A/HRC/15/WG.2/TF/2 grounds that their debts were sustainable, and that the framework for assessing debt sustainability was based on the primacy of debt service and did not include an assessment of the needs to realize human rights or the Millennium Development Goals. Other important challenges, such as the effect of global climate change, have not been sufficiently addressed. 54. The independent expert presented and discussed several ideas to enhance the effectiveness of debt relief initiatives with regard to their contribution to poverty reduction and the fulfilment of human rights, including the need for debt relief strategies to be revisited, the extension of the initiatives to developing countries not meeting the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries threshold, the increase of financial flows to poor countries in the form of grants rather than loans, the design of a binding international framework for responsible lending and borrowing, improvement of the independence and credibility of debt sustainability assessments, regulation of the activities of “distressed debt” or “vulture funds” to reduce their potential to diminish debt relief gains, and far-reaching reforms of the global economic system (such as reform of the international financial institutions to reinforce transparency, accountability, democratic decision-making and respect for human rights, and the design of a globally managed exchange rate system). 55. In the ensuing discussion, Nico Schrijver queried how the assessment of the contribution of debt relief initiatives to achieving economic and social development, especially in the context of the Millennium Development Goals, could incorporate human rights standards. Raymond Atuguba underscored the potential of the right to development criteria to play a positive role by helping to restore some balance with regard to the bargaining power of borrowers and creditors, which would allow for non-financial and economic concerns to be taken into account fully in their dealings. 56. UNCTAD supported the concerns raised by the independent expert, reiterated that human rights did not feature prominently in IMF and World Bank policy formulation, and queried whether the ways and means to address these concerns would be adequate in future lending decisions. 57. The IMF representative responded to queries and remarks, and commented on several statements made by the independent expert in his presentation. He acknowledged some of the points made by the expert such as the need for financing beyond debt relief to reach the Millennium Development Goals. He also identified and explained some of the constraints faced by the institution in addressing the issues highlighted, including the current mandate of IMF and available resources, which are set by the international community, particularly Member States. 58. The representatives of IMF and the World Bank outlined the progress already made towards openness to discussing how human rights concerns relate to their activities. Both expressed willingness to continue to work with relevant stakeholders on these issues. 59. At that point, The Chairperson-Rapporteur remarked that the reliance on article 3, section 5, of the Articles of Agreement to exclude human rights as a political consideration had been abandoned by the World Bank for some time, and that the task force had benefited from the active engagement of its institutional member from the bank, which had led to a special issue of a publication of the World Bank Institute,3 on which a Global Forum was based. Moreover, the current member of the task force from the bank is also a member of the Development Assistance Committee human rights task team of the Organization for 3 GE.10-11443 Joseph K. Ingram and David Freestone (eds.), “Human rights and development”, Development Outreach, World Bank Institute, Washington, D.C., October 2006. 13