 I think Finns overall can't be very provocative, but maybe just to say to begin with, why do I comment on these things? So I'm going to draw on being an economist. So I have that nervousness that Miles said, so I'm just going to touch upon that. It's actually anxiety from my part concerning the sustainable development goals. I left the bank recently, as mentioned, and one thing that I have done during that time of having fun, of not being a manager in the World Bank has been, I've done a report for the Finnish Parliament, which is called Results on the Ground with the question mark, which is an independent review of Finnish aid. So I think that is probably the reason that Tony and Fin invited me as a respondent. So I'm going to comment from those perspectives, sort of being an economist and thinking that way, and then the experience partly in the bank, but mostly regarding one bilateral donor. But then bringing in what has been said in these three presentations. So just first about the sustainable development goals, and as I said, to me they created anxiety because MDGs is really something I lived with in the World Bank, and I can say that they were not initially but quite soon taken as real goals, and they shaped behavior and action. So I would answer Richard M saying that my experience was they really had an impact. They were goals. But I do think this conference gave me a good point. I mean, okay, Joe Stieglitz, my former boss, one remote, talked a long time. So people take various things from him. What I took from him his talk yesterday, actually the question session, where he said that these sustainable development goals are norm setting, they are attitude changes. Then they come to countries and countries kind of reflect them in one way or another. I took that and I want to keep that because it totally lowers my anxiety because they are not the similar way the goals that you actually modify all your action as a development agency. And I think, Richard, see you brought this from the climate change, you know, literature or dialogue, that concept how you nationally choose your indicators and then measure. So then I'm much more at ease because otherwise, there are just so many. And I remember having been again in the World Bank, I remember when the poverty reduction strategy papers, the PRSBs came. And I had been on the, I was a Uganda economist in my first job in the bank, and the PRSB was really cooked up in Uganda, but it was nothing to do with PRSB. It was their own poverty program. There was never even a dream that it would come anything. When it became a PRSB, Uganda already had their own poverty reduction action plan then and they were done. But when PRSB came, the World Bank created a handbook for it and it had 1000 pages. And I mean, it was supposed to be about ownership. So the World Bank wrote 1000 pages to say how it should be. So in a way, those memories kind of resonated when these SDGs have been discussed. But at the same time, even during this conference, there is a huge strong positive feeling. I mean, yesterday, the former president of Finland and Joe Stiglitz, they said they are the deep form of democracy. Wow. So in a way, I'm really glad that Joe mentioned that norm setting, and then they will influence countries in various ways. Because had I been in charge, but I wasn't, and the whole country, all those countries will sign to them. Then you sometimes think, because the chief economist of the US aid said, US is big time into this. Now you mentioned China is big time into this. Oh, you start thinking maybe there's nothing in it because everybody can be big time in them. So had I been able to choose just very briefly, I would say, I believe that societies need to choose their own goals. I tend to believe that decentralization is better. Decentralized goals create better accountability, and there needs to be accountability lower level than just the whole globe. And perhaps the third point about there is that there is scarce effort internationally. It has now been made this very widest you can ever make it, all sectors, everything and all countries. Another option would have been to focus on those global bads. Let's say like fragile states, Syria, Middle East, Yemen, Afghanistan, things like conflict, for instance. So anyway, that's about what I wanted to say in terms of the SDGs. And then the aid policy. And I think it was interesting when Richard Manning said that multilateral, bilateral systems are not ready for that. I would like to ask, is China ready? Is that model much better? Kind of because I mean that China thing is so super interesting. And so you could ask whether China is ready. Also perhaps on the China paper, I'm jumping a little bit, but sort of leaving the SDGs and kind of talking about the aid policy now and trying to make the link to them and to your papers. I did tell, so China papers are interesting. I learned that the Chinese, from your paper, I learned that the Chinese actually learned the way of doing natural resource back contracts from their own aid that they received from Japan. That was very interesting. The whole public entrepreneur thing is of course very interesting. I think one thing from your paper, obviously, I would love to see numbers. I am dying to see some of those numbers. Actually, what does this mean? Especially for someone who has worked a lot in Africa. Then I was maybe the last kind of way of framing these points is how ready is then a country like Finland? So, OK, Richard Manning said it's an outlier. It's an outlier, maybe, in the fastness of them cutting the aid program by 40%, just like that. And in a way, when I looked at the aid program after 30 years, I had not looked at the Finnish aid program at all. When