Minister of International Development, Ms Hilde F. Johnson

Sustainable Development as a Global Challenge

Delivered by Mr. David Hansen, Political Adviser to the Minister, 21 June 2004

Check against delivery

Ladies and gentlemen,

“Eradicating poverty is the greatest global challenge facing the world today and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development, particularly for developing countries.” This quote is taken from the Plan of Implementation from the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development. It represents a consensus on sustainable development that I welcome. Sustainable development must be understood as a concept based on human needs, human rights, human responsibility towards the environment, and solidarity. Solidarity between generations and solidarity between communities. Unless we keep this in mind, I believe too many people will continue to stick to the idea that we can deal with poverty and growth first and then take a look at the environment. Sustainable development has three dimensions: economic, social and environmental.

When Wangari Maathai was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year, it was a timely reminder to us all that we need to take a holistic approach to the concepts of environmental management, human rights, poverty reduction and peace. This sounds simple and straightforward. In reality, our thinking and our actions have a tendency to be compartmentalised and to be focused on one or the other.

Five years ago the world community adopted the Millennium Development Goals. The Millennium Development Goals are our primary roadmap on the way forward to achieve a sustainable reduction of extreme poverty in its many aspects. Although most of the goals focus on the issue of poverty, income poverty, hunger, disease, shelter and exclusion, goal 7 is To ensure environmental sustainability . The Johannesburg Summit two years later confirmed sustainable development as the overarching agenda for out common work, and placed the MDGs squarely within this agenda.

From the Johannesburg summit, some of you might recall our successful efforts to prevent wording which could be interpreted as giving the WTO rules precedence over environmental agreements and conventions, and that the precautionary principle was confirmed. We were successful in Johannesburg in making decisions on targets, timetables and partnerships to speedily increase access to such basic requirements as clean water, sanitation, adequate shelter, energy, health care, food security and the protection of biodiversity. Overall, Johannesburg was more of a success than some of us had thought possible. Johannesburg completed the Millennium Development Goals under the umbrella of sustainable development.

A good strategy for such summits is to try to push the language as far as possible, and thereafter to try to make those with a feeble memory deliver on the promises given. Sometimes it works. Sometimes summits merely become good memories, sometimes they contribute to bringing us all forward.

It is my firm conviction that the Millennium Development Goals and the decisions from Johannesburg in a singularly efficient way have contributed to focussing the world agenda on the challenges of sustainable development. I remember times when it was far more difficult to get the focus of world leaders or politicians with their minds on serious security issues to focus on the challenge of poverty. I remember times when those of us who wanted to put in a word for sustainable development were ignored in the most polite way possible. This is not so anymore. Just take a look at the agenda for the upcoming G8 meeting in Gleneagles – Africa and the climate are the two priorities.

In September 2005, the General Assembly of the United Nations will carry out a comprehensive review of the implementation of the Millennium Declaration. The review takes as its point of departure the report of the Secretary-General In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all. We will be asking: How far have we come in relation to the Millennium Development Goals (MDG)? What challenges remain? How can we develop an effective partnership between all actors? What do we need in order to strike a balance between the various elements of sustainable development?

Two weeks ago the UN report on the status of the implementation of the MDGs stated that unprecedented gains against poverty have been achieved since 1990. The number of people living in extreme poverty has fallen by 130 million. This progress has taken place against the backdrop of an overall population growth of more than 800 million in the developing regions.

But still 1.2 billion people are living on less than a dollar a day, half of the developing world lacks access to sanitation, every week in the developing world 200 000 children under five die of disease and 10 000 women die giving birth. In addition, we need to adapt ourselves to a new geography of poverty: Some regions score high on most of the goals, whereas sub-Saharan Africa is lagging behind on most of the goals. For the first time in history, there will, in a few years’ time, be more people living in extreme poverty in Africa than in Asia, in absolute figures.

Development is also far too slow in several goals relating to women and children. The UN Millennium Task force also states quite clearly that for the loss of environmental resources, most of the world is off track. The conclusion I draw from this is that we need to focus more on Africa, we need to focus more on the environment. We need to focus more on children, and clearly on women’s rights. This is important not only for the sake of the female half of the world population, but also because women play an active role in poverty reduction and activities relating to water resources management, hygiene, sanitation and sustainable use of local resources. When investing in human resources, we must remember that women are very often the best investment as regards sustainable development. “The year 2005 is crucial in our work to achieve the Goals”, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan says in his foreword to the MDG report. “Instead of setting targets, this time leaders must decide how to achieve them.”

Today, I would like to give you a brief outline of how I see the main elements of the way forward. Then I will take a brief look at a couple of issues of particular relevance for sustainable development. I will end my address to you by giving you an outline of how we conduct our preparatory work for the September summit.

