Mr Chairman,

Norway affirms the DAC Guidelines on Poverty Reduction. We are very grateful for the work that has been done and want to extend a special appreciation to the secretariat, that (up to the last minute) has done a tremendous job in redrafting and piecing together the final product.

The document has a clear direction that goes well beyond the measures of traditional development assistance. This is positive. We have succeeded in what we set out to achieve.

Poverty reduction is the overriding and fundamental challenge we face in international development. The global convergence in positions on this issue is remarkable. We may still debate the interface between economic growth strategies and poverty reduction strategies. But the imperative now is acting from where we are, based on sufficient convergence on both the centrality and the modalities of poverty reduction.

A will to act on the convergence around poverty reduction strategies is clearly demonstrated in the report of the 6 ^th> meeting of the Informal Group of the Multilateral Secretariats. In addition to stating the need for enhanced institutional co-operation, the report speaks to improving the link between national poverty reduction strategies and strategies for sustainable development and trade development. This is where we need to proceed.

It has taken us a long time to get here with our analysis, research and debates. We cannot defend being in agreement without moving on to implementation with urge and impatience. There is growing frustration in the global community over the discrepancy between what we say and what we do. Failing to match opportunity and expectations carries the risk of major set back in dealing with the global critical challenges that we share, such as in environment and health. We cannot afford undermining credibility when so much is at stake.

The OECD arena is unique in the way it provides space for debating the contribution of OECD countries with a self-critical assessment of the way we do business. Norway therefore notes with special interest the work on policy coherence for poverty reduction and the checklists provided on both aid effectiveness and policy effectiveness. It helps focus our attention on policy factors in our own countries that can have important negative impact on the poverty situation in the poorest countries. We welcome this way of placing governance and accountability up front as a challenge to OECD countries, matching the call for good governance as a prerequisite for aid effectiveness in countries receiving aid.

The work being done in the OECD itself on seeking to overcome barriers of incoherence is an example to take note of. Norway welcomes the Development Group and will follow its work with interest. We also have noted the leadership that has been provided by United Kingdom on this issue. Several other examples of setting up mechanisms to improve coherence on poverty reduction across government ministries have been highlighted during this discussion. Many of us – and this also goes for my own country – are up against serious challenges in policy areas of important national interests. Work on policy coherence therefore requires sustained political momentum, also as generated through peer interaction.

It is therefore particularly important and encouraging that it is in fact the OECD Ministerial Council that commissioned the checklist in the first place and that they will discuss it already in May. In moving forward, we do want to see criteria on policy coherence for poverty reduction built into the DAC country peer review process. In the same way as several other member countries present here, we are ready to participate.

We expect developing country partners to be open, transparent and accountable in terms of their governance, including policies and plans, expenditure and performance. It may re-enforce mutuality in partnership as well as our credibility in the governance debate if also OECD countries are open, transparent and accountable for policy coherence. The possibility of having some mechanism that provide an arena for dialogue on performance in policy coherence also with developing country partners may be worth exploring. This could also be a lead into some mechanism for multi-stakeholder dialogue on policy issues related to poverty reduction.

The important thing is that OECD countries should not be seen to work on this in isolation from a broader partnership. UNDP has a special mandate on governance, and has already set out to be an agency that can assist in benchmarking of performance on the International Development Goals. A collaboration between UNDP and OECD on benchmarking OECD performance might well be a possibility tat could be further pursued.

What has Norway so far been able to do?

According to OECD/DACs Scoping Study from 1999 Norway were among the donor countries without an explicit poverty reduction strategy. The reason why we - confronted in public by this fact – did not immediately start working one out is partly that we were not particularly embarrassed, because DAC at the same time gave us good marks for having an overall good poverty profile in our development assistance. Partly we also wanted to contribute to poverty reduction in ways that are possible to monitor and evaluate in a systematic way. In addition we realised that the complexity and the dimension of the poverty problem in many partner countries are so vast that a common understanding and operational platform was needed.

We had much faith in this work when it was started and the Guidelines fulfil many of our expectations. We intend to use it widely as a reference point for our own work, even though much of the advice is already current Norwegian development policy. More precisely we have now started work on an action plan for poverty reduction to be finalised this year. Our approach is that we want to be a co-player in the international common effort where partners have the final say as to what development efforts should be financed. In line with this we see the IDGs as important points of departure for our plan, like the Guidelines do and like UK has done in their strategy documents.

