Thursday, November 3, 2016

Global Push To Achieve SDGs Vision and Words with Action Agenda 31

ISPE       EAG
INTERATIONAL SOCIETY FOR POVERTY ELIMINATION                   ECONOMIC ALLIANCE GROUP

Special Address to IMF 2016 Annual Research Conference, Washington DC, 3 – 4 November 2016
Proposal on New Global Partnership Initiative for Actualizing IMF Fit for 21st Century Vision
Introduction

The IMF, a Key Member Institution in the UN System – UNO, WBG and IMF started its Annual Research Conference, ARC, in 2000. The 2016 edition is the Seventeenth in the Series. Now is a good time to evaluate the first 16 editions, to really understand what IMF is Doing Right and How it could be significantly improved and what IMF is Doing Wrong and How it could be corrected and in ways that help IMF and indeed the entire UN System – UNO, WBG, IMF Delivery as One, that is the Pillar of the UN System – UNO, WBG, IMF being Institution Fit for the 21st Century and Institution that delivers of its Responsibilities in the Great Work towards achieving increasing convergence between 2030 Agenda – AAAA, SDG, COP21 and Agenda 21 Visions Intention and Reality in each Community in each of the 193/306 UN Member States.

The Final Session on Economic Forum: Policy Challenges after the Great Recession, is probably the most appropriate session to take holistic look at points made in this Paper. However, it could be helpful if all remaining Sessions in ARC 2016 really shift focus away from abstract presentations and discussions to focus on real and complex National Economy problems on the ground facing real and ordinary people on the ground in each Community in each of the 193/306 UN Member States.

We highlight this Economic Forum Session because the Topic assumes that the Great Recession is over and so there is a need to focus on Policy Challenges Moving Forward. With due respects, our Study finding is that the Great Recession is yet to Start hence the need to understand the difference between getting out of Great Recession that has already occurred and preventing a Great Recession that is yet to occur.

It is clear that the Fire Brigade effort in 2008 managed to somewhat contain a Great Recession but it was Symptoms that were treated and so the diseases only got worse. As the disease is getting increasingly worse, the probability of another Fire Brigade attempt containing a looming Great Recession when it becomes Visible, may not succeed this time around and the Result could be a Great Recession that make that of the 1930s Child’s Play.

It is pertinent to note that increasing numbers of Children, Youth, Women, Men and Elders in the UK are living in Victoria Era conditions and the situation in the US is that increasing numbers of Children, Youth, Women, Men and Elders in the UK are living in Jim Crow Era conditions, with many not having access to Water and Sanitation Facilities and in some Communities in the US today Children play in Sewage. The situation is urgent as it is widespread in many Developed and Developing Countries in our World today.

This Paper set out ISPE/EAG Thoughts on New Priorities and New Direction for IMF and indeed UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF; Member States and CSOs/NGOs if Sustainable Solutions that effectively promote and protect the Common Interest and Common Future of over 7 Billion People, especially the over 2 Billion in both Developed and Developing Countries are to be found, fully implemented with effective monitoring and evaluation of this implementation, and on time to avoid total collapse of our Fragile Planet.

IMF ARC History

The first Annual Research Conference of the International Monetary Fund was held in Washington, DC, on November 9 and 10, 2000. This conference brought together academic scholars from many institutions and young researchers in the Fund to present and discuss papers on various topics of current interest to the IMF. The topics for this first conference included monetary and exchange rate policy in crisis situations, private sector involvement in crisis resolution, exchange-rate regimes and currency unions, and effects of adjustment programs. This was a Mundell-Fleming lecture.

The second Annual Research Conference of the International Monetary Fund took place in Washington, DC, on November 29 and 30, 2001. Speakers included scholars from universities and other research institutions as well as young researchers in the Fund. This year's conference had a focus on the economic consequences of large devaluations and currency crises, stabilization policies in emerging markets, and the political economy of economic reforms and IMF programs. This was a Mundell-Fleming lecture in honor of one of the pre-eminent scholars of modern international finance, Rudi Dornbusch.