I looked at it, the cutting was not yet there. This last year, Finnish aid was 0.6%, so it was a considerable amount. So, a few points about that. That was a review, and I work with my former boss, the madams, to some degree, on it and myself a lot. But when looking at it, the aid thing is a few kind of observations on that. The Sustainable Development Goals, the leadership of the Finnish aid and in a small country, the UN is really important. UN is superbly important here in Finland. So, all the leadership of the Finnish aid program were busy working on the Sustainable Development Goals. That's for sure. And I would actually say that they probably spent far too much time on that. Because then when parliament says, hey, foreign office, we are not really quite confident in your reports because there is nothing negative, everything is going smoothly. And there was quite a bit of swing among parliamentarians, certain parties to be quite anti-distinct. And then they say, OK, results, where are the results? So, when entering this aid program, small bilateral aid program, not a mini program, but relatively small, there is just hardly any evidence on results. So, that was like the one observation that I had. And then, well, how do you then deal with this massive SDG thing if you need to measure that because the data problem is already very big with the MDGs in many countries. But most importantly, to bring the measurement and results to the policy. Some of the other features that I found was fast policy shifts, a lot of fragmentation, a lot of wanting to address every agenda. And maybe a foreign office does that. But then that was especially from the civil society support and multilateral support. And you want to be attending every area. I think the SDGs just enlarges probably that area a lot. Maybe the final point is because my time is up, is to say that I see based on particular this work on looking at the aid program, I am more and more seeing that aid will be very important in the so-called fragile states. I got convinced during that process. And it's not only about the aid spending, but obviously the aid spending. Many of the Finns don't have to worry about the poor in Brazil. I buy that argument. And it one needs to move there. And the problems are really hard to tackle in those countries. So I think that's how I saw that thing. Maybe you are already, I'm over time, but there was one other issue that struck me a lot. There was so much talk about something called policy coherence. And I understand what it means. It means how does your trade policy affect, how does your agriculture policy affect. Very important. But so very little concrete anything on that issue. It's like to me, as a practical person, it's just talk. So that, thank you. Well, thank you very much and I think, you know, your intervention was very provocative and very straightforward and clear message. Thank you so much. And before opening the floor, I'd like to, I have a request from the Korean delegation that Mr. Kim, president of COICA, would like to have short intervention. And I'm not asking Mr. Kim the kind of, you know, how are you going to change, I mean, kind of rewrite a policy within COICA. But you have the floor, please. Thank you for giving me the floor. Among many other issues, one of the interesting presentation is China's role. Of course, many are curious about what, how and Chinese are doing business. There are some critics say that we don't know whether China is doing ODA or China is doing their own, pursuing their own strategic interests and people are confused. And there have been a lot of opposition when AIB was pronounced and then initiated. There was some views in the West that China's role is very positive in terms of helping and filling the gap. There were views that the Chinese increasing role is threatening the pattern and morality of ODA from the Western traditional point of view. We have seen the presentation with very careful interest by Kerry. And when you describe the creative destruction of a finance industry, I would like to ask some more explanation why you naming the Chinese role in financing in ODA or in their strategy. Network and entrepreneurship, whatever. Why you are naming this creative destruction that we are very much interested with the key point for us to collaborate with Chinese in the development world. Thank you. Okay, President Kim, thank you very much for your comments and question to I think Richard Kerry, to Mr. Richard Kerry. And I'd like to open the floor and please identify yourself and then make comments or questions as briefly as possible. And firstly, maybe. Justin. Well, Justin Lin from China. And first I'd like to comment on these three presentation and also the discussion for a very good framework to understand the issue of ODAs and foreign aid and so on and also especially Richard Kerry. His presentation had a very good summary of the thinking and the policy and the evolution in China. And I have one comments and one question. One comments maybe related to Mr. Kim's comments on China's foreign policies. From what I see, the purpose of AIDS is to improve the well-meaning of the recipients. And no matter how you achieve that, what's the purpose that you give AIDS? It can be political, it can be humanitarian and it can be commercial. But at the end, the judgment will be whether you really improve the well-meaning of the people. And if you forgot that, then the AIDS may not serve the purpose. It may be just talking or it may be just serving the purpose of the donors instead of the recipients. And in that regard, yes, today, a lot of AIDS in China is in the firm of some kind of commercial arrangement, certainly with some kind of consultation. But here is