerns. The donors are fragmented. On the donor side, we
need to coordinate much better.
They should always support the national development objective, which
should be the national objective. If the government comes up with a
development plan outlining a clear priority, that will help everybody to
coordinate the aid and spend the aid according to the national plan.
There is a lot of talk about the effectiveness of development aid. UN agencies, including the UN DP, appear to be very scattered. Why is there this degree of fragmentation?
I have already mentioned some elements. I would like to see a national development framework as per which donors and the UN
DP can work. Second, we need to have a more result-oriented management
for aid effectiveness. We have a clear target, clear base line and clear
indicators to measure success and have more accountability to improve
aid effectiveness. The same goes for the government budget. The
government should look at effective management.
No comments:
Post a Comment