UNCTAD: IGE on Competition law and policy

The Lusophone competition network (LCN),
Contribution by Portugal

The LCN aims at promoting an effective competition policy as an instrument to foster economic development and sustainable growth among its members: Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Portugal, Sao Tome and Principe and Timor.
The founding document of the LCN is the Rio Declaration on competition and development, signed in 2004 during the I Lusophone meeting on competition.

The I Lusophone meeting on competition (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2004):
It was organized by the Portuguese Competition Authority. All Portuguese-speaking countries, except Cape Verde and Timor, participated.
An ambitious rage of topics was discussed, for example:
competition and development and its role in promoting economic growth in lusophone countries
competition and regulation
competition policy instrument
trade and competition
the institution design, including independent agency model (Portugal) vs. dual model (Brazil)
international cooperation


The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Portuguese competition authority and UNCTAD:
In this context of LCN, it is important to stress the role played by UNCTAD.
The Portuguese competition authority and UNCTAD celebrated a MoU focused on the lusophone countries and based on the share objective of assisting those countries in adopting and enforcing competition law and maximizing the benefits for these countries of well functioning markets.
Te main areas of cooperation covered by the MoU are: 1) capacity building and sharing of publications on competitions issues for dissemination among lusophone countries, 2) cooperation to strengthen competition networks, and 3) cooperation in training activities.
Furthermore, the MoU was significant to the organization of the II Lusophone meeting on competition.


The II Lusophone meeting on competition (LMC) (Lisbon, Portugal, 2006):
The II LMC was held with the participation of delegations from Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Portugal, Sao Tome and Principe and Timor, in the spirit of the “Rio declaration”.
Among the main topics of the debate were “Competition in Economic Development”, “Reducing the Burden of Regulation”, and “Competition and Institutional Development”.
Despite the institutional and legal differences, the following conclusions were drawn:
practices that restrict competition, most particularly cartels, are harmful and carry a heavy price where social well-being and development are concerned and should therefore be combated effectively
a clear definition of the strategy for investigating restrictive practices on the part of the competition authorities is essential if cases are to be investigated successfully
the prosecution of restrictive practices depends on the quality of the proof collected during the investigations
cooperation with the competition authorities by the parties involved in restrictive practices may prove decisive in the case investigation and the gathering of evidence
competition authorities should possess diversified and effective powers of investigation that allow a full investigation of restrictive practices

During the closing of the II LMC particular emphasis was given on the role of competition policy in the pursuit of economic development in the attending countries and, also, on the importance of cooperation and support for institutional empowerment within the LCN.


Future activities:
The LCN continues engaging in a comprehensive dialog not only on the institutional level, but also aiming at the business community, including the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries Corporate Stakeholders.
In 2008, the III Lusophone Biannual Meeting on Competition will be organized by Angola, focusing on a progressive enacting of competition legislation in selected countries.

UNCTAD: IGE on Competition law and policy 3

19th July 2007

COMPETITION ON ENERGY MARKETS ( morning session)

This session opened with the presentation by the UNCTAD secretariat. It explained that a lot of countries have introduced reforms in their energy markets but that this process has not yet been completed. The result of this is a large variety of market structures.
The standard package of reforms proposed by UNCTAD is unbundling, privatization, wholesale competition, retail competition, and regulated or negotiated third party access in transmission and distribution (electricity) or transportation and storage (gas). These reforms are generally more successful in developed countries.
The rules applied to energy markets are specific due to the high risk of creating a post-liberalization monopoly. This complexity is further enhanced by the lack of a model market. Indeed, successful experiences are not automatically transferable.

The moderator then talked about the benefits of competition in energy markets, challenging the idea that a monopoly leads to energy security. He therefore recommends administrative incentives to open up national markets. He finally took the example of Italy, which installed electronic meters that allow different pricing during the day.

Portugal shared its experiences of liberalizing its energy market. Several companies are now providing electricity in the country but there is still only one stock holder. The result has been a reduction of prices for the consumers. It emphasized the importance of an independent sector regulator. Its future objectives are integration with the Spanish energy market and a convergence between their respective regulatory frameworks, though further investment is still needed.

Brazil also explained its new legal framework for the gas industry that aims to create a competitive environment to attract investors. It consists of:
1) Limitations on vertical integration : no single company can operate on all segments of the market
2) Access rules for the gas pipeline transportation sector to avoid abuse of economic power of a transporter: pipelines can be used by more than one gas provider if they express a desire to do so before the pipeline is built, and make an agreement with the transporter regarding fees. Public appeals would be used to identify the demand of providers, needs that are then met by the transporters with the building of the pipeline. With this system, the financial risk of building the pipeline is eliminated because the providers commit themselves to acquire transporting rights.
3) no discriminatory access for storage

The European Commission gave a detailed presentation on the creation of the single European energy market. For this purpose, the first directives ended legal monopolies in the national electricity and gas sectors and guaranteed third party access. Finally, these directives had an unbundling provision that obliged the vertically integrated company to separate their different activities. In 2003, a new set of directives introduced fixed tariffs and national regulatory authorities for energy markets.
However, while progress has been made, the objectives of opening the market have not yet been achieved and significant rises in gas and electricity prices have occurred.
A study ordered by the European Commission, the Sector Inquiry, found that the difficulties encountered in the liberalization of the gas and electricity market come from the nature of these markets. Indeed, they remain national in scope and highly prone to the creation of monopolies. According to this study, the main problems are market concentration, vertical foreclosure and a lack of market integration (no access to cross border transmission lines and transit pipelines). This can be solved by reinforcing the current level of unbundling, strengthening the regulatory environment and by finding a solution to the chronic lack of liquidity and transparency in market operations.

AFTERNOON SESSION

This meeting was a roundtable on the assessment of competition authorities’ effectiveness. The chairman was Mr Eduardo Perez Motta, from the competition agency of Mexico (Comisiòn federal de competencia). He announced that the discussion would mainly focus on the necessity of a competition policy assessment and to know if competition rules are respected by the whole stakeholders (enterprises, public sector…).
Then, the floor was given to countries which contributed to drawing up the report.
First, the secretariat of OECD welcomed the fact that since the first roundtable in 2005, much progress has been made in this area. Nevertheless, she deplored that many studies only focused on cases of mergers and do not give a complete panorama on what is missing in the field of competition.
Afterwards, the delegate of Korea talked about competition authorities in his country which are composed of many stakeholders (lawyers, accountants…). He added that the activity of the authority depended on the market features and that Korea had hardened the legislation against cartels.
The French representative expressed that his country currently has three kinds of assessment tools:
- Surveys carried out close to consumers and enterprises on the competition policy effectiveness. Outcomes permitted to know the weakest sectors in the competition field.
- Competition indicators set up by the budget ministry. The competition agency (Conseil de la concurrence) has to follow these indictors for all sectors and not only those reputed to be obviously uncompetitive.
- Competition indicators more strict concerning mergers and concentrations.