Improved policy coherence to fight poverty will be a central element of our follow up efforts to this DAC meeting. We have taken some initial steps in a process to assess Norwegian policies in different areas to ascertain that they are as conducive as possible to reaching the commitments to poverty reduction, the IDGs and the Millennium Declaration. We will start with the basics, that is how policies can avoid being harmful to poverty reduction in the poorest countries. In this respect the Norwegian government has already decided to abolish all customs on goods from the least developed countries. We have also gradually eliminated all quotas on textiles from developing countries, the result of consecutive governments’ assessment that sunset industries should not undermine poverty reduction. We will take back with us from this meeting the examples we have heard on mechanisms within government to assess policies across all ministries on coherence for poverty reduction, and use these examples of available "best practice" to further explore suitable tools, and in what area of policy we should focus. In this respect, we agree with the priorities proposed by OECD for its own work, including trade, sustainable development and health.

The Guidelines emphasise the fact that capacity in many poor countries represents a serious obstacle to development. Health and education levels are too low, institutions are not functioning well, economic management is too weak, social security nets are not well developed, knowledge on markets, quality standards and trade possibilities and -obstacles are limited. Possibilities to participate in and make their voice heard in WTO and other central fora are also limited.

The challenges are enormous and there is a need both for more efficient and for more development assistance.

In terms of efficiency, co-ordination is a key word. From our perspective the countries' own poverty strategies are the most important instruments for co-ordination. The World Bank IMF and UNDP have given important contributions to overall co-ordination through their respective initiatives to support national poverty strategy formulations. Measures like these remind us again, however, that we donors with a lot of capacity and knowledge must exercise self restraint to avoid – propelled by sheer eagerness to promote good strategies – retaking responsibilities for planning and implementation from those who are its true owners.

Capacity development is characterised by being a long and meticulous process. As long there is progress in institutional development and governance and as long as we see that there is a will to improve the plight of the poor there is reason to continue with our support in full strength and to increase it if needed.

But more aid is also important. Concerning the ODA figures for 2000, let me first of all state for the record: The Norwegian ODA increased from 1999 to 2000. The recorded decline is due to the fact that OECD bookkeeping is based on USD. But the point I want to make is another one. As stated already by the Danish minister, overall low ODA-levels may become a problem also for the good performers in this field. Poor ODA-performers should be aware of this. ODA is a very important signal to what extent we are willing to invest in poverty reduction. A sustained downward ODA-trend will negatively affect our possibilities for achieving progress in many of those arenas that now will address vital global shared concerns.

This brings me to another strategic approach that I believe is vital for OECD countries in the coming months. That is to link the various arenas and find synergies and alliances to overcome some of the barriers that now threaten to fragment and constrain action on shared global challenges. Ahead of us we have the LDC conference, the preparation for a new WTO round, the Financing for Development process and the Johannesburg Conference on Environment and Development. In addition a number of special sessions on critical concerns, such as HiV/Aids, Habitat and the Children Summit. We meet as the same governments around all these tables, and we keep on repeatedly getting stuck in our negotiations. It is now imperative that we find the strategies that can generate partnerships across divides and can demonstrate to the public that there is political will, and that this means overcoming barriers of inaction.

Governments cannot do this on their own. We need to embrace and make more active use of multi stakeholder dialogue as we now move forward. At all levels. This is the only way to move forward for managing the diversity of needs and potential that we now see around us. There is a need for tailored solutions to each country context, but holding on to a common framework of good practice, benchmarking and using insights and knowledge and resources from multiple actors; public, private, and civil society.

We need credibility as we continue to face the frustration that we now see around us over global systems and global governance that fail to overcome marginalisation and gross poverty and inequality. We need to come to grips with the challenges of globalisation and governance – and as several other countries also the Norwegian Government has set out on a project on globalisation and market forces, and is now in the process of mapping what others are doing in this respect.

The need to work on this whole range of challenges in our home countries. We depend on a public opinion that has a global solidarity commitment. Securing public understanding and support for ODA allocations. This is a shared challenge for all the OECD countries, yet a challenge to which there are no uniform responses. Norway therefore supports the suggestion made by Japan that the discussions in DAC also should address the perspective of domestic public opinion and its influence on aid policies.