that as long as it serves the purpose, it should be welcome. That's my comments and I certainly like to have your reaction from the panel whether that is a good criterion or not. That's one thing. And secondly, in terms of SDG, MDG, and so on, there are many goals, but should we give some kind of priorities to give on goals? Fundamentally, it's to improve the well-meaning of the people. And to improve the well-meaning of the people, I think we need to make the development inclusive. And if we want to have inclusive goals to create a job would be the most important way. And as we discussed the things around in, we have different goals and we put some kind of ranking and to see how they directly link to the job. If they do not direct into the creating of the jobs, then they should be given a rank. And if they can directly link to the given creating job, they should receive higher ranks. Otherwise, we know resources is limited in any country. No matter if it's donors of money or the budget in the recipient country. And if we do not have some kind of priorities, they may be pursuing too many things at the end not being achieved. So that's my comment. I would also like to have the response from the panelists. Okay, thank you. And I guess. Gratia El-Katisha from the City University of New York. Thank you very much for very interesting presentations and your comments. And I work in countries coming out of war or other crisis. And I found Richard Mann in a graph on the low income countries very interesting because the average aid in those countries is 10%. Some of the countries I work with, the average aid in the first decade after the crisis goes higher than 50%. The situation is very different. And what I have observed in that is that the way aid and foreign investment and remittances and all that has taken a completely different turn from what it used to be. For instance, in Afghanistan, the issue of the largest untapped copper mine. In Latin America, we discussed how the foreign direct investment package was unpackaged in the 80s and 90s and so forth. Here, the situation is very interesting because China, for instance, they packed, they have a whole package that includes aid, it includes security, and it brings foreign direct investment all together in the same package. So it's very hard, for instance, for the Canadian firms or the American firms or the European firms to come and compete because these countries provide the aid and the security separate from the foreign investors. So this is something, I mean, I don't have an opinion of whether it's better or not, but it's something that has changed the landscape in these countries. With regards to the millennium development goals, my experience in these countries is that many times they divert. I think we heard how, for instance, unemployment was not a big issue in the millennium development goals. And what I have seen is that many of these goals have diverted resources from employment, which is what you need in these countries, towards some of these goals. I'm not saying the goals are not important, but I'm saying sometimes they diverted resources from really sectors and areas in which there was a large need for aid. Thank you. Okay, thank you. And gentlemen over there. Thank you. Steen Anderson from the NIDA. And thank you very much to the excellent panel for a very good overview. I think my question is for Richard Manning. Now, talking about, we've talked about the post-2015 agenda and now we've had all of these different factors, creative destruction, a plethora perhaps of development banks, et cetera, more bilateral drives rather than multilateral with various donors. So Richard, do you have in your head or could you sketch out what is the post-2015 model then of funding flows, if you will, concessional and semi-concessional flows in the future that might have a chance of actually delivering to the SDGs, especially in low-income countries? I hope you wanna share it with us. And of course, with some degree of realism, can we hope to achieve that because we could probably sketch an ideal model but with your knowledge of all of these different trends, et cetera. What can we hope for? Thank you. Okay, thank you. Very challenging question. But I don't like to compete with your lunchtime but we have some hands over there. So please, you know, weigh over there. The last row. Yeah, I'm Darryl Sequera, an environmental ecologist based in Finland. I'm sorry for the confusion in my mind which might be very simple for to an economist, which is, we use the term aid, aid policy. But I'm not clear in my mind where we separate the 0.7% that governments have pledged to give as aid from the total amount that's given as aid, which we seem to be calling aid, which to my mind seems to be commercially oriented investment, either soft loans or hard loans, but loans. So where do we exactly draw the line and where do we consider what is humanitarian and what of that humanitarian investment can be given as a commercial investment? Those are a question that arise in my mind. And adding to that is very often we find that these so-called aid packages are actually tied to exploitation of the natural resources in the recipient countries. So that's actually very, very profit oriented and it might not be efficient in terms of raising the well-being of the local population but more raising the well-being of the donor agency. So those are the questions that arise in my mind. