International Development Minister Erik Solheim’s statement to the Storting, 16 may 2006

Check against delivery

Mr President,

Most of the world’s people have always been poor. But today, for the first time in human history, we have the opportunity to eradicate poverty. We can if we want to. Great progress has been made in redressing absolute poverty in Europe and North America; the situation in much of Asia is improving rapidly. Can we envisage any greater achievement for our generation than making poverty history?

We see that the UN Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of reducing by half the proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day by 2015 is within our reach. Africa is still lagging behind the rest of the world, but progress is being made there too. Countries such as South Africa, Mozambique and Botswana are making good economic progress.

We know what a country needs to overcome poverty: it needs peace; it needs a strong, well functioning state that that ensures equitable distribution of wealth; it needs an open, market-based economy; it needs to focus on education; and it needs resources to be mobilised through investments and development assistance. When the US decided to put a man on the moon, it did so. When the superpowers built up their arsenals during the Cold War, they found the necessary resources. If our generation does not eradicate absolute poverty it will not be because we are unable, but because we are not determined enough.

Norway is in a good position to make a contribution. We have just been declared the world’s most successful state by Foreign Policy Magazine. Our economy is in good shape, oil revenue is pouring into our coffers, and most Norwegians agree that the nation’s wealth should be shared both within Norway and outside our borders. Norway has strong NGOs, an active labour movement and many religious communities, all of which are important partners in our international development policy.

In this statement I will highlight a number of new international development policy initiatives the Government intends to take. At the same time I would like to underline how much I value the high level of agreement in the Storting on Norway’s efforts towards developing countries. The Bondevik Government did a good job. And we will build further on its achievements.

Doing what we can to help eradicate poverty is a question of solidarity. All religions and most of the major philosophies emphasise that we should treat others as we would want to be treated by them.

We consider our international development policy an important part of our new security policy. Safeguarding Norway is no longer a question of defending Fredriksten fortress against the Swedes or manning the Jakobselv border post to keep the Russians at bay. Terrorism fostered in the Palestinian Territory or Sudan can strike us. The narcotic drugs that are destroying young people on the street just a few hundred metres from here are not home-grown; they are produced in countries in turmoil such as Afghanistan and Colombia. Chopping down the rain forests in Congo and Brazil will devastate the environment for future generations all over the world, including in Norway. Development leads to less anger, less humiliation and less violence. It makes the world a safer place – also for us.

International development is a broad, historical process, of which development assistance is a small but important part. International development encompasses peace, culture, trade, governance, markets and education. We want to encourage the Norwegian private sector to pull in the same direction as the Government’s international development policy. We will therefore as soon as possible establish a committee to examine how Norwegian policy in its full breadth, including trade, transport, energy, agriculture and culture, is affecting developing countries.

The Western countries’ trade policies have a major impact on developing countries. Poor countries must be given the opportunity to take part in international trade and to safeguard their needs for protection in a good way. Norway has been trying to ensure that the current WTO round is truly a development round, where the interests of the developing countries are the main focus.

The Government wants to promote more Norwegian investment and business activity in our partner countries, and greater trade with them. The engagement of Norwegian companies in developing countries is both beneficial and important. Poverty cannot be eradicated without the creation of private-sector jobs. You cannot achieve an equitable distribution of wealth unless you have wealth to distribute. We have already started preparations to increase our efforts within hydropower and other sustainable forms of energy.

Mr President,

Although our development policy does not solely – perhaps not even primarily – consist in providing assistance, we are going to give more and give better. The 1-per-cent target remains unchanged. But Norway should not attempt to be a “mini UN”; we are not going to do everything, be present everywhere or become engaged in every issue.

An international division of labour is essential for an efficient development policy. For example, we all know that developing countries need hospitals. But Norway is not necessarily in a better position to provide them than Germany or the UK, or Japan or China for that matter. Norway should concentrate its efforts on the areas where we are best, the areas where our expertise is indisputable.