If we are to reach the MDGs, we need to understand our global reform agenda on four fronts:

1. The first front is the need for reform of international framework conditions for development
No country develops in isolation. Development calls for international co-operation, trade, access to markets. If we in the developed world do not allow easier access to markets and reduce the debt burden of the poorest countries, we will fail in our efforts to reach the MDGs. Last year, Ugandan President Museveni stated in the Wall Street Journal that if we keep the developed world dependent on handouts, we have a recipe for permanent poverty. The only way out of this vicious cycle is through trade and market access.

The British development organisation OXFAM makes this case clearly: if Africa were to increase its share of world exports by one percentage point, the resulting gains in income would be equivalent to about five times what the continent receives in development co-operation and debt relief today.

So our first area of reform has to be international framework conditions - debt cancellation and inclusion in world trade on conditions which are conducive to development. Good development policy must not be undermined by bad trade policy.

2. More and better aid
The second arena for reform is the business of aid. We need more and better aid.

In order to reach the Millennium Goals, we need another 50 billion dollars in aid per year. For 2003, world’s total military spending was USD 956 billion (SIPRI). Total development co-operation assistance was USD 68.5 billion(OECD/DAC).

It makes you think.

The trend for development aid is upwards – for 2004 official development aid rose to USD78 billion and more countries are adopting concrete plans for scaling up. But we are too slow. The OECD predicts that ODA will amount to USD 88 billion for 2006, which is clearly too little.

The development reform agenda has another important aspect: we need to change the way we work. Many poor countries are forced to spend scarce resources on preparing thousands of reports for numerous donors and to manage a dizzying number of accounts and projects. I call it the “donor circus”. It must stop. We have to get rid of the flags and fanfares; we have to be less concerned about our own glory and more concerned about results on the ground. Poor countries should spend what little capacity they have on running the country rather than on satisfying donors.

Many of you will be familiar with the OECD/DAC process on donor reform. The recipient country must be in the driver’s seat: setting priorities, making sure policies and programmes go hand in hand, ensuring consistency and co-ordination. Without donor reforms, without ownership and leadership, we will not reach the Millennium Goals.

An important milestone was reached with the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness in March this year. Concrete targets were set for our work on recipient country ownership and the harmonisation of donor procedures. We set targets for the alignment of development work with recipient countries’ own cycles and procedures. Again, we are moving forwards – but slowly and unevenly. Let me add, in this forum, quite a bit of Norway’s attention on the OECD consists of trying to figure out how to speed up this process. I could do with some more help on this.

National governments must do better
An important stride forwards towards a consensus on the broad lines in development policy was when we ceased to have two camps on governance. We used to split into those who blamed most ills on the international framework regimes, and those who blamed everything on governance. Now we talk openly about both aspects. This schism ended finally with the MDGs and the Monterrey consensus. Developing countries have committed themselves to improving their governance as part of the global partnership, the global bargain. Poor countries need to put their own house in order, to improve their policies and their governance. Anti-corruption efforts, democracy building and respect for human rights must be the foundation for sustainable development everywhere. We agree on this, but there is some way from this insight to the development of sound policies and institutions. Sometimes the governance issue is presented simplistically, as if it were solely a question of democracy. Of equal importance are the issues of the rule of law and the capacity of institutions It takes time to get there.

The private sector and civil society
Even if the poor countries deliver on their part of the bargain, and if we as rich countries do all the other things right, it will still not be enough to reach the Millennium Goals.

We need only look at global resource flows, and the incredible gap between the rich and the poor regions of the world. The most significant part of these resource flows are private, they are foreign direct investment. The public sector alone can never lift the poor people of this world out of poverty, or bridge the gap between us. There is simply not enough money and resources there. We need to mobilise a number of other actors in the private sector and in civil society .

To sum up, we need urgent reforms on all four of these global fronts international framework conditions, donors’ efforts, governance and the private sector and non-governmental organisations. And on all of these fronts we need to base our efforts on sound and sustainable policies for the way we use our resources. If we don’t, we won’t succeed. That is why MDG 7 and the Johannesburg agenda are so important.

This year is almost overfilled with reports and deadlines. In March, one of the more memorable UN reports was released – the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), Living beyond our Means. In my opinion the report must be taken seriously in its insistence that our planet’s natural assets must be seen as part of the fight against poverty. The report clearly states that “development policies aimed at reducing poverty that ignore the impact of our current behaviour on the natural environment may well be doomed to failure.”

The objective of the MA was to assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being, and it focuses in particular on the notion of “ecosystem services”, that is to say the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. The conclusion of the assessment is a stark warning – human activity is putting such a strain on the natural functions of the earth that the ability of the planet’s ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted.