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you very much. And the next, you know, next to the gentleman. Hi, I'm Michael Barwitz. I'm the chief economist from the Global Fund. So first of all, it's interesting not to hear any discussion about private philanthropy like the Gates Foundation, who not only provide direct aid transfers but also have huge influence on the multilateral system. They're now one of the largest donors, for example, to the World Health Organization, have huge influence over the multilateral system and I haven't heard anybody even mention them. In fact, I think they're actually more currently more influential than China. And the second thing, having worked in a lot of countries, including China, I think the issue around aid transfer is not just about giving money to poor countries. It's also about knowledge and technical assistance. And I think that discussion has been left out of this because I think particularly for middle income countries, they have a lot to learn from OECD countries and how that's organized to try to address some of the challenges that they face that have already been addressed by some of the developed countries is something I think that's really weak in the international architecture and that the international system is not well organized to provide. Thank you. And the last, you know... Oliver Morris, the University of Nottingham. It's a comment that from your combined experience, any of the three of you could respond to. In many respects, China's approach to aid is very similar to the traditional donors' tied aid practices that I'm sure you all remember from the 1980s and earlier. And I can... I remember well the economists, NGOs, politicians, and I know it was within the DAC, the kind of the build-up of persuasive arguments that tied aid was not the right way to deliver aid. Should we be going back to those arguments and subjecting Chinese aid to that type of analysis that many of us did in the 1980s? Okay, thank you very much all. And well, the basic thing is it is very hard to respond to simple questions. But we will try. I would like to ask speakers to respond maybe two minutes each. And well, please ignore that. Thanks. Well, I'll have a crack at perhaps the easier ones and leave the difficult ones for my colleagues to answer. First of all, on Justin's question about job creation and decent work, when I was speaking, I mentioned that the arrival at these sustainable development goals had been a very consultative process. And it was very interesting that after health and education, which came at the top of the list, as you would expect, what people said, which came into third position, was decent work and jobs in the surveys that were done around what civil society wanted out of these sustainable development goals. And if you think about it, that's not surprising because younger people leaving school, leaving university clearly need jobs. But also people at the other end of the employment scale, people who are into their 50s and 60s where there's no social protection scheme, where there's no retirement funding for them, they need to be able to keep working. So I think it's unsurprising that decent work and job should feature so strongly in these sustainable development goals. And my assumption is that now individual countries will reflect those sustainable development goals in their plans going forward. So for example, in Ethiopia, their new growth and transformation program has a lot to say about job creation, employment creation, etc. And I think that your point with which I completely agree is that aid should basically be to support the well-being of recipients. You can't just go in and do it as you know as well as me. You know, you have to get behind a strategy that's there and you have to support what governments themselves are saying. Just a couple of kind of random comments on other points perhaps. We didn't say anything about private foundations. That's absolutely right. They have become increasingly significant, particularly over the last 10 or 15 years and it's not just the Gates and others. Private foundations within Africa, within India, within other parts of Asia, their roles as well have become increasingly significant and I think that's really important. And I also agree with the comment about we should be creating partnerships actually, technical assistance partnerships where the flow is not just one way actually. This is not just a North-South flow. I think there's an awful lot that the North has to learn from the South through development to some of these partnerships. And the final point perhaps for me just to comment on about this tide aid. Yes, I mean I do think you're absolutely right that we have gone back to that discussion and debate, but I think Chinese aid being tied is not as potentially distorting as Northern aid was distorting and Richard and I dealt with this quite a lot back in the 1980s where the distortions were huge frankly. I think that where goods and services are produced at much lower cost than the differential and therefore the skewing that you get through tying aid would be smaller, but we've certainly got to keep it in our sights I think. Thank you very much. Just on quick comments. Just on one point the RIPFA raised, you quite rightly referred to policy coherence and we all fall on down on this and I think the area we need to focus on particularly is these days less trade than tax. I think that's a very important agenda in that area. Justin asked about what are the priorities within all this and I think that my answer to him and also to our Danish colleague, I'm not going to give you the answer to the world in 30 seconds, but things have to make sense at the level of the recipient country. And as I said, if you're a middle income country, aid is fairly small, you can cope with money that is targeted for one particular purpose that's important to the donor. If you're a very poor country and aid is 50% of your GNI or whatever, you can't do that and I appreciate the