To do this he launched an ambitious program

Last November in Washington and a few months ago in London, in the concern about the financial and economic crisis, the collective commitment of the leaders of the G20 to stimulate, regulate, and restructure the overall economy is able to restore confidence. However, most of the problems which had justified such efforts remain whole. Of course, the concerns are mitigated in the rooms of the boards of Directors and on the markets but the drama of daily survival remains, even worsened for many cities and villages in the least developed countries, particularly in the greater part of Africa.

The United Nations, FAO and the Bretton Woods institutions announce that the direct and indirect effects of the global economic collapse will be felt even in these countries. Jobs have been destroyed, the sources of revenue were lost and opportunities to are gone. Tens of millions of people came to join the ranks of hundreds of millions who suffer from absolute poverty; advances gained in the direction of the Millennium development goals were, overturned.

The G20 acknowledged that the people and the poorest countries of the world should not suffer the négatives consequences of a crisis which they are not responsible. To do this, he launched an ambitious program. This momentum must be maintained. Four areas appear us of particular importance to this connection.

As it goes without saying, the g-20 leaders must first hold Washington and London commitments for the implementation of a plan of action for the recovery and comprehensive reforms. They recognized their collective responsibility to mitigate the social consequences of the crisis and to minimize its impact on global growth potential; They must now verify to what extent their contributions are translated by real change for developing countries.

Of course, there are encouraging signs. Last July, the international monetary Fund announced an increase in substantial and significant of its loans at rates very privileged to least developed countries. Many of them - including Ethiopia, Malawi and South Africa - have already received their allocation of special drawing rights. This should help to address the economic crisis. Many however, vulnerable countries still tries to implement economic stimulus package investments and strive to expand their social protection services. This suggests the need for additional contributions and raises a few questions about the strictness of the criteria for eligibility to World Bank loans and its models of allocation of competition when they contribute to render impossible the support of the countries in most need.

This makes it more urgent a second series of initiatives open to the developing countries, including the poorest, a further representation in global financial institutions and strengthening regional organizations such as the African Development Bank. An overall Pro and fair financial architecture is not only more widely open its doors to the most important emerging countries but it must also open up systematically to the poorest countries. The Bretton Woods institutions themselves acknowledge that this makes them more relevant to the realities if different from the world community today, the problems of climate change and poverty reduction. The pace of change in this regard should therefore be accelerated.

In addition, it is important to focus more to meet the challenges of the aftermath of the crisis the international monetary fund. This called three negliGent reforms. First, a broadening of its mandate beyond macroeconomic and monetary to monitor capital accounts and necessary regulations, and prevent financial contagion phenomena. Then, the establishment of a Board policy of very high level to enable effective coordination and to provide a framework to major policy decisions affecting the overall stability. Finally, the lowering of the threshold of majority needed for the most important votes of 85 at 70 or 75, and the extension of the scope of double majorities for others, in such a way that decisions regarding fundamental aspects of the life of the institution actually receive the support of the majority of its members.

This reform of the institutional architecture must be accompanied by a third step: an agreement on an agenda of work to tackle the structural barriers to exports of the developing world: it's all varieties of unfair trade rules, excessive subsidies, barriers to intellectual property and any other form of trade distortion that reduce the potential of the markets. The g-20 could in this play a particularly constructive role, particularly for the relaunch of the Doha negotiations, reductions in tariff and quota for exports of the least developed countries, or the gradual elimination of internal subsidies.

Finally, the g-20 could facilitate progress on climate change. Its members are responsible for the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions. An agreement between them in Pittsburgh would be a significant advance towards the success of the Conference of December in Copenhagen. Progress is needed on the objectives of reducing emissions, technology and intellectual property shares, funding for the adaptation of poor countries as well as to avoid providing climate alibis to new forms of trade protectionism.

The challenges of our time are numerous and complex. Washington and London summits responded responsibly to the problems of third world countries and opened the fundamental perspectives of changes. We rely on the determination of the leaders of the world in Pittsburgh that they detract from the compromise solutions which reflect that minimum common denominators of their interests and they agree, on the contrary, on climate change, persistent poverty emergency solutions and the necessary establishment of effective global governance.