Ladies and Gentlemen. Dear Colleagues.

It gives me great joy to be here with you all today. The topic of human rights impact assessment (HRIA) triggers a multitude of thoughts and emotions. This stems from the fact that the very concept brings together two separate phases in my professional life so far. One: the human rights agenda, and two: the field of impact assessment. It is funny - having invested considerable time and energy in both these fields of assessment I never made any real attempt to link the two. It's almost kind of embarrassing, isn't it? A case of professional schizophrenia? Actually, it may be closer to the truth than you may think. And let me explain. I spent about six years at the World Bank, dedicating myself to the honourable task of strengthening that institution’s use of Environmental Impact Assessment, the original, the mother of all impact assessments. I helped develop processes, guidelines, training programmes. I helped review projects and programmes. I gave advice to fellow staff and borrowing governments. I developed analyses suggesting to management and board the weaknesses and problems within the Bank's environmental impact assessment system, what should be done to improve it, etc. During those years "human rights" was a concept rarely uttered at the Bank. It was considered irrelevant or a bit dangerous. Then, in 1997 I returned to Norway to become political adviser to the Minister for International Development and Human Rights. It was " and Human Rights" that did it to me. I had to totally reorient myself. Empty hard disk and the reload it. One of my main responsibilities became to help direct the putting together of the Government's Action Plan for Human Rights - the first of its kind.

It was difficult. I struggled as I tried to climb a steep learning curve. I had a hard time with it. But somehow we made it. And in the process I got hooked on human rights. And I got really interested in the relation between development and human rights. Then, the government resigned. I found myself on the street. Like many other ex-politicians, I ended up as a consultant. Before I knew it, I was writing about environmental assessment again. For the World Bank. But there is life after death. Some three weeks ago I returned to government. And here I am, and by now you must understand who I am so pleased with the topic of this conference. Finally my life makes sense. I am cured. Thank you, organizers!

You have managed to create fusion, HRIA.

My experience and current responsibilities lie with the boundaries of international development co-operation. My remarks will draw on, and reflect, this experience, and particularly some of the policy initiatives and contributions of the Norwegian government, in its development co-operation efforts.

What is development

The United Nations has defined development as the process of expanding people’s choices. This useful definition reminds us that growth – economic or otherwise is a means, not an end. The quest for development and the pursuit of human rights are closely interlinked. They are about the same: The quest for a better life, of having the opportunity and the right to make choices.

The economist and Nobel Prize Laureate, Amartya Sen, sees development as a process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy. Being poor means not having the freedom to choose. The concept of development implies more freedom.

Freedom includes access to health and education, self-determination and participation in society and politics, the chance to take part in public debate, the chance to take economic initiatives individually or as a group.

What we should focus on, is how to expand people’s array of choices. How can we give people the chance to choose the life they would prefer? What development policy should be applied? What can we do to bring poor people out of their marginalised existence and into society – globalised or not? These are truly important questions. Part of my fascination with Amartya Sen stems from his innovative research, which suggests very strongly the positive synergy between expanding the different dimensions of freedom and equitable economic development. Democratization in the form of improving participation in decisionmaking has an instrumental value or function beyond the purely normative.

This might seem rather far from the topic of human rights impact assessment. In fact, it provides us with a significant insight if we want to focus on results: Assessment of progress has to be done primarily in terms of whether the freedoms that people are entitled to, are enhanced.

This also provides us with answers to the question of why it is so important to assess the impact on human rights. One reason is because we as a donor country and ratifying party to most of the human rights treaties are obliged to act – and this includes development co-operation activities – in a way that is in accordance with human rights standards. We cannot, in the course of supporting otherwise commendable development efforts, justify violations of human rights, either as a result of or during the process. Hence we need to be alert to the effects our development programmes have on human rights. Another compelling reason is simply that violation of human rights undermines development itself.

