To begin, I’d like to highlight some of the World Bank
Group’s most recent successes in nations and regions present at the Whirled Trade
Organization’s Lexington Round Meetings:
- As of November 2014, the Bank’s $180 million IBRD
infrastructure loan to four cities in China significantly strengthened the
capacity for urban planning to create a better urban environment for more than
3 million people.
- In June, a $100
million Floods Emergency Recovery Project was approved to aid those most
affected by the worst flooding recorded in history in Bosnia.
- Over past two
decades, the World Bank has contributed over $1.4 billion in financing
for rural water supply and
sanitation in India, and
about 24 million people in have benefited from these programs.
- In Brazil, the World Bank has given
technical and financial support to a program reaching 13 million impoverished
families who have never benefited from social programs.
- The World Bank's,
more specifically the IDA’s, largest contributions lie in the African Union. The IDA’s chief
goal is poverty reduction by providing concessional loans and grants to
programs that boost economic growth and ultimately improve living conditions. Between
2003-2013, the IDA provided $66 billion in financing for projects in
Sub-Saharan Africa and between 2005 and 2008, the number of people living on
less than $1.25 a day fell by 9 million. [1]
This worker takes a break from weeding peppers on Sudo Forto's farm. Since receiving assistance from the World Bank in 2010, Forto has expanded his operations and hopes to employee more people soon. (Bosnia)
Newly constructed sewer interceptors and pipelines along the Jinsha River (China)
As a representative
of The World Bank Group, I would like to speak on behalf of the International
Development Association (IDA), the sector of the World Bank that helps the
world’s poorest countries. To be eligible for such funds, countries must meet
the following criteria: 1) Relative poverty defined at GNI per capita $1,215 or
below (2015), 2) Lack creditworthiness to borrow on market terms [1]. To put definitions
in perspective, the US’s most recent GNI per capita measure stands at $53,960. While
the IDA processes are important to understanding the branch’s functionality, in
the interest of timing and objectives, I will not go into great detail. Rather,
I would like to address points III and IV on the WTO agenda.
The IDA and World Bank agree that NTBs, especially in the
areas of agriculture, that are prohibited include those technical trade
barriers that are not demonstrated to be unsafe for human consumption. I’d like
to reiterate the conditions of those least developed countries, which have
limited capital and resources, and furthermore are unable to repay loans with
near-zero interest rates. According to research done by the WTO in 2002, unfair
First World (trade) barriers have cost developing countries US$700 billion a
year in lost export earnings [5]. Unfair restrictions qualify as those products
that are not fully proven to be unsafe. Trade restrictions like these are
disadvantageous to developing countries because these barriers are frequently
applied to products where developing countries have a comparative advantage,
such as agriculture. The process behind deeming products unsafe remains somewhat ambiguous, and perhaps requires a more leveled, transparent method. If these discriminations are unmanaged or unrestricted,
the World Bank will be hindered from reaching its main goal of extreme poverty
reduction.
Regarding point IV, my initial concern results from the
wording of the statement. While it reads, “no member nation shall provide
direct subsidies or financial support…”, I would like to establish and ensure
that this will not extend to aid and development institutions such as the World
Bank. Concerning the vague statement “financial support”, the World Bank’s
capital consists of reserves built and money paid from 188 of member country
shareholders. The IDA’s funds are replenished every three years by 40 donor
countries [1]. Most importantly, I’d like to clarify that this “financial
support” is not misinterpreted to include the
donations made by the World Bank’s shareholders and donors, since they are in
fact, “nations”. In closing, the World
Bank would like to stress that its main objectives should be highlighted and
kept in mind by all member nations: to end extreme poverty and decrease “the
percentage of people living with less than $1.25 a day to no more than 3
percent globally by 2030”, and to “foster income growth of the bottom 40
percent of the population in every country”. [1]
Annotated Bibliography:
The World Bank’s website provides the objectives for each
branch of the bank, and results for each region. I used this to search projects
and results for each region or nation.
2. Tutwiler, M.
Ann & Straub, M., “Making Agricultural Trade Reform Work for the Poor”, International Food & Agricultural Trade
Policy Council, 2005.
This source focuses on the World Bank’s ultimate goal of
poverty alleviation by specifically addressing agricultural trade. While the
authors acknowledge that aid alone cannot bring development and full poverty
reduction for developing countries, they stress the need to eliminate
non-tariff trade barriers in agricultural trade. Both developed and developing countries
must eliminate these trade barriers.
Concluding quote: “To
ensure that trade reform is pro-poor, the key is not to seek additional
exemptions from trade disciplines for developing countries, but to ensure that
the WTO agreement is strong and effective in disciplining subsidies and
reducing barriers to trade by all countries.”
3. NON-TARIFF MEASURES TO TRADE: Economic and
Policy Issues
for Developing Countries
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES IN INTERNATIONAL
TRADE STUDIES, United Nations Publication, 2013.
This publication
summarizes the impacts of non-tariff trade barriers in trade liberalization. It
provides definitions to relative terms (NTBs), their basic framework and more
importantly, the implications of NTBs between developing countries.
4. Mold, Andrew. “Non-Tariff Barriers – Their Prevalence and
Relevance for African Countries”, African Trade Policy Centre, 2005.
This article provides a case study for the implications of
NTBs on low-developed countries. According to their research, NTBs is a
prevalent inter-regional problem. I plan to use this publication to discuss the
impacts of NTBs established by industrialized countries on LDCs (in Africa) and
the impacts of NTBs within a region of LDCs.
Quote: “Finally,
African countries are not only victims of the growing prevalence of NTBs – they
are also prone to using NTBs themselves to keep out exports of other African
countries. The paper argues that African countries apply NTBs in a way that
deeply damages the prospects for intra-regional trade.”
5. World Trade Organization,
“Trade liberalisation statistics.”
This
summarizes research done by the World Trade Organization. It includes the World
Bank as a primary source. According to a world bank study, the elimination of
FW-favoring trade barriers systematically approved by us would lift 300 million
people out of poverty. An extension of World Bank research, in relation to this
article, can be found at:
6. The World Bank, “Knowledge in Development
Note: Trade for Development, 2009.
This goes
into more detail/ examples about the implications of unfair trade restrictions
imposed on developing countries.
“Moreover, an anti-agricultural bias prevails in the sense that if
all goods markets globally were freed up, agricultural value added in
developing countries would not only increase absolutely, but also relative to
non-agricultural GDP. Since most of the poor in the world are developing
country farmers, such a move would be a major contribution to poverty reduction
globally.”
