Dialogue in Pursuit of Development - Are you looking for one of ...

66
PM: Before we have the annual dialogues, including the annual negotiations,
the mandate is discussed by our board and is then approved by the
Minister for Development Co-operation. There are things that it is necessary
to discuss that we have to cling to in the mandate, but it is flexible in
such a way that the delegation, depending on the situation, can make necessary
changes and bring up new issues. Actually, the whole process has been
simplified by the new government white paper on development cooperation
issued in February 2001. The list of 13–14 criteria in that paper is
always part of the discussions, but every country’s special situation naturally
decides what emphasis is to be put on each criterion.
When I was referring to the equality in the development dialogue, I was
talking about the old-fashioned donor/recipient relationship – a relationship
still reflected in discussions in many countries. Many partners are not
yet ready for an open discussion. The big issue today is how to promote a
more equal discussion in bilateral relationships, and maybe even more importantly
during international discussions within the WTO, UN, IBRD and
Regional Development Banks etc where the dialogue could be greatly improved.
Personally, I think that the development dialogues in which Finland takes
part are very comprehensive. Closely following what is going on within the
EU, the World Bank and the UN etc, assists us to better proceed in our
bilateral relationships and sometimes we can promote an issue on behalf of
our partner countries within the international fora.
So far, we have only discussed the formal dialogue between governments,
but then there is the large field of more informal contacts. These contacts
may be very important in trying to influence people. There are, of course,
big risks involved when people with money go around trying to influence
others with less money and that is actually yet another factor that should be
tackled when discussing dialogue. It is fortunate that the term ‘ownership’
has now been forcefully brought into the dialogue. We often feel that in
trying to tackle a problem within a project, we damage the ownership, but I
can’t see how we can handle crucial issues in any other way.
We are very good preachers of democracy in our bilateral relationships
and inside other countries, but we should also demonstrate that we know
what we are talking about when conducting our international affairs. These
are the kinds of issues raised in the present Finnish discussions. This is a
question of credibility.
CT: I am quite certain that conditionality has become even more prevalent
than it was earlier. Demands on cost recovery in education, water supply
and health have been enforced in many countries, often by conditions
set by the World Bank and the IMF. Often, it is easier to implement a proper
dialogue on a sector or project level, but one might run into problems here
as well. An example from the Swedish development co-operation would
be the paper and pulp factory, Bai Bang in Vietnam. Discussions and nego-