Assessment of the impact must show how the programme matches our expectations. We want to be able to see that the efforts achieved something, actually made a difference. We want to find that people actually felt that their lives had been changed to the better.

Policy coherence – The National Plan of Action for Human Rights

This holistic approach to human rights and development calls for policy coherence. Some possible negative impacts on human rights will then be avoided before project planning starts.

Human rights are an integral part of Norway’s domestic, as well as our foreign policy. Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights instruments, Norway has worked hard to implement these commitments within our legal and political system. We have also adopted a National Plan of Action for Human Rights. The Storting (the Norwegian parliament) debated this in November 2000. There was broad political agreement on the recommendations that were presented and the course of action to be followed.

The Norwegian Plan of Action adopts a coherent approach, comprising both international and international measures to strengthen human rights and addressing political and civil rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights. The Plan comprises 325 projects and initiatives to improve the human rights situation in Norway and abroad.

Fully half of the recommendations in the plan deal with domestic human rights issues. We have started at home – looking at our own performance in relation to our citizens.

But we will also continue focussing on human rights abroad. Norway contributes towards setting standards through multilateral forums, co-operates directly with other countries on a broad range of human rights issues, and provides financial assistance for projects to promote human rights. Co-operation with other nations and actors is an essential precondition for success.

As a follow-up to the Plan of Action, we have produced an Annual Report on Norwegian Efforts to Promote Human Rights. This enables the public to see how much progress has been made in the practical implementation of the plan.

In drawing up the Plan of Action, great emphasis was placed on involving the entire Norwegian human rights community. Two well-attended seminars were held, resulting in the submittal of a large number of written proposals for specific measures. Emphasis was also placed on broad internal consultations and dialogue within the government, with the aim of securing the buy-on by all relevant ministries. This approach has ensured that the Plan of Action is both relevant and feasible. The process itself has helped to increase awareness of human rights, and has paved the way for closer contact between ministries and between external groups and the public administration. It has also ensured that many areas of the Norwegian public administration feel responsible for the plan.

Based on the principle that each cabinet minister is responsible for promoting human rights in his or her field, The Government has established a separate committee of state secretaries to follow up the Plan of Action and to ensure that human rights issues receive the necessary political emphasis and attention. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs chairs the committee.

We hope that the process behind this Plan of Action and the lessons that can be learned from the process will provide inspiration and assistance in efforts to draw up similar plans of action in other countries.

The Plan of Action for Human Rights emphasises the importance of policy coherence, both in terms of the need for improved coherence and effectiveness within aid programmes, and in terms of policy coherence between development co-operation policies and other government policies affecting our relations with developing countries. In some ways, the process of preparing the Action plan may resemble what goes into a Strategic Environment Assessment which is – strongly put – Impact Assessment at the aggregate level of policies plans and programs. We will hear more about this later, from Rob Verheem. I believe HRIA must also strive towards the strategic level, rather than the micro- or project level. I look forward to listening to Rob Verheem, whose work I deeply respect.

Human Rights

The promotion and realisation of civil and political rights is of crucial importance for the development of a political system based on democratic principles. Protecting these rights will increase the accountability of governments vis-à-vis their own citizens.

Both the creation and distribution of wealth in a given society will influence the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights. But no state can claim that the lack of economic resources prevents the promotion of human rights.

The promotion of human rights implies both rights awareness and rights empowerment. People must be made aware of their basic rights and they should be able to comprehend how the development process affects these rights. Rights empowerment implies that people have the capacity and resources to claim their rights effectively.

The focus on rights awareness and empowerment in human rights policies provides us with a framework for development co-operation to assist in supporting good governance and democratic practices in public institutions, promoting an independent judiciary and supporting a vibrant civil society conducive to human rights norms and standards.

Fundamentally, it is the authorities of the countries concerned that are responsible for the human rights situation in their own country. The international community, civil society organisations and individuals can support the implementation of efforts to promote human rights.