The third Annual Research Conference of the International Monetary Fund took place in Washington, DC, on November 7 and 8, 2002. Speakers included scholars from universities and other research institutions as well as young researchers in the Fund. The 2002 conference discussed capital flows and global governance. This was a Mundell-Fleming lecture.

The Fourth Annual Research Conference of the International Monetary Fund took place in Washington, DC, on November 6-7, 2003 discussed capital flows and Macroeconomic Cycles.

The Fifth Annual Research Conference of the International Monetary Fund took place in Washington, DC, on November 4 and 5, 2004. The conference was intended to provide a forum for discussing innovative research in international economics, undertaken both by IMF staff and by outside economists, and to facilitate the exchange of views among researchers and policymakers. The 2004 conference was devoted to Policies, Institutions, and Instability, and their linkage to growth and crises in a global environment. This was the first Jaques Polak Lecture in the Annual Research Conference Series.

The Sixth Annual Research Conference of the International Monetary Fund took place in Washington, DC, on November 3–4, 2005. The conference was intended to provide a forum for discussing innovative research in economics, undertaken both by IMF staff and by outside economists, and to facilitate the exchange of views among researchers and policy makers. The 2005 conference was devoted to Reforms. This was the second Jaques Polak Lecture in the Annual Research Conference Series.

The Seventh Annual Research Conference of the International Monetary Fund took place in Washington, DC, on November 9–10, 2006. The conference was intended to provide a forum for discussing innovative research in economics, undertaken both by IMF staff and by outside economists, and to facilitate the exchange of views among researchers and policy makers. The 2006 conference was devoted to Capital Flows. This was the third Jaques Polak Lecture in the Annual Research Conference Series.

The Eighth Annual Research Conference of the International Monetary Fund took place in Washington, DC, on November 15–16, 2007. The conference was intended to provide a forum for discussing innovative research in economics, undertaken both by IMF staff and by outside economists, and to facilitate the exchange of views among researchers and policy makers. The 2007 conference was devoted to Exchange Rates. This was the third Jaques Polak Lecture in the Annual Research Conference Series.

The Ninth Annual Research Conference of the International Monetary Fund took place in Washington, DC, on November 13–14, 2008. The conference was intended to provide a forum for discussing innovative research in economics, undertaken both by IMF staff and by outside economists, and to facilitate the exchange of views among researchers and policy makers. The 2008 conference was devoted to Macro Financial Linkages. This was the fourth Jaques Polak Lecture in the Annual Research Conference Series.

The Tenth Annual Research Conference of the International Monetary Fund took place in Washington, DC, on November 5–6, 2009. The conference was intended to provide a forum for discussing innovative research in economics, undertaken both by IMF staff and by outside economists, and to facilitate the exchange of views among researchers and policy makers. The 2009 conference was devoted to Financial Frictions and Macro Economic Adjustments. This was the fifth Jaques Polak Lecture in the Annual Research Conference Series.

The Eleventh Annual Research Conference of the International Monetary Fund took place in Washington, DC, on November 4–5, 2010. The conference was intended to provide a forum for discussing innovative research in economics, undertaken both by IMF staff and by outside economists, and to facilitate the exchange of views among researchers and policy makers. The 2010 conference was devoted to Macro Economic and Financial Policies after the Crisis. This was the sixth Jaques Polak Lecture in the Annual Research Conference Series.

The Twelfth Annual Research Conference of the International Monetary Fund took place in Washington, DC, on November 10–11, 2011. The conference was intended to provide a forum for discussing innovative research in economics, undertaken both by IMF staff and by outside economists, and to facilitate the exchange of views among researchers and policy makers. The 2011 conference was devoted to Monetary and Macroprudential Policies. This was the seventh Jaques Polak Lecture in the Annual Research Conference Series.

The Thirteenth Annual Research Conference of the International Monetary Fund took place in Washington, DC, on November 8–9, 2012. The conference was intended to provide a forum for discussing innovative research in economics, undertaken both by IMF staff and by outside economists, and to facilitate the exchange of views among researchers and policy makers. The 2012 conference was devoted to Labor Markets through the Lens of the Great Recession. This was the eight Jaques Polak Lecture in the Annual Research Conference Series.