Thereafter, the Brazil’s delegate said that his government adopted a competition policy system at the level of decisions on mergers. The previous system, featured by a downstream action, led to an increase of fines for abusive mergers. But, this policy faced two problems: most of the fines were not paid (currently, less of 5 % of fines are effectively paid), and this solution is not restrictive enough
These drawbacks lead to the adoption of upstream actions, which allow the Brazilian competition authority, CADE (Conselho Administrativo de defesa economica) to act against merger decisions. This policy led to an increase of judicial suits initiated against CADE’s decisions and an increase of collection law suits initiated by CADE and administrative fines collection procedures initiated since 2002.

The delegate of India was the last speaker. He said that a study, carried out by an Indian institute, made detailed recommendations taking into account OECD’s remarks. The specificity of this study is that it has been done backwards. Indeed, these recommendations started from the outcomes obtained (price-cutting after cartel “demolition”) and go back to the origins in order to know which measures has been taken to reach these results (judicial suits…).
This study is still being considered and will provide valuable information.

UNCTAD: IGE on Competition law and policy 2

18th July 2007



MORNING SESSION: Round table on the interface between competition policy and the exercise of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)

Moderator: Mr. Vinod Kumar Dhall, Competition Commission of India

Competition policy and the exercise of IPR in Indonesia by Syamsul Maarif, Commissioner, Competition Authority (KPPU):

The implementation of IPR in Indonesia
IPR is one of issues in legal area with strong relations to trade, industry and investment, or overall, to the business.
There is a linkage between IPR and competition policy, which can also be found in their individual goals.
In some cases, IPR Law and business competition law have something in common. On the other hand, business competition law emphasis the importance of creation of competition spirit in order to encourage innovations.
However, towards the implementation, these two laws may contradicts one to another; they have different perspective on conceptual perceived.

Principle and implementation of IPR and business competition law in Indonesia
Business Competition is regulated under the law n°5 year 1999 concerning prohibition of monopolistic practices and unfair business competition, effective since March 2000.
IPR are covered in several laws, particularly the law n°19 year 2002 regarding copyright, effective since 29 July 2002.
These two laws are complementing each other.
However, the law of business competition is relatively new in Indonesia and it still requires socialization in order to improve people awareness on the importance of competition. In Indonesia, Competition Authority (KPPU) has been dealing with several cases, but none of these have a direct relation to IPR application.

KPPU advocacy towards the exercise of IPR
To overcome problems regarding the exercise of IP, currently KPPU is still doing the analysis on various advocacy models and practices to ensure that IPR implementation are still within competition spirit.

Issues and problems
As developing countries, the effectiveness of these two regimes, competition regime and IPR regime, produces positive stimulant for innovations and economic growth in Indonesia.
The weak business competition developed the awareness on the importance of business competition law in Indonesia.
For IPR application, Indonesia is still dealing with its people minimum comprehension on IPR; to their, the IPR are the rights of advanced countries.
In fact, unemployment and public work force are crucial in Indonesia. Non-licensed products create a dilemma: on one side, piracy can not be accepted, but, on the other hand, piracies have created jobs.
The limited buying power also encourages people to buy non-licensed products.
As in IPR implementation, people view that competition law was made in order to create market access and therefore, it only benefits developed countries.
Competitiveness also restricted the implementation of competition law in Indonesia.

Strengthening international cooperation and proposed agenda for UNCTAD
To formulate the rightest model to synchronize IPR and competition laws, it is requested to the UNCTAD to facilitate activities on IPR discussion, particularly through research ,seminar and workshop; international meetings, publications on competition policy and IPR; trainings and technical assistance provision.

Competition policy and the exercise of IPR in Pakistan:

Competition framework:
Monopoly Control Authority (MCA) is a quasi judicial statutory organization. It was established in 1971 under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Ordinance (MRTPO).
Nationalization of the private sector from 1972 onwards substantially reduced the scope of this law.
However, since 1990s, when private sector oriented macro economic policies were introduced, the need for an effective competition policy framework has been felt.

Limitations of the MCA:
Limitations faced by the MCA relate generally to inadequate legal and enforcement provisions:
Ø outdated legislation
Ø no deterrence effect in the law
Ø “single-firm” monopolies are not covered by the law
Ø the definition of “undertaking” does not cover the “association of manufacturers” which are the prime suspect in cartel cases
Ø sophisticated instruments such as “dawn raids” or “leniency programs” to secure evidence are not provided by the MRTPO
Ø The MRTPO does not effectively address IPO, which is relatively a recent phenomenon.
Moreover, MCA is facing serious limitations relating to lack of capacity and resources.

Steps to improve competition framework:
The government has developed a framework for competition policy and is enacting a comprehensive competition law as a key “second generation” reform initiative with the assistance of the World Bank and the DFID.
The draft law takes into consideration current economic realities as well as corrects deficiencies in the MRTPO related to definitional aspects, coverage, penalties, and other procedural matters.

IPR in Pakistan:
IPR regime in Pakistan was previously not in compliance with accepted standards and this was detrimental to the:
rapid growth of Pakistan economy
enabling environment for investment attraction
market access requirement of Pakistan’s export led growth strategy
fast track integration with global economy
market expansion for genuine businesses in Pakistan
consumer interest in terms of competitive quality and price

Steps to improve the regime:
Pakistan starts strengthening its IPR regime in by establishing IP Organization (IPO), empowering the Federal Investigation Authority (FIA) and activating Pakistan Customs against IPR violations.
Moreover, enforcement coordination was institutionalised by constituting three regional enforcement committees. Ministry of information technology and IPO-Pakistan are coordinating their respective initiatives to reduce software piracy.

Interface between competition agency and IPO:
IP laws are necessary to preserve incentives for scientific and technological progress. Competition law also promote innovation and economic growth by combating restraints on competitive activity.
In essence, both these laws spur innovation and efficiency, but IPR laws grant monopoly rights whereas competition law regulates the same. Both the law are conflicting in nature as they approach the same issue differently.
Both the IPR regime and the competition regimes are evolving in Pakistan, therefore, to develop appropriate policy, it is important to better understand a variety of practical considerations, what are the practical issues that companies confront on a regular basis, and what are the practical implications of various policy decisions.