We have to adapt our policy to reality. For some time now, the Palestinian Territory and Afghanistan have been receiving more development assistance than most of our main partner countries. Sudan is today the largest overall recipient of assistance from Norway without even being defined as a partner country. I would like to present the Storting with proposals for appropriate management tools that are more in line with reality at a later stage.

I would also like to streamline the array of performance indicators that have been used for some time to assess the effect our efforts are having on development. For example, according to the present system, an environmental agricultural project for women in Zambia would score on the women, environment, business, agricultural and Africa indicators. It is easy to end up in a numbers game. The most important thing is not giving the most possible, but achieving the most possible. The Government will return to this question in its budget for 2007.

I have defined four areas in which Norway is – or could be – at the top of the world class: energy, peace and reconciliation, women’s and equality issues and the environment. These are areas where we have extensive expertise and strong credibility. It is in these areas that we should increase our efforts. There are a number of other areas that we can safely leave in the hands of others.

This is also in line with the commitments we have made in the Paris Declaration (2005), in which the donor countries agreed to greater coordination of international development efforts.

Mr President,

Energy is an area where Norway is a world leader. We must bring this to the fore in our cooperation with developing countries. The growing energy deficit in Africa as a whole and the major challenges relating to oil revenue management in certain countries are areas where Norway’s expertise can be particularly useful.

Norway’s management of its petroleum resources and revenues has attracted considerable international attention. Many developing countries want to learn from the experience we have built up. The Government has therefore allocated funds to help developing countries to do so. Close cooperation has been established between the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of the Environment to help other countries increase their oil revenues and manage them in a better way. For example, we have helped to strengthen the negotiating position of East Timor towards neighbouring countries, and we have provided advice on the establishment of a petroleum fund.

The intention behind the Government’s “Oil for Development” scheme is to enable petroleum-producing countries to utilise revenue from their oil and gas resources to reduce poverty and improve the living conditions of their populations. Norway’s petroleum expertise, the internationalisation of its oil industry and its existing engagement in resource management, development, peace and human rights, mean that we are in a good position to play such a role. We must do what we can to ensure that each drop of oil leads to increased welfare. Petroleum revenues must be used to build schools and clinics, to provide medicines and development for the many, and not be allowed to disappear into the pockets of the few. We see that there is considerable interest in cooperating with Norway in this area, and it will be an important part of Norway’s international development efforts in the years to come.

Mr President,

I have said a good deal about Norway’s involvement in peace efforts earlier. I have therefore chosen to focus on other areas of Norway’s development policy in this statement. However I would just like to underline that peace and reconciliation work are, and will continue to be, a central part of our development efforts. For we cannot create peace without development, and we cannot create development without peace. Norway will therefore build on the expertise it has gained over several decades of taking part in peace negotiations, and will continue to strengthen its engagement in Sri Lanka, Sudan and a number of other places.

Our development assistance is often directed towards states with weak or non-existent social structures. In order to provide effective assistance, we must also take into account defence, peace and security policy. We therefore want to increase coordination between humanitarian assistance, development cooperation and military action, but we want to ensure that there is a clear distribution of roles.

The development in the Palestinian Territory is a serious cause for concern, and the current situation in Sri Lanka is tragic. The parties are focusing solely on what the other party can do to bring about peace, and consistently meet violence with violence. But as Martin Luther King said, “That old law about an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.”

Mr President,

Women’s rights and gender equality constitute the third of the four areas where Norway has particular strengths compared with other countries. Before the end of 2006, the Government will launch a new action plan on women and gender equality in development cooperation. The review of the Strategy for Women and Gender Equality in Development Cooperation (1997-2005) showed that much still needs to be done to truly integrate the gender perspective into development cooperation. The Government will increase its focus on measures that promote gender equality in the future.

There is no contradiction between a strong emphasis on the integration of the gender perspective into all policy fields and focusing on specific measures to promote women’s rights and gender equality. We have to do both. We will require our cooperation partners, whether governments, international institutions or NGOs, to show that they are taking gender equality issues seriously. Those who demonstrate over time that they are not able or willing to do so will have to be prepared for this to have consequences for our cooperation.