The Fourteenth Annual Research Conference of the International Monetary Fund took place in Washington, DC, on November 7–8, 2013. The conference was intended to provide a forum for discussing innovative research in economics, undertaken both by IMF staff and by outside economists, and to facilitate the exchange of views among researchers and policy makers. The 2013 conference was devote to Crisis: Yesterday and Today. This was the ninth Jaques Polak Lecture in the Annual Research Conference Series.

The Fifteenth Annual Research Conference of the International Monetary Fund took place in Washington, DC, on November 13–14, 2014. The conference was intended to provide a forum for discussing innovative research in economics, undertaken both by IMF staff and by outside economists, and to facilitate the exchange of views among researchers and policy makers. The 2014 conference was devoted to Cross Border Spill Overs. This was the tenth Jaques Polak Lecture in the Annual Research Conference Series and the first to also be described as both Mundell-Fleming Lecture and Jaques Polak Lecture.

The Sixteenth Annual Research Conference of the International Monetary Fund took place in Washington, DC, on November 5–6, 2015. The conference was intended to provide a forum for discussing innovative research in economics, undertaken both by IMF staff and by outside economists, and to facilitate the exchange of views among researchers and policy makers. The 2015 conference was devoted to Unconventional Monetary and Exchange Rate Policies. This was the eleventh Jaques Polak Lecture in the Annual Research Conference Series and the second to also be described as both Mundell-Fleming Lecture and Jaques Polak Lecture.

The Seventeenth Annual Research Conference of the International Monetary Fund took place in Washington, DC, on November 3–4, 2016. The conference was intended to provide a forum for discussing innovative research in economics, undertaken both by IMF staff and by outside economists, and to facilitate the exchange of views among researchers and policy makers. The 2016 conference is devoted to Macroeconomics after the Great Recession. This was the twelfth Jaques Polak Lecture in the Annual Research Conference Series and the third to also be described as both Mundell-Fleming Lecture and Jaques Polak Lecture.

Rethinking the ARC

The Agenda for each Annual Research Lecture does not appear to have any Role for the Individual that Lecture was intended to honor. Given IMF Image in Countries across the World, and IMF Score Card in the Design and Delivery of Policy, Program, Project Interventions, 3PIs and 3PIs Training as One in the work towards achieving IMF Vision in each of the 193/306 UN Member States, should an objective International Development Cooperation Profession not ask, what really has the ARC achieved in the past 16 years? And How have these achievements help IMF Executive Management and Governing Council achieve increasing convergence between IMF Vision Intention and Reality in each Community in each of 193/306 UN Member States? Can clear and correct answers to these questions be found without Rethinking ARC and in ways that answer the following Big Questions?

As part of Rethinking ARC, consideration should be given to the desirability of continuing to devote each ARC towards honoring a specific Individual compared to desirability of giving Innovation and Creativity Awards to good ideas and pertinent suggestions that have been demonstrated and seen to demonstrate that these Work at Community, Sub-national, Country, Sub-regional, Regional and Global levels within the topic of the ARC for that year and also more spirited effort needs to be made to ensure that as from 2017 ARC fundamental issues of Diversity, Perspectives, Competences and Inclusion are meaningfully addressed and in ways that effectively correct related gaps, flaws and failures in the past 17 ARCs’.

Big Questions

The ARC over the years discuss annual topics cross cutting within essentially 4 Themes – Macroeconomic Policy, Monetary Policy, Reform and Recession.

The Big Questions are What Has the ARC Outcome in past 16 years achieved? If IMF Internal and External Publics do not actually learn lessons from flaws and failures of past 16 editions of ARC, will the same mistakes not be made in the next 16 editions of ARC starting from the 2016 edition? Can our Fragile Planet afford the ultimate consequences of IMF Platforms such as ARC being empty rituals contributing little or Nothing towards effectively addressing real and complex National Economy problems facing the Ordinary Citizen in each Community – Rural and Urban in each of the 193/306 UN Member States? Can IMF continue with business as usual instead of business unusual and parroting change instead of practicing change? Noting that ARC was Designed as Platform for discussing Innovative Research being undertaken within and outside IMF? That is Can IMF continue practicing Academic Research that is Abstract and essentially aimed at advancing the frontiers of knowledge instead of practicing Development Research that is Practical and essentially aimed at achieving significant improvements in critical contemporary Measures of Service, Speed, Quality, Costs and where necessary revenue?