IP and Competition Law, by Uwe Schriek, Chief counsel IP corporate issues, Siemens AG:

IPR help Siemens to protect the investments it has made in research and development. But, IPR also cost a lot of money, particularly with global positioning.
In other words, Siemens has to find a balance between the cost of IPR and the benefits they provide for the company: how many monopoly rights are useful for a market and how strong should they be?

Presentation of the theory: “the prisoners’ dilemma”, by Professor Engel, the Director of the Max Planck Institute for research on collective goods and Professor of jurisprudence at the University of Osnabrück, in which he makes use of the “game theory” approach and compares the situation of two innovators, who are in competition with one another.
The prisoners’ dilemma concerns two prisoners who are accused and are being interrogated separately from one another. If one of them confesses and so incriminates his partner and the other says nothing, the confessing prisoner goes unpunished and the non-confessing prisoner one receives the maximum sentence. If they both decide to remain silent, only circumstantial evidence remains, and so both of them receive a minimum sentence. If they both confess to the crime, they receive a medium sentence.
However, if the two cooperate and stay silent, neither can rely upon the other’s silence; therefore, each must consider for himself whether he wishes to cooperate and stay silent or to act in his maximum self-interest to save his own neck.
Professor Engel compares this “prisoners’ dilemma” situation to the position of two innovators each of whom has the choice of whether to invest in research himself or to profit from the other’s research results.
If there is no protection for IP, the person, who profits, is the one who only copies and does not himself invest in research, as long as the other innovator does invest and continues to do so. Even if both innovators, who are competitors, invest, there is a benefit; however, if each innovator relies on the other’s investing, they both lose.

Moreover, in practice, there are more complicated questions, as the following:
What happens if there is cooperation in the planning of the research and development already?
Do meaningful rules exist in respect of an innovation which is open to involvement by a third party?
What part does standardization play in innovation competition?
Ø First, planned technological cooperation in research and development.
Without the possibility of IP protection, the investment in R&D in Siemens could not be as high as is currently the case.
In the case of R&D cooperation, it is essential that relevant provisions relating to the IPR are established at the very start of a project.
Ø Second, the “open source” principle.
Every party involved in an “open source” arrangement profits from the contributions of other participants and in exchange releases its own contributions to the “open source” community. This principle is based on the protection of individual IP and governs the conditions under which the individual must make his rights available to other participating parties in the context of a licence.
Siemens is involved in “open source” projects in some sectors, although it is not attractive for the company to do so in other sectors.
Ø A third area in which Siemens is active and where IP and competition interact with
one another is the area of patent pooling.
Agreeing on standards brings direct benefits for customers in many areas.
Binding rules for dealing with IP are obviously required when such standards are being negotiated.
It is also undisputed by the Courts that the IP owner’s right to exclude other can be pro-competitive under competition law analysis.
However, in the context of standards, the more recent case law clearly shows the limits of an abuse, as soon as the subject-matter of the right is essential for market participation (IMS health case and the decision of the European Court of Justice).
The IP owner may not only exercise his right to exclude, which is generally pro-competitive, but, where the relevant characteristic of the product is indispensable, he may completely foreclose third parties from having access to the relevant market for goods or services by refusing a licence.
However, the experience of Siemens shows that IPR are very rare; in fact, in the vast majority of cases, an IPR gives third parties a great incentive to find competing solutions.

It is apparent that a balance can be achieved in practice between IP and competition protection.
However, the standardization organizations cannot solve the problem of “patent trolls”, who fundamentally refuse any constructive cooperation and who only act as highway robbers obstruct the path of technological development.



AFTERNOON SESSION: Round Table Discussion on Technical Assistance in the Field of Competition and Consumer Protection

The round table was moderated by Ms. Cynthia Zapata, Director, Consumer Protection Authority of Costa Rica.

The floor was first given to Ms. Schimdiger, representing the Swiss State Secretariat of Economic Affairs, who talked about the COMPAL program, providing assistance to five Latin America countries. It assisted the governments in the adoption and implementation of competition laws. More specifically, its purpose was to facilitate the adoption and implementation of competition policy and deepen the application of the law. She stated that the reasons motivating the program were essentially centred on consumers’ protection against entrepreneurial malpractice and she assured that the program was based on market sustainability.

The moderator then welcomed general statements and declarations on the need assessment of capacity building and technical assistance.
Peru first took the floor and talked about its experience with the COMPAL program. The representative declared that the program’s first task should be to ensure that the information was well organized to ensure an effective decision making process.
Burkina Faso then addressed the assembly on the current situation of its competition regulatory framework. The representative retraced the existence of trade laws back to 1994, which also included competition and consumer laws. She mentioned the national commission entitled with issues concerning competition laws. Although the commission had received assistance from UNCTAD through staff training, it was constantly faced with the lack of adequate resources. She appealed therefore to the UNCTAD for more technical assistance to allow the commission to continue and improve its work.
Nicaragua then gave an account of the impact of the technical assistance provided by UNCTAD and the COMPAL program. The country received assistance for the project on formulation of the competition legislation. The support helped to convince people on the need of such a law and it was approved in June 2006. Through studies and human resource training, the assistance was also directed toward strengthening the institutional capacity for a better application of the national legislation. And finally, UNCTAD and COMPAL provided operational inputs for the establishment of the competition agency PROCOMPETENCIA.
Ivory Coast also took the floor and highlighted its participation in four regional seminars organized by UNCTAD where it benefited from the participants’ expertise. Unfortunately, the country was faced with an aging administrative workforce, and appealed for support for the training of new administrative agents.
Egypt draw attention to the technical assistance received from UNCTAD for the establishment of its commission of competition laws. The representative expressed interest in the Swiss Competition Authority training program in Latin America, which seemed to be more practical and dealt with the handling of specific cases. He therefore asked whether such a training program could be applied to African and Asian countries. To this, Ms. Schimdiger responded that it was part of the COMPAL program and that it would be further developed to include a bigger share of countries.
Tunisia declared that despite the assistance already provided, there was still need for more. The representative denounced the low involvement of international agencies in assistance programs at country level and asks for a better distribution of aid program at all levels.