Human rights impact assessment

As mentioned in the background papers to this conference, Norway has developed a tool to assess how far the manner in which development co-operation is carried out pays due respect to promoting and protecting human rights. The tool is NORAD’s Handbook on Human Rights Assessment, which was published in February this year. It can be used to gauge both ongoing programs and programs under preparation (project cycle perspective). The Handbook does not include measures for a profound human rights impact analysis, nor is it a detailed manual on human rights issues. Instead it can be used to enhance the human rights profile of any development programme. It is a handy booklet with a basic introduction to human rights concepts and a list of questions to be asked at all stages of the programme. The intention is to create awareness among NORAD’s programme managers and project partners of the human rights implications of what they are doing, and help them ensure that human rights principles are followed in the programme implementation. As such, more a strategic assessment tool then project impact oriented.

A little more on the content of the assessment as outlined in the Handbook. The questions are of course based on existing human rights standards, together with the binding obligations of state parties and the implications of complying with these. The basic assumption of the approach is the active, free and meaningful participation of the beneficiaries of the programme as outlined in the UN Declaration on the Right to Development of 1986. The analytical model set out in the Handbook addresses whether and to what extent a programme

• is consistent with the human rights treaty obligations of the partner country;
• strengthens human rights awareness within the target population and/or other persons/groups affected by the programme;
• Empowers target groups, or groups otherwise affected by a programme, to enjoy their internationally recognised human rights.

The key words of the assessment are awareness and empowerment. Hence the human rights assessment focuses on popular involvement in national and local decision-making and in the implementation of development programmes. The list of 10 questions addresses issues like equality and non-discrimination, the right to seek and impart information, the right to express opinions freely, the right to participate, the right to organise, the right to just and favourable working conditions, the right to an adequate standard of living, self provision and income generating activities, and the right to compensation. Actually, the right to participate is a fundamental prerequisite for making also strategic environmental assessment effective and meaningful.

The handbook is a good piece of work. Marit Gjelten from NORAD who is also here can tell you more about it, including the trials and tribulations that went into the process of preparing it.

Closing remarks

You have shown great patience in listening to me. It has been said: "you can’t wake up someone who’s pretending to sleep". If you were actually sleeping by now, it would be my fault and my job to say something interesting enough to wake you up. If you were, however, pretending to sleep, I would be at a loss as to what to say or do. So, thank you for neither sleeping – nor pretending.

Allow me now to leave you with two – in my view – key messages.

The first message is to a great extent based on my experience from the field of environmental assessment. It goes like this: For HRIA to have an impact on people’s lives – beyond making development professionals feel better – the assessment process must be "in sync" with the policy and decision making processes of the country in question. Whether the HRIA is carried out to assess the impact of a specific policy (related to trade, or education, or labour rights – whatever) or a specific investment program (modernization of agriculture) – it must be in sync with the process of developing or implementing that policy or program. If not, the benefits will be limited. Believe me, I know. Sitting in Brussels or Oslo and doing a HRIA of a program in Mali will have a very limited effect. Not a waste of time. But limited impact.

Second message: Never forget that there is nothing that is so beneficial to human rights as development. That is development done right. Understood right. Development as freedom. Expanding human freedoms. In the words of Amartya Sen, development means asking "what will enable the human being to live a life she has reason to value?" Development thus understood certainly must be in part about the same old things: economic growth, investment in infrastructure, sound macroeconomic framework etc. But, it must also be about a bit more. It must be about providing education and health services to all. And it must be about democratic participation, open debate, the rule of law, and the autonomy to make personal economic decisions. Ladies and gentlemen – development thus understood is about – to a large extent – human rights. At least highly consistent with human rights. If we are really committed to human rights – yes by all means – let us do more and better HRIAs. Amongst other things in order to gauge the quality and effectiveness of development corporations, our development policies and foreign policies. But let us, by God, do more than that. Let us fight poverty. Let us promote real development. If the goal is to advance human rights – that is the best we can do.

Thank you.