TNAG-2752-FCO40-3967-Organisation-for-Economic-Co-operation-and-Development-(OECD-1994 — Page 256

1993-03-25 16:43 DEL

[UK]

45 24 98 37

P.04

to it ends with David Stanton's letter to me of 5 June). In this papor we envisaged the OECD engaging in a dialogue (in which the Centre would be actively involved) comprising government officials, businessmen in addition to academics and perhaps being built upon the Centre's existing programme of conferences and workshops. The emphasis would be on policy makers. Didacticism would be eschewed. Tightness of resources would require selectivity. The lead in organising each workshop would be taken by the OECD Directorate which was most competent in a particular area eg Trade Directorate if it were a trade issue, Development Cooperation Directorate if it were a participatory development issue, Environment Directorate (perhaps in collaboration with DCD) if it were a post-UNCED follow up issue etc.

6. The discussion in Heads of Delegation last autumn on arrangements for handling development issues in OECD (my letter of 21 September to Suma Chakrabarti refers) revealed there was no consensus among member stales supporting an institutionalised dialogue between OECD and developing countries (on an UNCTAD model) which would require massive new resources. The idea of a more modest dialogue aimed at policy makers in selected countries remained, however, very much alive with the Americans making it clear that although they would not for the present pursue DC/DCD mérger they wanted more effective use of existing resources

(presumably the Centre's) to help developing countries move along the path to sound political and economic development. We can expect a renewal of this pressure at the 2 April meeting.

Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Secretary-General's note CES (92) 5/REV 1 of 21 October records the conclusions regarding dialogue of last September's Heads of Delegation meeting. The note envisages that opportunities for discussion between the OECD and the developing world will be created and that desirable subjects for discussion will be identified in the preparation of OECD's annual programme of work. My understanding is that this will occur when there is discussion in Heads of Delegation of the new 'horizontal chapter' in the draft 1994 Work Programme and Budget (see paragraph 4 of CES (92)50/REV 1) intended to give a composite picture of the objectives and broad thrust of development related activities inside OECD as a whole (not merely work which is going on in Development Centre and DCD, but also work in Trade Directorate, Agricultural Directorate, Environment Directorate, Science and Technology Directorate, Economics Department etc). The most likely timing for such a discussion this year would appear to be July after the June OECD Ministerial. Participants in any workshops organised would be chosen on the basis of the subject for debate and with countries and participants being selected according to who "was best able to contribute to the discussion of a given topic".

B.

What I think is fairly clear from the above is that an OECD dialogue with developing countries is not a DAC dialogue (which you seem to envisage as the front runner in your letter), but a nuch broader concept drawing on the expertise of all the