Thereafter Ms. Zapata directed the declarations toward the training of competition law handlers.
Costa Rica gave an account of its status concerning competition law, which had been established twelve years ago. Currently, the commission was concentrating its efforts on specific areas and particularly on education. It had decided for the inclusion of competition law in the educational program in an attempt to create a competition culture within the Nation. The commission then signed an agreement with universities to incorporate competition law in their programs. Since then five courses have been designed by experts and will be soon incorporated in the curricular of major universities.
Brazil highlighted its involvement in technical assistance and training in the past four to five years. UNCTAD provided direct training to key technical staffs, who then were allowed to train others. They have been involved in projects in Angola and Mozambique, where they helped in writing the bills of the competition laws. They were also engaged in Jamaica and El Salvador, where they supported the implementation of the then recently approved competition laws. UNCTAD also organized a seminar in Brazil where the issues of technical assistance and programs were linked to development. Last but not least, UNCTAD and Brazil have been collaborating in developing training programs for judges.
Zambia gave an account of the regulatory framework of competition laws at its regional level. The representative mentioned three regional organizations including in their structure competition law, namely COMESA, SADEC and the Eastern African Community. He stressed that for regional laws to work effectively; there was need that the laws be followed at national levels. He also talked about the delivery systems of capacity building systems, which failed because the donor countries used the same system in all regions. He proposed the creation of clusters at regional levels which would serve for the delivery systems and would regroup countries that have similar structures.
Peru gave an account of the activities it undertook as part of the COMPAL program. Training programs have been provided to governmental officers, entrepreneurs and university lecturers. The methodology has been tailored to fit the concerned public, for instance seminars and workshops for officials from Peru and several Latin America countries, but also games for a younger audience. The representative mentioned that these activities had been welcome by the public, who was still asking for more.
Portugal took the floor and spoke on behalf of the Lusophone Competition Network (LCN). The representative highlighted the purpose of the LCN, which aggregated the Lusophone countries all over the world and was based on the realization that competition should play an important role in economic growth and poverty eradication. He stated that the LCN had been working by leveraging bilateral and multilateral competition assistance. Brazil and Portugal were then very active at the bilateral cooperation level while multilateral cooperation was assured by UNCTAD. He also mentioned that the next Lusophone Biannual Meeting on Competition would be hosted by Angola in 2008.
Mauritius stated that the issue of capacity building and technical assistance should be viewed at both the global and the regional levels. At regional levels, countries could be grouped on the basis of legislation to encourage interstate complementary assistance and sharing. And regional groups such as the EU and the USA should also be targeted to provide capacity building and technical assistance.
Morocco stressed the need to strengthen the ability and the culture of competition, which would require innovative ways.
Viet Nam supported the Initiative by Costa Rica to take competition to school programs, which it was also trying to implement.

Finally, on the subject of sustainability of technical assistance programs, El Salvador and Costa Rica shared their experiences and lessons learned. They particularly stressed the importance to work with regulatory and government bodies and to incorporate the education programs with competition and consumer laws.

UNCTAD: IGE on Competition law and policy

17th July 2007

OPEN PLENARY SESSION (morning session)

To open this session, the Head of Commission on Investment, Technology & Related Financial Issues restated the objectives of this IGE.
The implementation of a generally accepted Competition Law and Policy is a key element for sustainable development and international trade. By this, States aim to contribute to the international fair trade order.
To eliminate restrictive business practices at all levels (national, regional & international). In countries of both hemispheres, especially in developing countries, various sectors are still under protection of agents and cartels. Developing international cooperation on this matter is vital.
To fight against these restrictive business practices, a possible solution is to impose sanctions and financial penalties when Competition Law and Policy are violated. A set of rules and recommendations on this matter have been established by UNCTAD, (see brochure). The purpose of these recommendations is to protect competition and consumers. Should this set of rules on Competition policy be amended or revised? Discussions are ongoing.
Main themes to be discussed during session: energy and law on intellectual property.
Important sub-themes: technical assistance provided by UNCTAD; mergers of companies and its impacts on international trade;
These sets of recommendations and guidelines are part of the soft law. By this, UNCTAD contributes positively in the international regulation and cooperation on market competition.

Election of officers for the 8th Session:
H.E. Mr. Mohammad Iqbal KPPU (Indonesia) as Chairman
Mr. Dmitri Fomchenko (Belarus) as Vice-Chairman-cum-Rapporteur

Agenda approved and adopted by all.

Informal discussions and general declarations by delegations:

Zambia: Technical assistance is the only program of UNCTAD in Zambia. Other measures and programs are needed to strengthen the presence of UNCTAD in Zambia and help economic development.
Focus on agreements made in Singapore is not sufficient. Besides commercial aspects, States should participate more in the writing of recommendations on competition policy of the European Union (refers to next meeting in Maurice).
Pakistan: a new national law on competition has been voted. The old one is already void, because it was too rigid and without sanctions. The new law is based on Rome Treaty and promulgation should be done soon. This reform is an important step for Pakistan.
However, the Pakistani delegate emphasized the importance of national organs’ independence. It is vital to create institutions and commissions which are completely independent, without any influence of governments.
Malawi: it’s been eight years that Malawi has a national law on competition, but there is still no implementation! The constitution of a permanent secretariat and commission on competition is necessary to control all the mergers and acquisitions of companies that are occurring in the country. Without such a body, Malawi does not have legal and efficient means to fight against restrictive business practices.
Zimbabwe: the implementation of a National Bureau against monopolies is an important evolution for the country. After eight years of activity, it still needs the support of UNCTAD, especially in the field of technical assistance and staff formations.
Czech Republic: proposes to impose sanctions on antitrust companies. The total value of these sanctions would represent the amount of investments in developing countries. However, one should consider that investments in those countries are low. Peru intervened: one should be assured that violating countries are not benefiting from these investments in developing countries. This is actually difficult to investigate. A control mechanism is necessary.
Russia: adopted two laws to protect competition. It has amended the regulations on sanctions on competition policy violations. On this matter, it has also several bilateral and multilateral agreements with developing and developed countries.
Morocco: seeks to develop a “culture on competition”.
Cameroun: In 1998, the law on competition was adopted, but put in place only in 2005! Lack of resources is the main reason for this. By the time, many sectors have been liberalized: energy, telecommunications, civil aviation etc.. The delegate insisted on the fact that Competition Law & Policy in the central African region is a new concept, and therefore, the help and monitoring of UNCTAD are absolutely necessary.
Botswana: is about to submit a project on Competition Policy to their Parliament. Implementation is due by 2009. Monitoring of UNCTAD is necessary.
Kenya: thanked UNCTAD for hosting many regional conferences and formations in Kenya these recent past years. The Parliament adopted a new law which is asking for the continuous cooperation of UNCTAD.
Costa-Rica: it has been the first country in the region to adopt a national law on competition in 1995. Technical assistance and staff formations by UNCTAD are very important in their region. A reform project of the competition policy is undergoing with the support of UNCTAD and Switzerland. The treaty on free-trade is also under preoccupations (regarding possible agreement with European Union).



