The Challenge:

20 percent of the world population enjoy 80 percent of the global income.

1.2 billion people live on less than one dollar a day.

Poverty is lack of income and property.

Poverty is social exclusion.

Poverty is seeing your children growing up without education or dying from malaria or cholera without being able to help them.

The facts of poverty are well known.

They are appalling and embarrassing.

They are embarrassing to us in the rich world.

Why? - Because we know we can do more to reduce poverty than we have done until now.

They are also embarrassing to the governments in many poor countries.

Why? - Because there are a lot of things they can do as well, so far neglected or yet undone.

Administrator Malloch Brown,
Distinguished delegates,
Ladies and gentlemen,

The International Development Goals compel all of us to contribute to halving world poverty, establish universal primary education and reduce the death rates of children under the age of five by two thirds before 2015. These are formidable tasks. Substantial effort is needed.

What’s more; however strong our combined effort to beat poverty, the HIV/AIDS pandemic is still beyond control in many parts of the world. HIV/AIDS can nullify our achievements in development and poverty reduction. Therefore, losing that battle is no option. But in order to win, much more commitment will be needed.

Fortunately, poverty reduction is now making its way to the top of more and more of the important international agendas. There is a growing consensus that abject poverty is intolerable, that it represents an outright collective security risk and that international financing and trade - as well as development assistance - must be harnessed to fight it.

On the international arena unfair trade relations, lack of coherence in donor countries’ policies, volatile financial markets and insufficient development assistance are among the most important hindrances and risks for poverty reduction.

On the national level institutional and manpower constraints, as well as armed conflict and poor governance, are among the main challenges.

In many countries more political commitment to poverty reduction is clearly needed.

The political factor: country responsibilities and the UNDP's role

Choices for the Poor – the evaluation report from UNDP's Poverty Strategies Initiative (PSI) – addresses, among other things, political obstacles to poverty reduction and how to tackle them. In my view the report sends a clear message:

Governments must continue to attack causes of poverty that are not rooted in incoherent donor policies, unfair trade, inadequate development funding or high debt servicing – however difficult these ramifications for development may be.

Excessive spending on defense, corruption and discrimination against minorities and women are all issues that could be given a turn for the better if addressed with the right political attitude and commitment.

Where key governance issues such as these are not dealt with properly, development assistance simply cannot contribute effectively to sustainable poverty reduction.

I am pleased to learn that the UNDP delivers this message so forcefully.

It is the right message from the right institution at the right time.

The report convincingly argues that the quest for better livelihoods is frequently more a matter of political decisions than about technicalities. As illustrated by some of the country stories, sometimes just agreeing that a national poverty problem exists can be hard. In some countries and areas, admitting that there are important national causes of poverty are regarded as contrary to the common understanding of the people's grievance. In still other countries vested interests have at times been so strong - or national authorities so weak - that it has been difficult to even place poverty reduction on the political agenda.

It is perhaps in such countries, where there are strong conflicting views on the need to address poverty - or where there is disagreement on what is needed to reduce it - that the UNDP has its clearest comparative advantage. And perhaps its most important mission.

Consider the example of Lebanon, where the UNDP has helped bring poverty issues into the political debate by way of the more general concept of living conditions - thereby avoiding to stir up sentiments that could have challenged the fragile power-sharing arrangements of the ruling parties.

The Palestinian case illustrates the related problem of introducing a debate on poverty in an environment where poverty is for all to see but where nationa or internall causes for it have not been clearly recognized. Through the financing of a poverty report more knowledge on the facts and causes of the problem was acquired, a more nuanced and complex picture of poverty emerged and the public debate intensified.

In both of these areas the UNDP have been able to help broker important partnerships among local actors, to help institutionalize the reform processes and hopefully also to foster a lasting discourse on fair and equitable distribution of wealth and welfare.

Very importantly, the UNDP is almost always present throughout the developing world - also in countries in a dire political and economic situation. Moreover, the UNDP is seen by many as more neutral than other international actors. These two factors gives the agency its particular edge in facilitating the policy dialogue on poverty reduction strategies .

We must all work to preserve this rather unique role of the UNDP.