Overarching World Problems

Poverty, Hunger, Insecurity/Terrorism and Climate Change are the most urgent problems facing our World today and demand National Leaders and World Leaders work SMARTer to continuously improve collaboration, cooperation, cohesion and coordination within North South and South South Multi Stakeholder Platforms, MSPs, that effectively link each Community in each of the 193/306 Member States to UNO Headquarters New York, WBG Headquarters Washington, IMF Headquarters Washington, FAO/IFAD Headquarters Rome and ILO Headquarters Rome.

Members of the MSPs should come from Decision Makers and Management Staff on Member States Governments – Executive, Parliament, Judiciary at all levels; UN System – UNO, WBG, IMF Decision Makers and Management Staff at Headquarters, Regional Offices and Country Offices and CSOs/NGOs Decision Makers and Management Staff at Headquarters, Regional Offices and Country Offices sides and the activities of the Master MSP and MSPs should cover Political, Cultural, Economic, Financial, Social, Environment, Peace, Security, Religious, Moral, Legal, Technical Dimensions of AAAA, SDG, COP21, Agenda 21 in all UN Member States.

The above Big Questions need to be clearly and correctly answered in the context of real and complex overarching World problems on the ground in each rural and urban community in each of the 193/306 UN Member States.
Reforming the UN System – UNO, WBG, IMF to be Fit for the 21st Century

The UN System – UNO, WBG, IMF have Central Role to Play if National Resilience, Mitigation, Adaptation Plan, NRMAP-Ag (Agriculture) Vision this is Integral Part of NRMAP Vision, that is integral part of UN System New IDCR, that is integral part of AAAA Vision, SDG Vision, COP21 Vision and Agenda 21 Vision, is to be designed and delivered from Community to Global levels. Records show that several UN Declarations in 2015 and 2016 underlined this fact. Some have specific provisions calling on UNDESA to Re-engineer itself. The reality is without appropriate help from External and Internal Consultants with minimum certain levels of Hard and Soft Competences, UNDESA cannot deliver on this responsibility. Also UNDESA Re-engineering that is not integral part of other UN System Entities Re-engineering is not likely to achieve much in the work towards achieving the 2030 Global Agenda by target date.

We suggest Re-engineering 8 UNO Entities: UNDP – Poverty and Governance; UNICEF – Children and Family Welfare; WHO – Health, Lifestyle and Wellbeing; UNEP – Climate Change and Environmental Protection; FAO – Food, Agriculture and Nutrition; ILO – Entrepreneurship and Employment; WTO – Commerce and Trade and UNODC – Crime and Corruption and 8 UNO New York Headquarters Entities – UNSC, OPGA, EOSG, UNCEB, ECOSOC, GA Committees, UNDESA, UNDPI, WBG Select Entities; IMF Select Entities, that is Integral Part of UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF Delivery as One, DaO Driving Transformation to make each UN System Entity an International Institution Fit for the 21st Century.

UN System New International Development Cooperation Reform, IDCR Multidisciplinary Professionals Community of Practice

The current UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF IDCR relies heavily, sometimes exclusively and sometimes disproportionately on Trained Economists. The fundamental issues underlying root problems in each of the 9 NRMAPs (Climate Change and Agriculture) Components – Agriculture; Ecosystem and Biodiversity; Water; Health – Plant, Animal, Human; Tourism; Infrastructure; Energy; Humanitarian; Institutional and Systems Reform that is Integral Part of Sustainable Solutions to Development, Diplomacy, Defense, Data, Democracy and Elections real and complex problems on the ground in each of the 193/306 UN Member States are well beyond what only Trained Economists can handle and that explains why working HARDer is not delivering Better Performance and Results in IMF and indeed other UN System: UNO and WBG Entities.