AFTERNOON SESSION

Voluntary peer review: West African monetary union competition rules – Benin and Senegal

Session I

Introductory remarks by the Chairman of the peer review, Prof. Dr. Walter A. Stoffel (Swiss Competition Authority, Switzerland)

The Chairman welcomed this exam which is, according to him, really useful as it enables the authorities of a country to introduce their own system to others. Moreover, it is also a good mean to identify the weaknesses and the results obtained.

Then, a quick presentation of UEMOA was made and Walter Stoffel summarised the work they (the group of experts) did and the results they obtained.
One of the main points is that the group of experts recognized the presence of a good legal framework and also of good mechanisms. Indeed, they welcomed the considerable work which has been done these last four years by the UEOMA. Then, he gave some details about the functioning of the UEMOA. Thus, he underlined the applicability principle of the community standard, the primacy of the common law over the national one and the exclusive rights of the common law on the competition field (member states can’t take any decisions concerning the competition field). But if the legal framework and mechanisms are well in place, the results are still weak and the system must be strengthened. Thus, he presented some recommendations which have been elaborated by the group of experts to improve the plan of UEMOA: to develop a favourable environment for the competition, to improve the institutions, to adjust the proceedings. To conclude, he said that more than reforms, it’s rather concrete elements which should be inserted in the process of improvement of UEMOA.

The delegate of UEMOA qualified the report made by this precedent colleague, as for him the results are very noticeable even if institutional adjustments are still necessary.

Then the floor was given to the panellists.

The president of the French council for competition raised two main points. The first was that he wondered if a better association of the national actors couldn’t be established, and in a second time he wondered why no sanctions had been taken by the Council whereas it is necessary for such an institution to be credible.

The president of the Tunisian Council for the competition welcomed the efforts made by UEMOA and its members states, whereas the economic conditions weren’t always favourable. According to him, the results are positive even if some efforts have still to be done for a better articulation between the Commission and the national authorities.

The Indonesian Commissioner called for a strengthening of the Commission for the competition and for its total independence. Concerning the proceedings, in its opinion, they have to be elaborate at the national level.

Session II

Interactive session on specific issues identified in the Peer review report and issues on which the UEMOA, Benin and Senegal competition authorities might seek clarification and advice from participating competition authorities.

Senegal called for a better cooperation between the UNCTAD and the UEMOA. The Senegal delegate answered to some questions raised in writing by Italy and France. Concerning the liberalization, he stressed that reforms are difficult to implement in developing countries, but that the private sector is more and more increasing, specifically in the telecommunications field. Then he talked about the benchmarks of a national policy for competition. According to him they are: the promotion of the competition’s culture in the society, the improvement of the formation, legal frameworks and mechanisms of voluntary evaluation.

Benin underlined the fact they need the support of UNCTAD and of the international community because they don’t have the resources to achieve the reforms.
Then he gave the floor to the director of the competition in Benin which one notified that as his country didn’t have any legislation in the competition field before the common one, it didn’t meet any obstacles. But he found interesting to think about a share of the competences between the national authorities and the community ones. Concerning the GSM field, he specified that the increase of the operators in Benin didn’t lead nor to a collision nor to an accord. That’s why, in the absence of problem the UEMOA Council has not been seized.

Concerning the issue of the subsidiarity, the representative of UEMOA said that this institutional evolution will be raised in a next future. Concerning the conditions of the sanctions, he specified that up to today the injection principle had been preferred. But once the population and the actors will be enough sensitized, sanctions’ system will be implemented.

Italy said that UEMOA have to equip itself to a good system of repartition of competences. It should exist a space for the national law.

CEDEAO said that clear adjustments between the national law and the common one have to be established.

According to Morocco, the results of UEMOA and of Benin and Senegal are good, but he gave some elements to improve the system, such as strengthening the structure of UEMOA and organize the complementary between the common authorities and the national ones.

Salvador asked Benin and Senegal which kind of advice they could give to a country such as theirs.

The delegate of the USA deplored the exclusion of the states in the competition field law, affirming it is not a good thing.

CEMAC asked the UEMOA how they will force firms to pay the fines.

Brazil raised the issue of the share of the competences between the national authorities and the community ones.

Russia asked the UEMOA what have been the steps in the construction process of their structure.

Session III

To conclude the meeting, UEMOA said they will go into detail the issue of the subsidiarity, the sensitivity and the clarity of their texts. They also gave the website of the UEMOA in order to allow countries to understand and learn more about the rules of the UEMOA.

Then the floor was given to the president of the law court of UEMOA who said that for the moment they are still in the sensitivity process. He also strengthened that UEMOA will try to harmonize with CEDEAO, and that the convergence process will be reinforced. He also affirmed the possibility of a turnaround of the case law concerning the exclusivity competence of the community authorities in this field.

ECOSOC 27TH JULY 2007

General Segment



The following draft resolutions have been adopted by the Council:

Ø Item 4. The role of the UN system in promoting full and productive employment and decent work for all
Draft resolution submitted by the Vice-President of the Council, Hilario G. Davide, Jr. (Philippines), on the basis of informal consultations, on the role of the ECOSOC in the integrated and coordinated implementation of the outcomes and the follow-up to major UN conferences and summits, in light of relevant GA resolutions, including resolution 61/16.
Document E/2007/L.32
Draft resolution submitted by the VP of the Council, Hilario G. Davide, Jr. (Philippines), on the basis of informal consultations on the theme of the 2008 coordination segment
Document E/2007/L.33

Ø Item 6. Implementation of and follow-up to major UN conferences and summits
(a) Draft resolution submitted by Mexico, on the follow-up to the international conference on financing for development
Document E/2007/L.31
(b) Draft resolution submitted by the VP of the Council, Léo Mérorès (Haiti), on the basis of informal consultations, on the implementation of the programme of action for least developed countries for the decade 2001-2010
Document E/2007/L.36

Ø Item 7. Coordination, programme and other questions
(h) Joint UN programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)
Draft resolution submitted by Australia, Barbados, Benin, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Mexico, Myanmar, Norway, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, on the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)
Document E/2007/L.23