We will also look closely at whether there are elements of our assistance efforts that are reinforcing differences between the sexes and preventing gender equality. I believe we need a better international system for assessing and reporting gender equality issues in development cooperation, and we will look into this further.

When I visited Liberia in March this year, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Africa’s first popularly elected woman president, gave me a down-to-earth perspective on what the fight for women’s rights means in one of the most devastated countries in the world: “We need a larger and better police force. Help us to weed out corruption among the police, otherwise women and children have no protection against rape and abuse.” We have therefore decided to provide support for special units for women and children at police stations in all of Liberia’s 15 districts. Inspired by Ms Johnson-Sirleaf, we have also drawn up an action plan for the implementation of Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security.

The fourth focus area is the environment. The present Government will give greater emphasis to this area than the previous one. We know that there is a clear correlation between the living conditions of the poor and the state of the environment at both national and global level. We will strive to increase partner countries’ capacity and competence in relation to the environment and sustainable development, especially in areas such as biological diversity, water resource management, energy, climate and environmentally hazardous chemicals. This means that we must pay attention to the environmental aspects of economic development. Norway’s schemes for supporting private sector activities in the South will be kept in line with our environmental commitments and priorities. This subject is dealt with extensively in the new action plan that we recently presented. Therefore I will not go into any detail here today, but I would just like to mention that I am looking forward to the comments and responses to the plan from the environmental organisations and other interested parties.

And, although we have defined four main areas, we will of course direct efforts to other areas, for example research, education, agriculture and fisheries. We will also actively support the Prime Minister’s endeavours to help the world reach the MDG of reducing by two-thirds the mortality rate among children under five by 2015. An important tool in these efforts is the provision of vaccines to all the world’s children (through GAVI). We hope these efforts will be a signal to the rest of the world that all the MDGs can be reached if there is sufficient political determination.

Mr President,

Ever since it came into power, the Government has emphasised the need to strengthen the UN. No other organisation has the UN’s legitimacy. It must be able to meet the whole spectrum of challenges facing the world, from poverty and epidemics to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The UN must ensure that all countries are listened to and must act as a guarantor against a world order based on the rule of force. The UN plays by far the most important normative role in the field of international development and is itself a significant actor.

The UN is unique, but far from perfect. It can become better, but only if the members themselves take on the improvement work. For the UN is what we, the member states, make of it – no more and no less.

The UN must be renewed if it is to do what we want it to do. The Prime Minister is one of the co-chairs of the High-level Panel on System-wide Coherence, which gives us a unique opportunity to boost the UN’s ability to work effectively in the areas of environmental protection, emergency assistance and development.

Norway has been a driving force in the establishment of the UN Peacebuilding Fund and Peacebuilding Commission. These will considerably increase the UN’s ability to plan and coordinate complex peacebuilding operations. Norway has helped to get the UN Emergency Fund off the ground. Its purpose is to ensure rapid response to humanitarian crises in connection with war, conflicts and natural disasters.

Norway has also promoted a more standardised organisation of the UN at country level, with a single leadership, a single programme and a single budget for each country.

In connection with its increased focus on the UN, the Government wishes to increase our military participation in UN operations, particularly in Africa. Not only does this demonstrate our willingness to bear our share of the burden, it will also strengthen our influence on the efforts to reform the UN.

It is important that the UN knows how much money it has at its disposal from one year to the next. Otherwise it is difficult to plan well. Norway, which is the seventh largest contributor to the UN, has therefore pledged multi-year support to several of the most important UN agencies. But we have also made it clear that Norway will reduce or discontinue its support to UN agencies that oppose reform, do not give priority to the values we consider important or refuse to cooperate. We intend to reward the good UN agencies and penalise the unsatisfactory ones. We will apply both the whip and the carrot.