way the Global Fund for example is now looking at what it does more in the context to what's going on in the health sector generally. It's entirely the right approach. So we have to listen very carefully to our recipient countries, the implemented countries and overall we mustn't distort their priorities. Otherwise you don't get ownership and you don't get results. If Finland wants results, donors should be clear about what they want to achieve but these achievements are not going to be theirs. These are achievements of the countries and donors have to sell to their publics that we are co-investors in let's say improving the quality of female education in Bangladesh and we don't have to prove that we Finland did exactly this within that. Attribution gets ridiculous at some point. You've got to be a contributor to an overall process within which you'll come for what you're doing and the thing makes sense in the point of view of the recipient country. And when you think of what's the model for development assistance in the SDGs, the point I would put to you is what's going to make sense for Malawi or a country like that? What kind of mix of special purpose funds, general funds, loans, grants, makes sense at the point of that country? And we could have a long discussion about how to do that. As I used to say in the DAC, if you visited the world from Mars you would wonder why Earthlings made it so complicated to do something on which they all agree. Everybody agrees we need sustainable development. We've now got the SDGs to measure this. Why can't we find some better ways of doing this? I think what I've learned in my experience of trying to do this is that donors will not achieve this. It's the recipient countries, the implementing countries who have to lead the process. And I think we have to turn the telescope around and look at it from that point of view. I do think there are issues around this whole tide aid issue. As I've said already, there's not a fan of this using aid-to-win contracts approach that I and others were involved in doing in the 1980s. And I think that the two things that work against that are, first of all, obviously tide aid is less of a problem if you're internationally competitive. And China does have some international competitive process itself, which helps to keep the cost down. So maybe from that point of view it's not so bad, but I worry in the Chinese case, as I worried in the British case, that companies get too powerful in all this. They have their own reasons to get to point A and they will talk to the operating agencies in the recipient country. They will cook up a proposition. They will flog it to the Ministry of Finance on the one side and the aid donor on the other side. This proposition will get through, even if it's not the best thing to do, if loan money is involved that could be a thoroughly bad decision. So again, it's the recipient country, the finance people, the people at the centre have to be empowered to fight against people in operating institutions who have their own reasons to push particular things. A link to that. I was the first DAC chair to visit China and the two things I came away from, I was very much at my own, a lot of what China is doing. The two things that China needs to think about are two words. One is sustainability. If you put in a lot of capital investment, will it be maintained? And secondly, transparency. Can people see what you're doing? And I think particularly in these natural resource linked exploitations, I think China needs to think about both those things quite carefully. With technical assistance and knowledge, Michael's quite right about that. I learnt a lesson when I was at the DAC which was that I didn't know much about the OECD, I knew quite a lot about the DAC, but I think the OECD is actually a fabulous institution. It's a great collection of people in the OECD countries who are focused on the same issue, are struggling with the same problems and want to learn from each other. And what we need, and the OECD is gradually itself pushing in this direction, we need a properly organised international and not less than learning transfer system and OECD type, bringing together the stakeholders who know about the environment and how you manage waste. All these issues we're all struggling with. The problem is it's difficult to do that with 180 countries. It's already proved quite difficult to do it with 30 or so. But I think we need more intelligent models of how to do that across the world. And of course it's not just learning from the OECD countries. There's huge learning to be done from China, from India, from all sorts of countries as well. I think that's it. Thank you. Well, Ritva, is China ready for the SDGs? Well, Xi Jinping will be in New York on 28th of this month. His speech, I think, will be really quite fascinating here. Given the number of Chinese initiatives that I was showing up on the slide there, how will he put that whole story together? Now, what China is bringing, in my view, very fundamentally is the transformation idea. It's bringing the Lewis model. It's bringing a model that will generate jobs, will generate trade and investment in jobs, employment, a dynamic economic process which will bring well-being to millions of people over this period of 15 years. So, China is bringing that ambition to the table. Nobody else really is bringing that ambition. So, China is, because it's becoming a bigger part of the whole global economy of the development business, it acquires an interest in performance and in the effect of development process. So, it's moving way, way, away from its support of liberation movements. It wants now to support performing governments, dealing with some very risky cases