Ø Items 7(e). Mainstreaming a gender perspective into all policies and programmes in the UN system
And 14(a). Advancement of women
Draft resolution submitted by the VP of the Council, Léo Mérorès (Haiti), on the basis of the informal consultations, on Mainstreaming a gender perspective into all policies and programmes in the UN system
Document E/2007/L.28

Ø Item 13. Economic and environmental questions
(a) sustainable development
- Draft resolution submitted by the VP of the Council, Léo Mérorès (Haiti), on the basis on informal consultations, on the Report of the Committee for development policy on its ninth session
Document E/2007/L.34
- Draft resolution submitted by the VP of the Council, Léo Mérorès, on the basis of informal consultations, on the Report of the Committee for development policy on its eighth session
Document E/2007/L.35
In consequence, the draft resolution submitted by the US, on the report of the Committee for development policy on its eighth session, Document E/2007/L.9, has been removed.
- Draft resolution submitted by the VP of the Council, Léo Mérorès, on the basis of information consultations, on the UN Public-Private Alliance for rural development
Document E/2007/L.37

Ø Item 14. Social and human rights questions
(a) Advancement of women
Draft resolution submitted by the VP of the Council, Léo Mérorès, on the basis of informal consultations
This draft resolution has been adopted by the council as emendated by the secretariat: Future work to strengthen the International Research and Training Institute for the advancement of women, on the behalf of the Group of 77 and China
Document E/2007/L.29


The following points have been deferred by the Council to the next session of ECOSOC:

Ø Item 13. Economic and environmental questions
(e) Environment
Report of the SG, on the products harmful to health and the environment
Document E/2007/62
(g) Public administration and development
Recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee of Experts on Public Administration, on its sixth session
Document E/2007/44
(h) International cooperation in tax matter
Draft resolution submitted by the VP of the Council, Léo Mérorès, on the basis of informal consultations, on the Committee of experts on international cooperation in tax matters
Document E/2007/L.30
And the programme budget implications thereto contained in the document E/2007/L.16

Ø Item 14. Social and human rights questions
(i) genetic privacy and non-discrimination
Report of the SG on Genetic privacy and non-discrimination
Document E/2007/65 and Add.1 and Add.2



Statement by Mr. Sha Zukang, Under-Secretary General for economic and social affairs, delivered by Mr. Nikhil Seth, Director, Office of ECOSOC support and coordination, department of economic and social affairs,

There are four clear messages that have come out of the discussions during the Development Cooperation Forum’s launch.
Firstly, a key challenge in cooperating for development lies in making the process truly country-driven and inclusive.
Secondly, predictable and stable funding coupled with effective monitoring of aid quality should be seen as essential components of efforts to enhance the impact of development cooperation.
Thirdly, the growing importance of South-South and triangular cooperation cannot be overemphasized.
Finally, broad agreement exists on a number of principles on promoting effective and coherent international development cooperation.
The spirit of partnerships was a defining feature of the substantive session.

The other segments of the Council covered a wide range of issues. Indeed, the 2006 Ministerial declaration has truly mobilized the UN system and governments in making employment and decent work a central objective of their policies and activities.
The Council’s work in the humanitarian segment has moved from strength to strength.
This year is one for TCPR and thus an important policy year for the UN’s operational activities.
Moreover, by extending the mandates of the Ad-hoc Advisory groups on Haiti and Guinea-Bissau, the Council has once again established the unique contribution it can make to the long-term development of such countries.
The Council has had a successful session, and this would not have been possible without the active support of civil society.
Moreover, some of the issues also required urgent action. First, the innovation, energy and dynamism that the council has witnessed in the high-level segment need to permeate other segment as well, particularly the general segment.
Second, the Council needs to decide on the multi-year programme of work for the Annual Ministerial Review.
Third, the Council would welcome early volunteers for the National Presentations during the Reviews. The council take also this opportunity to thank the Netherlands for its offer to make a presentation next year.
Fourth, countries should convene regional consultations for the Annual Ministerial Review and symposia for the Development Cooperation Forum.
To conclude, the Council needs to pursue each of these issues with vigour, intensity and a sense of urgency.



Closing remarks by H.E. Mr. Dalius Cekuolis, President of ECOSOC

There were two possible future scenarios for ECOSOC; one was for the Council to gradually drift towards irrelevance and oblivion, and the other one was for the Council to thoroughly renew itself in order to fully meet the high expectations under which it was established. This session has contributed to promoting the second scenario.
Indeed the Council should be the central platform for realizing the UN development agenda.
The high point of the Annual Ministerial Review was the national presentations by the Ministers of six developing countries, which became an occasion for knowledge sharing and information exchange.
By selecting related themes for the AMR, the Council has effectively tackled one of the fundamental issues of development, “poverty eradication”, from various perspectives.
Moreover, the Ministerial Declaration, adopted by consensus, sends the important message that the international community is united in dealing with the obstacles in the realization of MDG-1.
The agreement to further extend the Council’s Ad Hoc Advisory Groups on Guinea-Bissau and Haiti is a clear recognition of the useful contribution ECOSOC can make by promoting an integrated approach in the area of post-conflict peace-building.
But, the positive outcome of this session reflects both the thorough preparations and the full and active engagement by all stakeholders throughout the process.
It is absolutely critical for the success of the next sessions that all stakeholders remain actively engaged in their preparations and the session itself.

ECOSOC 26TH JULY 2007

General Segment


Morning Session

The purpose of the meeting was the examination of several items of the agenda.

Item 7 on coordination, program and other questions. The following points has been examined:
- Point (c) concerning international cooperation in the field of informatics (action on draft resolution E/2007/L.24). As no objections had been made, the resolution was adopted.
- Point (g) concerning an ad hoc advisory group on Guinea-Bissau (action on draft resolution E/2007/L.27). As this resolution has budget implications, the secretariat took the floor for explaining that the resource requirements to undertake the consultation mission is estimated at $ 35,800 and would provide for travel, daily subsistence allowance and terminal expenses ($ 27,100 for 3 members of the advisory group and $ 8, 700 for one staff member of the department of economic and social affairs).
Then, the chairman, who spoke on behalf of Haiti, welcomed the adoption by consensus of this resolution and hopped Guinea-Bissau will quickly recover stability.
Finally, the representative from Guinea-Bissau underlined that it was important that this resolution was adopted by consensus. He also stressed that it means that government must make the utmost efforts to eradicate poverty and ensure transparency of public funds asset. He also expressed that parliamentary election, which should be organized next year, will be very important to consolidate democracy.
- Point (h) concerning joint UN program on HIV/AIDS (action on draft resolution E/2007/L.23). The delegate from Thailand recalled that universal access to treatments and care form a part of MDG’s.
As the relevant delegations was not ready in this point, the chairman decided to take it up tomorrow.
- Point (i) concerning the calendar of conferences and meetings for 2008 and 2009 in the economic, social and related fields (action on draft resolution E/2007/87 and E/2007/L.10). As no objections had been made, the resolution was adopted.