In the World Bank too, we will be a critical partner. We will promote further democratisation of the multilateral finance institutions and we aim for openness about Norway’s role in them. It is positive that the World Bank is now emphasising the importance of social equality in its documents, and we will ensure that this principle is put into practice at country level. We also want to ensure that privatisation requirements are not imposed in connection with debt cancellation or the disbursement of loans. We will not oppose privatisation and liberalisation of markets where this is desired by the countries themselves. However, we will examine closely the extent to which the World Bank is continuing to press through ideologically-based privatisation, and we will react where necessary.

From 1 July, Norway will represent the Nordic-Baltic constituency on the World Bank Board for the next three-year period. This will give us the opportunity to exert an influence, and we will utilise this to the full.

We are currently setting up a consultative forum for discussion of World Bank-related issues with Norwegian NGOs.

Mr President,

This Government wants to be bold in its international development policy. We must be more daring. We must be willing to be the country that speaks up when others are silent, that raises the unpopular issues, such as gender equality and HIV/AIDS; we must be champions of the groups that others do not want to acknowledge.

Particularly in relation to HIV/AIDS, we must speak up about what is really happening and set about dealing with the situation such as it is. AIDS is all about sex, blood, drugs and dirty syringes. Wishful thinking and misplaced sensitivity have resulted in the epidemic spreading more widely and more deeply than necessary. The question of who donors choose to help is also a controversial one. Many are concerned about mother-baby transmission of the virus and the situation of orphans, which is fine, but other groups such as sex workers and intravenous drug addicts also have to be helped if we are to succeed in stopping HIV/AIDS in the poor parts of the world. The provision of condoms and clean needles is vital. Women, who account for an increasing portion of those infected, must be empowered so they are able to protect themselves.

We have to talk about the world as it is, and improve what we have, not base our efforts on wishful thinking. For example, homosexuality – despite what certain people seem to think – is here to stay. The idea that the HIV/AIDS epidemic can be fought by means of abstention alone is completely unrealistic. And pretending otherwise is dangerous. It can mean premature death for many. I am glad that the Storting has shown a strong commitment to this issue.

We must also dare to take a clear standpoint on the right of women to safe abortions. In our policy platform we committed ourselves to taking part in the international efforts to decriminalise abortion. We therefore wish to support the global fund that has been established by the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) to support safe abortion projects that have lost funding due to the anti-abortion standpoint of other countries.

We must be prepared to defend human rights in all places and at all times. There is no room for compromise.

We must also speak out clearly against corruption. Corruption is one of the main obstacles to building a well-functioning state, which is crucial for a country’s development. Corruption leads to loss of confidence in government and politics, to unsound investment and waste. It also undermines the confidence of donors.

We intend to fight corruption through a three-pronged strategy. First, zero tolerance of corruption in all our own programmes and all the programmes and projects we support. If we see any money disappearing into private pockets, we will respond sharply. Second, we will help our partner countries to fight corruption, by building up their auditor-general offices and providing support for organisations such as Transparency International and for the free media. Third, Norway supports the World Bank’s and the regional banks’ campaign against corruption, and is financing an international network of anti-corruption experts. We have also entered into an agreement with the World Bank on the establishment of a fund to promote good governance.

The UN Convention against Corruption, which entered into force in December 2005, is the first global agreement on fighting corruption. The proposition to the Storting on the ratification of the convention has been submitted to the Storting. This convention sets a global standard in the international campaign against corruption. Corruption is fought most effectively through setting the requirement for transparency at all levels.

Mr President,

In his autobiography, Nelson Mandela describes an incident that took place on a flight after he had been released from prison. Suddenly the door to the cockpit opened, and he saw that the pilot was black. He admits openly that the first though that struck him – of all people – was, “Can a black man really fly a plane?”

Nelson Mandela soon relaxed again. But the episode illustrates the lack of self-confidence that has built up in a continent that feels it has been forgotten. The Government intends to strengthen Norway’s efforts towards Africa and will develop a comprehensive Africa policy.

But not everything is going wrong in Africa, despite the impression we can get from the media. The continent is now achieving an average economic growth of 5 per cent. This is better than for many years, but is still not sufficient to catch up with Asia and the West. There are more democracies in Africa than ever before and fewer wars. The African Union and other regional organisations are striving to increase African ownership and efforts in peace and reconciliation, economic development and integration. This gives grounds for optimism.

