IFD Project Partners� Meeting 10 May 2003

							                           The Third Partners’ Meeting
                      The Investment for Development Project
                         10 May 2003, Geneva, Switzerland

Present: Marianno Laplane, Atiqur Rahman, Miklos Szanyi, Flora Musonda, Brendan
Vickers, Sanjib Pohit, Pradeep S Mehta, KS Sajeev, Sanchita Chatterjee, Olivia Jensen,
Peter Muchlinski, John Dunning

Distt: Partners+PAC+CUTS

 Process issues
Brazil: Time frame: Report C- 17/5; A&B revised & merged-31/5.
Peer review: Andres Lopez.
South Africa: Time frame: Report C received by CUTS; Report B: civil society
questionnaires were sent out again by email; 30 questionnaires have been received; Will
send by 31/5;
Peer review: Could approach Rosalind Thomas.
Hungary: Reports: change the size and structure of B; Report C needs to be translated
into English.
Time frame: Report C 17/5; Merged Report A&B 31/5.
Peer review: Could be Kaloman Kalotay.
Tanzania: Reports: Revised Report C needs to be cut down; Reports A&B need to be
merged and peer reviewed.
Timeline: Flora would report back to Rose (and others at ESRF) and get back by 31/5 (3
weeks).
Peer review: Sam Wangwe has reviewed the report; however an external reviewer should
also be involved.
Bangladesh: Reports: further revision of report C and merged report needed; Investor
survey will be in Appendix.
Timeframe: Report B: 1st week of June; Merged: 15/6; Report C: 30/6.
Peer review: Mirza Azizul Islam.
India: Reports: Laveesh has commented on the case studies, which Sanjib does not agree
to. Sanjib to talk to Laveesh about this; Question was raised whether Biswatosh Saha’s
(Report A researcher) name should be on the report. It was pointed out that NCAER
name should not be put as author.
Timeframe: Report C 16/5.
Peer review: has been done by Aradhana Agarwal, will approach Manoj Pant for another
review.
Zambia: Reports: As per the comments received at the NRG meetings, all the reports
will have to be redone/revised to improve the quality. More domestic sources of data will
be used. They will target President’s Office for advocacy.
Deadline: Merged report 20/6; Report C 30/6.
Peer review: Oliver Saasa.




                                           1
 General issues regarding reports, surveys etc.
   Regarding civil society (CS) survey responses, breakup on how many were
     contacted, the composition of those contacted, how many responded and the
     composition of those responded should be provided in the reports.
   Respondents CS surveys may give personal views not organizational views.
   Comments from peer reviewers should also be sent to CUTS.
   At least one peer review of the reports should be done, if possible more.
   Reviewers should be aware that it is not meant to be a technical report.
   Word limit for merged reports A&B: 10,000.
   Report C: no word limit was fixed, 10 pages given as a guideline.
   Report D is a process report. This should be written after all the partners inputs
     are over. CUTS will send the terms of reference for Report D once the first three
     reports are finalised
   The authorship issue has to be resolved before publishing the reports

 NRG lists need to be sent with complete coordinates. English version needs to be sent
  by Hungary.

 Dunning informed that EIU reviews investment in countries using 70 variables.
  Olivia will get in touch with him for the reviews of the project countries.

 Publication and distribution of reports: All reports except report D for each
  country will be published and sent to the partners. The reports will be sent in bulk for
  national and regional distribution. Partners should let CUTS know how many copies
  they require.

 Other issues
LDC study: David Ongolo is writing this.
LEM study: This has recently been received by CUTS and needs to be distributed
between the PAC and partners. Email a copy to John Dunning.
Failed investment cases: The theme of the next issue of the newsletter is Failed
investment cases. Partners were requested to send list of cases and articles for the
newsletter. CUTS to prepare its failed investment study on the basis of this.
       A note of caution: One should be careful in interpreting cases of “failure”. There
is a continuum of investment and disinvestments, e.g. sell a company and buy another
one; should be careful to recognise that withdrawal may not be a ‘failure,’ it could be part
of technology and skill upgrading. “Failure” is emotive and could be replaced with
another term, may be nonsuccesses.

 Advocacy Document
 CUTS will work on the policy recommendations chapter. Policy recommendations
  will be:
  1. Generic
  2. Country-specific
  3. Caveats
 Partners will write one page country snap shot on his/her report


                                             2
   An introduction for the document will be written by Mariano

 Final meeting: It is expected after Cancun in the last quarter 2003. (please refer to
    the PAC Meeting Minutes)
 The way ahead for partners and CUTS
Peter Muchlinski
     The country specific information should be used more.
     There could be more comparison and search for commonalities and link to the
        background knowledge.
     Further studies on specific questions could be done: technology transfer,
        competition
     Look into corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the social dimension
John Dunning:
     Civil society (CS) angle should be built on in the further research
     We should talk about stakeholder responsibility: companies, CS, govt etc, and
        link with CSR
     Interactions between the three stakeholders
Partners:
     Greater study on CS perceptions, role of CS
     CSR: clarify goals
     Role of capital absorption capacity and the development of this capacity
     The role of incentives structure (noting the OECD)
     South-South trade and investment agreements (regional) and outward investment
        by Brazil, SA, India etc.
     Survey of government officials (but may be very difficult in some countries).
     Reasons for non-successful investment
     FDI and social responsibility
     Policy coherence and incoherence

Partners are welcome to send other ideas.




                                            3