Virtually all the earth’s ecosystems have contributed to substantial net gains in human well-being and economic development. However, these gains have been achieved at growing costs, especially during the last 50 years, in the form of the degradation of many ecosystem services and the exacerbation of poverty for groups of people in developing countries. Further destruction of nature will still increase some people's wealth, but it will at the same time increase the problems of the very poorest.

Energy consumption is a case in point: the distributional challenges clash with the need for restraint. A family in one of the poorest countries of the world consumes perhaps 250 kWh a year, whereas a family in Norway will typically use 25 000 kWh a year. The richer 20 per cent of us use 60 per cent of the global energy expenditure. We know this, and we know that global energy consumption must rise as a consequence of poverty reduction. We need to divert energy-consumption away from fossil fuel and over to renewable energy.

We know that poverty reduction will go hand in hand with an increase in food production. We need to invest more in technologies which will allow us to produce more without increasing the use of agrochemicals and water. The potential is there: there are enormous differences in the productivity of farmers between regions; with approximately the same input, African farmers produce only 1/3 of the production of Asian farmers, and 1/5 of the amount produced by farmers in the West.

Many of the regions facing the greatest challenges in achieving the MDGs coincide with those facing significant problems of ecosystem degradation. A few examples illustrate this point. The World Bank estimates that half of those dying prematurely in poor regions of the world die from the side effects of pollution, lack of clean water and other environmental hazards. Rural poor people, a primary target of the MDGs, tend to be most directly reliant on ecosystem services and most vulnerable to changes in those services. More generally, any progress achieved in addressing the MDGs of poverty and hunger eradication, improved health, and environmental sustainability is unlikely to be sustained if most of the ecosystem services on which humanity relies continue to be degraded. In contrast, the sound management of ecosystem services provides cost-effective opportunities for addressing the multiple development goals in a synergistic manner.

The most important achievement of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, in my opinion, is the way that it opens up cross-sectoral communication by focusing on socio-economic aspects of ecosystem loss. For the economists among us, the continued existence of natural ecosystems in all their diversity can best be compared to the spreading of risks. Surely, we do not want the vulnerability of fewer choices, a narrowing of future possibilities. Nor do we want to be bogged down in costly efforts to restore ecosystem services that can be preserved today at a fraction of the cost.

An important recommendation in the MA is to take the value of nature into account and correct the historical bias against natural resources when it comes to weighing the costs and benefits of particular economic choices. By placing a more correct price on ecosystem services, the price for alternative solutions becomes relatively cheaper and more likely to appear desirable to public or private investors. More cities and local communities should do as New York City does: factor in the real value of its wetland for supplying its water, as drinking water and for other purposes.

Another recommendation of equal importance from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, is to realise that local communities are far more likely to protect and use in a sustainable way the natural resources if they have real influence in the decision-making processes and if they end up with a fair share of the benefits arising from their use. This applies to biodiversity at ecosystem level as well as at genetic level.

Cost-sharing and benefit-sharing are issues we cannot continue to be blind to. Several environmental conventions have taken up this issue. In my opinion, it must be moved to a more central place in the thinking of western politicians. When New Guinea and Costa Rica tabled the idea of paying forest-rich developing countries to maintain the rainforest, we should listen. Why should resources be provided through international mechanisms only for planting and not for protection and maintenance? We are approaching the post-Kyoto negotiations, but I see no reason why such ideas could not be aired in other venues as well.

But I want to issue a warning: too often bright ideas to buy into the goodwill of developing countries that possess a good – political or other – which we in the west desire end up by diverting resources from really badly off countries to countries which are slightly better off. In short, when we get bright ideas on spending we need to look for additionality.

Many changes in ecosystem management have involved the privatisation of what were formerly common pool resources. Individuals who depended on those resources, such as indigenous peoples, forest-dependent communities and marginalised poor people, have often lost the right to the resources. It is of vital importance that their informal rights to land and harvesting of resources are recognised, and as donors we should support legal capacity-building concerning the formalisation of the inherited rights of local people.

Formalisation of economic assets into secure legal rights with a focus on the poor and marginalised will have direct ecological and economic effects. It could promote equity by providing the poor with effective legal protection and recognition of their economic assets and transactions.

With Norway in the lead, the Nordic countries, the UK, Canada, Tanzania, Guatemala, Egypt and South Africa will launch the High Level Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor during the New York summit. The Commission will be charged with developing an action-oriented agenda, including key principles and a tool kit with policy and strategy options, which governments and organisations can utilise to move forward.

The fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources is of special importance. This is the third, important, part of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in addition to conservation and sustainable use. Developing countries are home to most of the world’s biodiversity. We in the developed countries ask those countries that are rich in genetic resources to protect their resources for our common interest. Benefit-sharing should be taken more seriously.

In my opinion our request lacks legitimacy if we do not share the benefits arising from the commercial use of the resources. For example we ask Madagascar to protect its biodiversity and it has provided us with the important periwinkle. This medicinal plant can cure 90 per cent of children with leukaemia and gives the pharmaceutical companies an acceptable profit. What have the people in Madagascar received for protecting the plant and having the knowledge of its medicinal properties? Developing countries want to be assured that if they protect and grant access to their native species – for example to multinational pharmaceutical companies – they will be fairly compensated.

The CBD has agreed to start negotiations on an international regime on access and benefit-sharing in relation to genetic resources. The aim of such a regime should be to agree on benefit-sharing arrangements in order for the countries providing genetic resources to be compensated through monetary and non-monetary benefits. Such benefits would certainly also strengthen the incentives for developing countries to preserve their biodiversity. Some of you may be aware of the need to include the aspect of benefit-sharing in patent legislation – Norway has included a provision in patent law that obliges patent seekers to state the origin of the genetic material which forms basis of biotechnology inventions. I believe that an international obligation to include information on the origin of the genetic material in patent applications would support the object of benefit-sharing as well as providing a better understanding of what should be covered by the patent. The introduction of such a requirement is presently being discussed in both the World Intellectual Property Organisation and the WTO.

It will also be necessary to build capacities in developing countries to enforce national laws on access and benefit-sharing. Norway, as both a provider and a user country of genetic resources, will actively contribute to a successful outcome of the negotiations. In September this year we will have a workshop together with South Africa as one contribution to bringing the process forward.

Ladies and gentlemen,

In September this year politicians will meet to assess the progress made in cutting world poverty by half as we committed ourselves to at the Millennium Summit. How far have we come in relation to the MDGs? What challenges remain? How can we develop an effective partnership between all actors? For the 1.1 billion people living on less than a dollar a day, the MDGs are a life and death issue. The September Summit will first of all be a unique opportunity to reaffirm the global partnership for achieving the MDGs - industrialised countries must deliver on aid, trade and policy coherence. But each country must take primary responsibility for its own economic and social development.

My government intends to play an active part in the preparations for the UN summit in September. We want to support the ambition to reform UN in order to strengthen our collective capacity to confront security, development and environmental challenges. The UN summit in September will be an event of critical importance. It will provide us with a unique opportunity to take decisive steps towards the implementation of the Johannesburg agenda and the MDGs.

In March this year, the Nordic ministers of foreign affairs and of development co-operation stated their positions and ambitions for the summit in a joint letter to Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Though in general supportive, the letter also underlines the need for more decisive reforms of the UN development system, more emphasis on donor reform as well as more stress on important crosscutting issues such as gender equality and the environment. As a response to the draft declaration for the summit, we are planning a joint effort to convince states to converge their positions on environment and development around a set of urgently needed elements for the September summit.

We ask that the so-called Monterrey consensus on development be upheld – this represents a balance of responsibilities between rich and poor countries on aid and governance. We urge action on the Official Development Aid level – rich countries must deliver on the 0.7 per cent target set some 35 years ago. We urge speedy action on donor reform. We urge that industrialised countries’ trade and other policies be more coherent with development objectives of poor countries. We urge action on debt relief, with additional resources. We want more emphasis on gender issues and sexual and reproductive health. We want more focus on environmental sustainability – confirm the Johannesburg principles and make them reality. It is our opinion that sustainable development is not significantly clearly and explicitly addressed in the UN Secretary-General’s report In Larger Freedom, nor in the draft declaration presented to us ahead of the Financing for Development Conference, which will start next week.

Likeminded countries have to utilise the momentum to encourage developing countries further in strengthening governance, combating corruption and including environment and sustainable development in their national development strategies. But we will only do this with some credibility if we deliver on our side. This is the crux of the consensus on sustainable development – we must remember this.

Agreement on the MDGs and Johannesburg principles was an outstanding achievement on the part of the UN. But it will be a true victory only when the goals are reached. When deadlines are kept, when targets are met, when the poor see progress in their own lives which is not at the expense of the sustainable utilisation of resources, that is when we – all of us – have succeeded. I will, however, conclude my address by quoting Secretary-General Kofi Annan once again: “All our efforts will be in vain if their results are reversed by continued degradation of the environment and depletion of our natural resources.” We agree, and we believe we must do more to have this reflected in the United Nations consensus that is to take form between now and September. We should do it now.

Thank you.