While our main focus will remain on Africa, we also intend to do more in Latin America. A left-wing wave is sweeping across the continent. Through democratic processes, representatives of the labour movement, indigenous peoples and former rebel movements have been voted into government in a number of Latin American countries. Important new signals are coming from a continent that has been known for its elitist power structures and great social inequality. Behind the new leaders are popular and political movements that need help to build democracies and achieve a more equitable distribution of wealth. We want to strengthen these movements through sharing our experience of the Nordic welfare model and the way we regulate the use of our natural resources.

This left-wing wave is made up of many different elements, and could in the worst case degenerate into pure populism. There is reason to urge caution against short-term solutions that give quick political benefits. The most important thing is to ensure real long term improvement, to work towards good solutions that will last.

A working group has been set up in the Ministry to develop recommendations for Norway’s further cooperation with Latin America. The group will present the results of this work at the end of May, and its recommendations will form the basis for the visit I intend to make to South America in the second half of June.

In addition to our efforts in Africa and Latin America, Norway will continue its engagement in Asia, in terms of both conflict resolution and development cooperation. But here too we have to adapt our policy to reality. Countries such as China and India are no longer recipients of development assistance, but they are significant global actors and donors themselves. You cannot travel far in Africa today without coming across Chinese investments or development projects. We have to acknowledge this new state of affairs, and be more nuanced in our approach to Asia. I believe China and India are currently repeating history; for hundreds of years Asia was at the vanguard of developments, both politically and economically. China and India, together with countries like Brazil and South Africa, are becoming global leaders. I believe this gives hope for a more just world in the years to come – an axis of hope!

Mr President,

Norway will continue to be at the forefront of international efforts to ease poor countries’ debt burden, both by contributing to better international debt relief mechanisms and by reducing their debts to Norway.

The Government is currently considering the possibility of unilateral cancellation of the debt owed by developing countries, including debt that dates back to the Norwegian Ship Export Campaign (1976-80). The conclusions will be included in the budget proposal for 2007.

The G8 countries’ debt cancellation initiative last summer has now become a global initiative and responsibility, following decisions taken in the governing bodies of the IMF, the World Bank and the African Development Bank. The Government will submit a proposition to the Storting on debt cancellation during the current session.

It is also important that countries that are granted large-scale debt cancellation do not become heavily indebted again. This is primarily the responsibility of the borrowing countries, but it is also the responsibility of creditor countries. One of the challenges ahead is to get new creditor countries, such as China, to take part in joint analyses of debt sustainability.

The Government is following up its policy platform as regards illegitimate debt. Illegitimate debt is a sensitive issue, including for the UN. When exactly did lending to President Mugabe become illegitimate? When did he change from being a freedom hero to a dictator? Here we have to play an active role in the international arena to encourage donors to take a joint approach. Norway has ordered two international studies on illegitimate debt, one from the World Bank and one from UNCTAD.

Mr President,

Migration is an area that we should pay greater attention to. The total amount of money transferred to the developing world by immigrants in the West and workers in the Persian Gulf exceeds by far the total international development assistance. In a number of countries this is the most important source of foreign currency, and in many cases forms a major part of the GDP. Meanwhile the same countries are suffering a brain drain of qualified personnel such as doctors, nurses and engineers.

UNDP figures show that in 2004, total international development assistance amounted to USD 72 billion (NOK 485 billion), while the money transferred by relatives accounted for USD 126 billion (NOK 848 billion). This flow of money is vital in certain countries. For example in Nepal, Jamaica and El Salvador it accounts for over 10 per cent of GDP.

Many of these transfers are made to areas where the banking system is poor or nonexistent. This means that large transfer costs are involved – up to 15–20 per cent of the amount transferred. We will examine this and many other issues connected with migration more closely.

I will take part in the UN High-level Dialogue on International Migration and Development in September. In this connection, work has also been started in the Ministry to identify the effects of migration on our development efforts.