Yesterday, Mr. Mark Malloch Brown and myself attended a press conference for the launching of UNDP’s Center for Democratic Governance in Oslo. I welcome the decision by the UNDP to locate this global center here in Norway, and I am confident that the center will promote useful partnerships with research- and academic institutions in Norway, the Nordic countries and in the world at large. Norway firmly believes that UNDP’s renewed focus on democratic governance, advocacy and institution building - and its insistence on UN coherence - are vitally important.

The need for good strategies

There is an obvious need both for adequate policies and for sufficient financing and technical assistance to support them. Today, poor developing countries invest much effort in working out strategies in accordance with the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper – PRSP – framework. This process, little more than two years old, is moving rapidly forward, driven by the prospect of substantial debt relief.

Debt relief is very important to poor countries. Without it, some governments stand little chance to improve the livelihoods of their populations. However, there is a need for more genuine and broad-based ownership and commitment to the PRSPs. A certain level of quality and comprehensiveness is also important for their sustainability. Up to now many of the PRSPs and interim-PRSPs have been wanting in these respects

I very much encourage the UNDP to continue to actively assist countries in preparing and implementing national poverty strategies - better national poverty strategies. As the report itself indicates, the UNDP, the Bretton Woods institutions, the bilateral donors – including ourselves – and other relevant actors should find ways to work more closely together to develop and fine-tune this framework.

The importance of genuine ownership

Ownership is a concept central to Choices for the Poor. And rightly so. The clear message being that in the PSI experience, the initiatives based most firmly on close partnerships with stakeholders and utilization of the countries’ own human resources are the more successful and durable.

Two weeks ago, I visited East Timor to discuss with the United Nations Transitional Administration (UNTAET) and the East Timorese how Norway best can assist East Timor in the process leading to independence. The Timorese people are eager and impatient to take the leading role in the development of their country. Ownership – or, as they put it - "timorization" of the decision making institutions, is the most crucial key to further development. When planning programs for sustainable development in East Timor, this is a challenge that we, the donor community, and the United Nations - both the Transitional Administration and the UNDP - must take very, very seriously

This, by the way, corresponds well with our own prior experience. Years ago, the practice of NORAD-led projects and the widespread use of Norwegian expatriates to implement activities were deemed ineffective. It was gradually abolished - precisely because it did little to foster ownership.

For more than a decade now, a fundamental principle of Norwegian development policy has been that development and poverty reduction are only sustainable if genuinely wanted, subscribed to and adopted by our partner governments and other key stakeholders. Today, all our partners shall - and do - assume planning and implementation responsibility. We, on our part, participate in and encourage the establishment of sector-wide approaches and other country-led coordination mechanisms.

Donors’ poverty strategies

Norway has also participated actively in the development of the OECD/DAC Guidelines for Poverty Reduction, which outline and promote good practices for development cooperation on the part of the donor community. Basically, the OECD guidelines endorse the set of good donor practices which also emerges from the Choices for the Poor report - and vice versa.

One important point in relation to this work by the OECD/DAC is that although donors need plans and strategies to underpin the PRSPs of partner countries , our strategies should avoid being prescriptive with regard to what partner countries should - or should not - do. Rather, they should concentrate on our comparative advantages in assisting partners in making and implementing their own plans. Ours is a task of providing added value, when and where we are in a position to do so.

In applying the principles of good donor governance, we should pay much more attention to the policy areas beyond mere development assistance – like trade, investment, agricultural and environmental policies. We should aim for higher ground. As does the UNDP.

A Norwegian Poverty Reduction Action Plan

In light of the rich knowledge we now have on the causes of poverty, I have recently initiated a review of our own approach to cooperation for poverty reduction. This will lead to an action plan, due this year, which will emphasize the need for increased quality in the delivery of development assistance.

It will also, I hope, take the issue of overall policy coherence to the forefront of our development agenda.

It will definitely emphasize the need for more and better cooperation among donors – not least with multilateral institutions, including the UNDP.

Concluding remarks

Ladies and gentlemen,

There is much to learn from Choices for the Poor. Perhaps one of the most important lessons is that the UNDP poverty strategies initiative is in no way competing with the PRSP initiative.

Rather, I see the PSI as a much-needed complimentary activity to the PRSP process - and an important tool in improving the ownership to the strategy papers.

The common endeavor to sensitize countries to poverty reduction will and must continue. Here, the UNDP is clearly on the right track.

Norway will continue to support this effort.

Thank you – and good luck with your deliberations.