To achieve continuously improving Performance and Results in design and delivery of UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF new IDCR that is integral part of reinforced Global and National Collective Action for achieving NRMAP that is integral part of 2030 Agenda – AAAA, SDG, COP21, Agenda 21, there is a need to meaningfully involve balanced mix of Multidisciplinary Professionals from Arts, Humanities, Sciences, Engineering, Medicine; that is Academics, Professionals and Practitioners whose collective expertise, perspectives and diversity are adequate to help Stakeholders in specific Community to Global Location Context grapple effectively with their unique UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF New IDCR Policy, Program, Project Intervention, 3PI and 3PI Training as One Challenges.


World Leaders and National Leaders in each of the 3 Major Blocks – Member States; UN System – UNO, WBG and IMF and CSOs/NGOs need to recognize that there is no way Trained Economists alone can provide all of the answers to all of the New NRMAP-Ag, New NRMAP and UN System New IDCR that is integral part of 2030 Agenda – AAAA, SDG, COP21, Agenda 21 real and complex problems on the ground from Community to Global levels and that for Best Results, there is a need to include all relevant Multidisciplinary Academics, Scientists, Arts, Engineering, Humanities, Medicine: Professionals and Practitioners.


UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF New IDCR Capacity Building

In the UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF New IDCR, Policy Makers and Decision Makers need to recognize that Effective and Efficient Capacity Building needs to be on 3 Levels:-
  1. Individual: Hard Competences – Learning and Skills and Soft Competences – Character, Courage, Discipline and Mindset.
  2. Institution: Systems and Processes operating at minimum certain levels of performance and productivity to support Individuals to deploy Hard and Soft Competences acquired in their day to day work.
  3. Society: Political, Cultural, Economic, Financial, Social, Environment, Peace, Security, Religious, Moral, Technical and Legal Space for Institutions to Thrive on Chaos.
in each of the 3 Major Blocks of Stakeholders in the New IDCR Processes that is Integral Part of the AAAA, SDG, COP21, Agenda 21 aligned and harmonized with Community Development Plans and Country Development Plans in each of 193/306 Member States are: Member States; UN System – UNO, WBG, IMF and CSOs/NGOs.

Our Study Finding is that there are Research and Knowledge Gaps in each of the 3 Major Blocks that need to be filled. To achieve this, there are Capacity Building Gaps in each of the 3 major Blocks that also needs to be filled and without delay, if there is to be increasing convergence between UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF New IDCR Vision Intention and Reality that is integral part of work towards achieving increasing convergence between NRMAP Vision as well as AAAA, SDG, COP21 and Agenda 21 Visions Intention and Reality in each Community in each of the 193/306 Member States. Also, Capacity Building Challenge is not only on Developing Countries side.

These Capacity Building realities on the ground challenges World Leaders and National Leaders in each of the 3 Blocks to Individually and Jointly find ways and means of continuously improving Collaboration, Cooperation, Cohesion and Coordination from Community to Global levels, because the threat of Climate Change in Agriculture and remaining identified New NAP 8 Components are real and failure to come up with credible Community to Global Climate Change Mitigation, Resilience and Adaptation Sustainable Solutions Framework could have ultimate catastrophic consequences for our fragile Planet.

UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF New IDCR Interventions – Selecting Preferred Consultants

The UN System – UNO, WBG and IMF Entities have standard guidelines for selection of Consultants. However, the UN System – UNO, WBG, IMF Procurement Process needs to appreciate the difference in regular Consulting Services Procurement such as Financial Audit where standards exist and qualified Service Providers deliver to these standards and so any Pre Qualified Consultant can deliver equally on the Assignment, therefore NO HARM is done in selecting the Lowest Financial Proposal to Definite Quantity Contract and Reform Consulting Services Procurement.

In Reform Consulting Services Procurement, such as Policy Reform where no standards exist and Innovation and Creativity are Keys and so all Pre Qualified Consultants cannot deliver equally on the Assignment, therefore MUCH HARM is usually done in selecting the Lowest Financial Proposal, if this does not coincide with the Highest Technical Proposal. Thus, the selection of Preferred Consultant that consistently Deliver Good Reform Policies, Programs, Projects, continues to pose major Challenge for UN System Entities and Member States.