There are immigrant groups from several of our cooperation countries in Norway. They are a resource – both for us and for their country of origin. We saw a good example of this when Pakistan was hit by an earthquake last autumn. Pakistani groups in Norway played a leading role in the assistance efforts and collected considerable resources to help the affected region. We intend to make it easier for our partner countries to draw on the resources of their immigrant groups in Norway. We are currently looking at how we can better utilise the competence of immigrant groups in development cooperation. We must also encourage more money to be transferred to public welfare, so that more of these resources can be used to benefit the country in question as a whole. We will look into ways of making the transfer of money simpler and safer, with less profit going to the intermediaries.

The Government wants to ensure that sufficient resources are made available for international development. This means that we also have to be willing to consider new and untraditional forms of financing. Norway has supported the British initiative on a new financing system for vaccines in developing countries, and we support the French initiative on the introduction of a solidarity tax on air travel. The money raised will be used to buy cheap medicines for developing countries.

In the beginning of June, I will take part in the launch of the new international drug purchase facility together with Brazil, Chile and France. Until more countries join, Norway will use some of its income from the CO ₂ charge on aviation fuel for development schemes of this nature. We will also continue efforts to persuade more countries to join the French initiative. We will take advantage of Norway’s forthcoming chairmanship of the international pilot group for solidarity contributions for development (from 1 September) to further these efforts.

Mr President,

In recent years we have witnessed a number of famines in Africa: in the Horn of Africa, and in western and southern Africa. Again and again, decade after decade, it is the youngest and the weakest who lose their lives due to environmental damage, climate change, floods and drought. Humanitarian assistance provides short-term relief, but it does not deal with the underlying causes. They may be war and conflict, as in Somalia and Sudan. They may be poor governance, as in Zimbabwe. They may be the effects of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Providing humanitarian assistance will not prevent new disasters. Addressing underlying political issues is – here too – crucial.

I would like to direct a critical eye towards certain countries, mostly in Africa, and ask why they are succumbing to famine time and time again, while other countries are able to progress.

We have to dare to state the facts: many famines are due to a lack of political influence. It is the politically marginalised groups that are hit by hunger, not the groups the people in power need votes from. For example, today’s crisis in the Horn of Africa is mainly felt by the nomads, many of whom are ethnic Somalis.

In certain cases, famine is even used as a political weapon.

We must of course provide emergency relief when a disaster does occur, but we must also make the country’s leaders realise that they are responsible for ensuring that everyone gets the food they need. This is a question of responsibility and justice. For we know that there is enough food in many of the countries in question, and we know that politically influential groups all over the world go to bed each night with full stomachs. The problems relate to distribution, and partly transport. It is the job of the countries’ leaders to solve these problems. The responsibility for feeding people falls to the authorities of the country in question, not to western donor countries.

This is a direct consequence of the right to food and the voluntary guidelines for implementing this right. It is also a consequence of the human rights perspective in our international development policy. The right to produce one’s own food is also a key issue here.

We donors must also dare to ask some difficult questions. Are donors undermining local markets when they send shipments of surplus corn? Are the international community and the food industry taking sustainable development seriously enough, or are we helping to perpetuate the crises? Are we focusing on short-term solutions because this is easier than putting pressure on African politicians to take their citizens seriously? Is food aid being used by Western countries as a price regulation mechanism when prices are not sufficiently high in their home markets?

I have proposed a review of these questions in the autumn.

Mr President,

In this statement I have focused on the areas where Norway can really make a difference in the fight against poverty in the world – energy, peace, women’s rights and the environment. I have also tried to highlight new developments that are taking place in our ever more rapidly changing world.

But regardless of the changes, our basic principles must stand firm. We human beings are dependent on each other. A world that is not a good place for everyone to live in will, in the end, be a world that is not a good place for anyone to live in.

As a nation we should take on the words spoken by Edward Kennedy at his brother’s funeral, and make them our own:

- he saw wrong and tried to right it

- he saw suffering and tried to heal it

- he saw war and tried to stop it

We can if we want to – enough.

Thank you.