Zimbabwe and Venezuela. So, it's in different kinds of discussions with them. The whole non-interference principle is, in practice, it's being modified quite significantly. So, that is what I take on that. What are the numbers? Well, you can look up various websites, but there's a very big discussion between people who are trying to estimate these numbers, aid data based at William & Mary sending up satellites to look for Chinese projects from satellites, etc. But I can direct you to some of these numbers. I'm not saying the numbers because in the sort of group that I work with, we sort of agree not to mention these numbers because headline numbers are often very wrong and we spread misunderstandings. But what I should say about Chinese aid packages, these resource for infrastructure packages, what China's doing is attaching the repayment of the loans to the resource receipts as they come through. But the actual package covers a whole wide range of activities in infrastructure, social development and so forth. It's not just the resources. China is organizing its supply chains, that's what it's been doing, but it's doing it through these diversified economic packages. When you look inside them, you'll see development packages. Now, what the other thing that China is saying is it's creating these new regional initiatives, we want to work with other people. So that's the question that was asked. Here are these Chinese packages, how can we part of it? It's difficult to be part of them. China is now saying we want to work with others. So that's the frontier for the next few years and it's not going to be totally straightforward, but it's a new approach. So on a quick discussion, that's what I would say, that China is now saying we want to work with you. And that's whether China's aid is on its own interests or is it aid, is it a welfare transfer, they have got to trade an investment in aid model and trade and investment generate benefits, that's how we all operate. So that's what China is trying to do, is trying to develop those dynamic economic processes. On the question of the Global Fund and the Gates Foundation, I'm actually working on a Gates Foundation project at the moment and I think the Gates Foundation has done a fantastic job and I would say that they are also a global public entrepreneur. They're doing a lot of things and they're doing issues together and find answers and engage people. On coming back to these Chinese tight aid packages and whether we should go back to the arguments that we went through earlier, Oliver, read our paper in the Journal of International Development last month because that's what we went back and did. I'm absolutely impressed with Richard Manning that for China, sustainability and transparency are two big frontiers and really important for them to address in everybody's interest but their own in particular because building up unsustainable loan portfolios is not in their interests and transparency if you want to work with others, you have to be more transparent. I think China and the OECD have just signed a memorandum of understanding why because China wants to learn from the OECD and wants to learn about things like integrity and climate change and environmental standards and Richard at the IDS in our Rising Powers and Development Program we are trying to promote this learning in emerging countries and other developing countries and OECD countries as well. Thank you. Thank you and I think last response. Two messages. What did I learn on this? So and trying to look into the future on the basis of this and maybe the other experience I've had. So let me say this, looks like China will change the aid industry and aid finance and hopefully China will change according to those sustainability and transparency rule so that China changes others and changes itself as well. I think that would be very good and could happen. I think that's really very good because I do think countries do want business collaboration. They do want like I again coming from Finland what do they want to do with the little country Finland technology related things. That's very good because I do think we need some of those other instruments not just the grants grants should go to the poorest countries and especially fragile states and then one needs to go forward and think how to deal with that issue of knowledge because if you just become a poor country like agency the knowledge thing doesn't flow so I didn't learn during this seminar it remains as a question how to then do that knowledge exchange. Thank you. Thank you and before closing Miles you know singled me one question is not answered. Just 20 seconds because I don't think we've answered the point about the 0.7 and how much of that will go towards climate change environment etc. My assumption is that over the next 15 years there will be less aid spent on bilateral programs and that will focus very much on the fragile states and increasing proportion of aid will go to support global public goods including climate change and environmental issues but clearly we don't want all aid to be spent to support environment and climate change issues more than that I think it's quite difficult to pass it up at this stage. Okay thank you Miles and everyone development aid policy makers I believe right now they face well you know they have opportunities but they face a lot of challenges and policy making needs evidences based on the robust research and in this way we count on new UNU wider members and we really count on new and we need a lot of evidences to support new I mean kind of revision of policies and we had a wonderful panel marvelous speakers and respondents and please join me in applause to wonderful panel thank you so much