Item 10 on regional cooperation (action on draft resolution E/2007/L.12 on Europe-Africa fixed link through the strait of Gibraltar). As this resolution has budget implications, the secretariat took the floor for explaining that budgetary provisions have already been made for the activities. As no objections had been made, the resolution was adopted.

Item 13 on economic and environmental questions. The chairman only focused on point (d) concerning human settlements (action on draft resolution E/2007/L.25). As no objections had been made, the resolution was adopted.
Item 14 on social and human rights questions. . The chairman only focused on point (c) concerning crime prevention and criminal justice (action on recommendations contained in document E/2007/30). As this resolution has budget implications, the secretariat took the floor in order to recommend for adoption of the chapter 1 of the report of the commission which contains the financial implications of the whole draft resolutions and resolutions.

Thereafter, the draft resolutions number 2, 3, 4, 5 (on child justice reform) and 6 (on access to legal aid particularly in Africa) was adopted as a whole. Nevertheless, the US delegate said he had serious concerns about the capacity of ECOSOC to change anything on these matters.

Afternoon Session

Item 9 : Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and People by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations
Action on draft resolution E/2007/L.19

The President opened the meeting by asking if any delegations wanted to explain their choice before the vote on the resolution.

New Zealand explained that its country had a long experience concerning the functioning of the specialized institutions of UN for the Non-Self-Governing territories. They also reaffirmed their position in favour of the decolonization and in this regard, welcomed a future referendum in Tokelau. Thus, they announced that their vote would be in favour of the resolution.

Portugal on behalf of EU, notified that as the precedent years, EU will abstain on this resolution, as for EU the issues broached in it weren’t a matter for ECOSOC.

USA strongly affirmed they weren’t against the autonomy of Non-Self-Governing territories but will abstain as they didn’t like the approach unique adopted in the resolution and regretted also its politicization.

Then the vote was carried out.

El Salvador : Yes Rumania : Abstention
France : Abstention Russian Federation : Abstention
Germany : Abstention Saudi Arabia : Yes
Greece : Abstention Somalia : Yes
Guinee : Yes South Africa : Yes
Guinee Bissau : Yes Sri Lanka : Yes
Guinea : Yes Sudan : Yes
Tahiti : Yes Thailand : Yes
Iceland : Abstention United Kingdom : Abstention
India : Yes USA : Abstention
Indonesia : Yes Algeria : Yes
Iraq : Yes Albania : Abstention
Japan : Yes Angola : Yes
Kazakhstan : Abstention Austria : Abstention
Lithuania : Abstention Barbados : Yes
Luxembourg : Abstention Belarus : Yes
Madagascar : Not present Benin : Yes
Malawi : Not present Brazil : Yes
Mauritania : Yes Canada : Abstention
Mexico : Yes Cap Verde : Yes
Netherlands : Abstention Tchad : Yes
New Zealand : Yes China : Yes
Pakistan : Yes Costa Rica : Yes
Uruguay : Yes Cuba : Yes
Philippines : Yes Tcheq Republic : Abstention
Portugal : Abstention Congo : Yes
Denmark : Abstention

IN FAVOUR : 33 AGAINST : 0 ABSTENTION : 19

Resolution adopted.


The President asked if there were any delegations which wanted to explain their vote after the vote.

Russia explained they abstained because for them the exam of this very political issue within ECOSOC led the Council in a other way from its main preoccupations : the economic and social issues.

Argentina affirmed their support to the autodetermination of populations but reminded everyone that if the GA recognized this principle, it had no value in the cases of disputes concerning sovereignty. Thus, concerning the Malawines Islands, the settlement of the situation resides in the negotiation between the UK and Argentina.

Item 13.i) : United Nations Forum on Forests

This issue has been deferred to the next substantive session.

Item 14.b) : Social Development

The president asked if there were any delegations which wanted to express themselves before the vote.

Pakistan on behalf of the G77 and China, affirmed they were supporting the social development and asked each delegations to vote in favour the resolution, in order to obtain a consensus on this issue.

Then the vote was carried out.

Cap Verde : Yes
Tchad : Non present
China : Yes
Costa Rica : Yes
Cuba : Yes
Tcheq Republic : Yes
Congo : Yes
Denmark : Yes
El Salvador : Yes
France :Yes
Germany : Yes
Greece : Yes
Guinee : Yes
Guinee Bissau : Yes
Guinea : Yes
Haihiti : Yes
Iceland :Yes
India : Yes
Indonesia : Yes
Iraq : Yes
Japan : Yes
Kazakhstan :Yes
Lithuania : Yes
Luxembourg : Yes
Madagascar : Not present
Malawi : Not present
Mauritania : Yes
Mexico : Yes
Netherlands : Yes
New Zealand : Yes
Pakistan : Yes
Uruguay : Yes
Philippines : Yes
Portugal : Yes
Rumania : Yes
Russian Federation : Yes
Saudi Arabia : Yes
Somalia : Yes
South Africa : Yes
Sri Lanka : Yes
Sudan : Yes
Thailand : Yes
United Kingdom : Yes
USA : No
Algeria : Yes
Albania : Yes
Angola : Yes
Austria : Yes
Barbados : Yes
Belarus : Yes
Benin : Yes
Brazil : Yes
Canada : Yes

IN FAVOUR : 49 AGAINST : 1 ABSTENTION : 0

Resolution adopted

The President asked if any delegations wanted to take the floor to explain their vote after the vote.

USA explained that the text had been adopted in the Commission of social development in precipitation. According to the USA, this document is not as much as relevant as one could expect it to be, in view of the importance of the subject. That’s why USA had asked for a vote. Indeed they wanted to show officially their disagreement. Thus, they will reopen some parts of the text for the debate in the GA.

Portugal on behalf on EU, expressed their satisfaction concerning the content of the resolution but regretted that USA dissociated themselves.


Item 14.c) was adopted without any objection nor vote.


Item 11 : Economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied territory, including Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan.