The New IDCR that would help UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF achieve increasing convergence between NRMAP Vision that is integral part of 2030 Agenda – AAAA, SDG, COP21, Agenda 21 aligned and harmonized with Community Development Plans and Country Development Plans in each of 193/306 UN Member States needs to have New Procurement Processes, with New Rules that effectively respond to this difference and in ways that ensure Accountability is effectively promoted and protected through ensuring that each Preferred Consultant deliver on promise made in their Technical Proposal. This way Preferred Consultants who consistently deliver flawed or failed Technical Proposals are no longer rewarded with renewed Patronage and Procurement Commissioners and Managers who consistently select Preferred Consultants who consistently deliver flawed or failed Technical Proposals are sanctioned.

New IMF ARC Series – Acid Test of Credibility

The Acid Test of Credibility of the New ARC Series is How it Delivers from Community to Global levels:-
  1. Better Agriculture Crops, Livestock, Forestry, Fisheries and Aquaculture Information Services, Cooperatives Services and Commodity Markets
  2. Better Innovation and Creativity in Climate Change Resilience, Mitigation and Adaptation Solutions Management as well as in the Optimization of Climate Change Gains and Minimization of Climate Change Losses.
  3. Better Trade, Aid, Debts, Anti Corruption and Anti Terror Solutions Management
  4. Better Multi Stakeholder Partnerships for Driving Policy, Program, Project Interventions, 3PIs and 3PIs Training as One within (1) – (3)

New UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF Vision – Paradigm Shifts

It is clear that in the work towards transforming UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF into Institutions Fit for the 21st Century, the UN System needs to be Reformed within a New UN System Vision. In the work towards achieving increasing convergence between New UN System: UNO, WBG and IMF Vision, Mission and Mandate that effectively reinforce UN System - UNO, WBG, IMF Delivery as One, as the UN System work better towards achieving 2030 Agenda - AAAA, SDG, COP21, Agenda 21 Visions by 2030 Target date, there is a need for UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF Internal and External Publics to have genuine recognition that; our world today needs a paradigm shift from Talking and Thinking to Action and Accomplishments for Results. That is at the community level, at the sub-national level, at the country level, at the sub-regional level, at the regional level, and at the global level, we all need to make these things happen:
a)       jointly making paradigm shifts from working in silos to working intersectorially in synergy;
b)      from multiple approaches to common approaches that continuously improve convergence, alignment and harmony;
c)      from business as usual to business unusual;
d)      from parrotting change to practicing change;
e)      from academic research aimed at advancing frontiers of knowledge to development research aimed at significant improvement in critical contemporary measures of service, speed, costs, quality and where necessary revenue;
f)       from talking and thinking to Action and Accomplishment.

A platform such as the IMF 2016 Annual Research Conference and similar Platforms in IMF as well as in remaining UN System Entities: UNO and WBG, is a Global Public Good that helps all parties engage in dialogue and agree on way-forward actions.
One Worldwide Approach

We note that there are different approaches, visions, models and tools available to each country to achieve NRMAP in all its 9 Components including Agriculture, Infrastructure, Health – Plant, Animal, Human etc; AAAA; SDG; COP21 and Agenda 21, in accordance with its national circumstances and priorities as well as its own development context. However, if there is to be continuously improving collaboration, cooperation, cohesion and coordination in the design and delivery of Policy, Program, Project Interventions, 3PIs and 3PIs Training as One, a need arises for United Community to Global Visions whose implementation and evaluation is built upon One Worldwide Approach that is a Common and Systemic Approach for improving Ownership, Alignment, Harmony etc that has clear Principles, Instruments / Tools corresponding to each Principle, Practices and Database. The New UN System: UNO, WBG and IMF IDCR Vision needs to coincide with such United Community to Global Vision and needs to effectively connect each Community in each of the 193/306 Member States to UNO Headquarters New York, WBG Headquarters Washington, IMF Headquarters Washington, FAO/IFAD Headquarters Rome and ILO Headquarters Rome.