The President asked if any delegations wanted to express themselves before the vote.

Israel affirmed that this resolution was subjective, and that once again the agenda was exploited. Indeed, according to Israel, the resolution doesn’t show the violence perpetuated against Israel nor the violence inter-Palestinian. Israel stressed the lack of equilibrium of the resolution. Israel delegate unlighted that the real objective of this resolution was to blame and condemn Israel for political reasons. In this regard, they asked all delegations to vote against it.

Thailand highlighted that the current situation in the occupied territories was quite preoccupying and asked all delegations to adopt this resolution with consensus in order to show their support to Arabian populations.

Portugal on behalf on EU, thanked all the co-sponsors for their respect during negotiations. He reminded the assembly that EU was the best contributor concerning the assistance for Palestinian population. Unfortunately concessions made weren’t enough to EU.

Then the vote was carried out.

Tcheq Republic : Abstention
Congo : Not Present
Denmark : Abstention
El Salvador : Yes
France : Abstention
Germany : Abstention
Greece : Abstention
Guinee : Yes
Guinee Bissau : Yes
Guinea : Yes
Haiti : Abstention
Iceland :Abstention
India : Yes
Indonesia : Yes
Iraq : Yes
Japan : Abstention
Kazakhstan : Yes
Lithuania : Abstention
Luxembourg : Abstention
Madagascar : Not present
Malawi : Not present
Mauritania : Yes
Mexico : Yes
Netherlands : Abstention
New Zealand : Abstention
Pakistan : Yes
Uruguay : Yes
Philippines : Yes
Portugal : Abstention
Rumania : Abstention
Russian Federation : Yes
Saudi Arabia : Yes
Somalia : Yes
South Africa : Yes
Sri Lanka : Yes
Sudan : Yes
Thailand : Yes
United Kingdom : Abstention
USA : No
Algeria : Yes
Albania : Abstention
Angola : Non present
Austria : Abstention
Barbados : Yes
Belarus : Yes
Benin : Yes
Brazil : Abstention
Canada : No
Cap Verde : Yes
Tchad : Non present
China : Yes
Costa Rica : Yes
Cuba : Yes

IN FAVOUR OF : 29 AGAINST : 2 ABSTENTION : 18

The President asked if any delegations wanted to explain their vote after the vote.

Canada said that the resolution wasn’t reflecting the true role of the two parts.

USA also affirmed that the resolution wasn’t reflecting the complexity of the Palestinian conflict. According to them, the resolution is subjective.

Japan stressed the lack of equilibrium of the resolution and said that the evolution of the situation on the field wasn’t reflected in it. Then, they said that ECOSOC wasn’t the appropriate place to take political decisions.

ECOSOC 25TH JULY 2007

General Segment


The chair began the session by giving the floor to delegations on the item 14 entitled “Social and human rights questions”.

The United States first expressed its concerns about the draft resolution proposed under the sub-section of social development. The representative stated that his country had disassociated itself from part of the final text and asked that it should be reviewed further before it was to be put for adoption before the council.

China made a statement on the sub-section of Narcotic drugs, commending the action of the International Narcotic Control Board (INCB) and expressing its continuing support.

Sri-Lanka took the floor to respond to the statement made earlier by the Assistant High Commissioner for refugees under the sub-section on UN High Commissioner for Refugees. The representative expressed concerns about the recent trend of equating and clustering of countries as a means of expressing the nature of different humanitarian situations, which would not be helpful in carrying out the Inter-Agency and partnership approach chosen in Sri-Lanka. He requested that the UNHCR and other humanitarian partners acknowledge the uniqueness of the country’s situation and the existing structures and partnerships already in place to deal with it.

Pakistan, responding on the matter put forward by the United States, stated it was neither entirely satisfied with the whole document. However, the representative pointed out that it had been approved by consensus and that the United States had also participated in the negotiations. Consequently, he disagreed with the proposed decision to put the document for further review.

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) took the floor and mentioned the forthcoming 30th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, which would gather the governments and the IFRC with its worldwide network of National Societies in November, and constituted a forum of intensive examination of humanitarian challenges in the modern world. The theme of the conference will be “Together for Humanity”, with a general debate centred on four major issues; environmental hazards (including climate change), migration, violence and emergent and recurrent diseases.

The Interagency Panel on Juvenile Justice (IPJJ) made a statement on the sub-section on crime prevention and criminal justice. The panel welcomed the draft resolution and expressed particular support to its focus on comprehensive national action plans on crime prevention and child justice reform. The representative also commended the draft resolution for its explicit support to the work of the Panel and encouraged the members of the ECOSOC to adopt the resolution.

The Judicial Commission for the Auto-development of the First Andean People (CAPAJ) expressed itself on the sub-section on the report of the Permanent Forum on indigenous Issues. The representative first emphasised the necessity for the Indigenous People to have the control of its lands and natural resources and that no project affecting them should be put into practice without their free and informed consent, as approved in the Human Rights Committee under its resolution CCPR/C/CHL/CO/5. Consequently he urged that the report presented by the Permanent Forum, which was strongly related to that UNHRC resolution, should be taken into consideration.

Thereafter, the secretariat made oral statements, which gave an account of the financial component of the draft resolutions respectively on sub-sections on Narcotic Drugs and Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. The resolutions were then adopted.

The chairperson then directed the debate on the item 7 on “Coordination, programme and other questions”. Under the sub-section on the Long-term programme of support for Haiti, the secretariat made an oral statement illustrating its budget. Canada then expressed appreciation to Barbados, Costa Rica, France, Ghana and Mexico, which had added themselves to the list of co-sponsors of the resolution. Additionally, the Philippines, Bolivia, Cape Verde, El Salvador and Paraguay also took the floor and requested to be included on the list of co-sponsors. The resolution was thereafter adopted. Brazil highlighted its historical links with Haiti and expressed its enchantment to participate in the project, which encompassed a broad range of sectors. Speaking as the representative of Haiti, the chair expressed gratitude to Canada and all the sponsors for their support.

Sudan then introduced the draft resolution on item 4 on “Economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan”. South Africa expressed the will to be included on the list of co-sponsors. The chair acknowledged the introduction and stated that action on the draft resolution would be taken the following day.

Algeria raised a point of order, after the distribution of two statement delivered by Morocco on their right to reply on the issue of Western Sahara. The ambassador noted that the text in the second statement was not true and asked for the secretariat to provide transcript of the whole exchange in which the issue between Morocco and Algeria was raised. Morocco also took the floor to request to the secretariat a similar demand.