3PCM is an Advance One Worldwide Approach that is sufficiently all inclusive, all embracing and ambitious to meet the implementation as well as evaluation demands of an all inclusive, all embracing and ambitious SDGs, that is essentially the over-arching 2030 Global Agenda and which in reality includes NRMAP-Ag, NRMAP, AAAA, COP21 and Agenda 21.




Inclusion and Participation

We note with both interest and concern that since inception in 2000 to date, there has been no Black or Chinese Chair, Presenter or Panelist in any of the 17 ARC’s. Can there be such level of discrimination in the ARC Series, and the outcome of the Arc’s be expected to meet the yearnings and desires of Ordinary People in Rural and Urban Communities across our World today.

We took up the matter with the present ARC Team and were informed that the Calendar had been irrevocable set as at the time of our request.

Transparency and Accountability

The unshakeable fact is that there is culture of “Omarta” in the UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF and that that of WBG is worse than that of UNO and that of IMF is worse than that of WBG. Whereas UNO and WBG have Visible Offices and UNO has Marked Vehicles; IMF uses Secret Offices that is essentially an Outpost catering to the Needs of Missions on the ground in Countries. In the circumstance it is easy for any IMF Staffer who moves from Government Offices to 5 Star Hotels to be callous in Policy Recommendations and insist on strict implementation on the grounds that the greater the pain and misery of the Poor, the more the physical demonstration that the Policy Recommendation is working.

IMF will be doing itself and our World Great Good should it maintain Open Offices like UNO and WBG Entities. This way even the most stone hearted IMF Staff who is living with the People and sees first hand, the Development Impact of his/her Policy Recommendations, will find it especially difficult to remain indifferent.

It is pertinent to note that IMF cannot show any Country it had taken from Crisis to Leading World Economy as evidence that its Policy Recommendations work. On the contrary, evidence abounds of Countries that rejected IMF prescription and went for alternative therapy and have become Leading World Economies. A key outcome from 2016 ARC can and should be the firm commitment of IMF Governing Council and Executive Management to hold IMF Staff accountable for Policy Recommendation and give Reward for those that Work and are seen to Work for the Poor in the concerned Countries and give Sanctions for those that Do not Work and are seen not to Work for the Poor in the concerned Countries.

Way Forward

Innovation and Creativity are Keys as we face Community to Global Challenges of Modernization and Climate Change in the 21st Century.

The correct answers to SDG, AAAA, COP21 etc How questions could be found first, in selecting One Worldwide Approach, and second in establishing Pilot Programs to test good ideas and pertinent suggestions harvested from Global Consultations and Scale Up Programs at National, Regional and Global levels for ideas and suggestions that Pilot Programs identify as Working.


As long as Stakeholders continue to use multiple, sometimes divergent Approaches and as long as ideas and suggestions cannot be tested to determine what works and how it could be expanded and what is not working and how it could be corrected, it would be uphill task achieving increasing convergence between New UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF Vision Intention and Reality.

2016 ARC could help find sustainable solutions to identified real and complex International Development Cooperation problems on the ground, should:
1.      This Paper be circulated to all Facilitators and Participants at ARC 2016 and points made appropriate to each Session discussed.
2.      All good ideas and suggestions harvested from ARC 2016 be articulated into 2016 ARC Outcome Document.
3.      IMF Governing Council and Executive Management genuinely commit and be seen to commit towards full implementation as well as effective monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the 2016 ARC Outcome Document.


Conclusion

In the work towards achieving the 2030 Agenda Vision ambitions by Target date, fundamental issues that ought to have been settled by end 1st quarter 2015, that is, 6 months before World Leaders endorsed the historic document are still outstanding in 4th quarter 2016, that is, 13 months after the SDGs have been endorsed. 

There are Bright Prospects of Success, should UN System: UNO, WBG, IMF entities genuinely commit towards implementing this New IDCR and should Stakeholders in 3 identified Blocks willingly join and actively participate in the New IDCR Activities in ways that promote and protect the Common Interest and Common Future of Citizens in all UN Member States.

Contact:
Director General
International Society for Poverty Elimination / Economic Alliance Group
Akure – Nigeria, West – Africa.
M: +234-8162469805

Email: nehap.initiative@yahoo.co.uk                                            3 November 2016.