Minister of International Development and Human Rights, Hilde Frafjord Johnson

Statement at the launch of Human Development Report 1998

Oslo 9 September 1998 (check against delivery)

Ms. Awori, ladies and gentlemen,

It is with great pleasure that I take part in the launching of this year’s Human Development Report. The “HDR” (as it is also called) has, since the first report appeared in 1990, contributed substantially to our understanding of development. This year the focus is on consumption; consumption patterns and trends in rich and poor countries, the relationship between consumption and development, and the costs and benefits of consumption.

I want to congratulate the United Nations Development Program for taking on this challenging, but extremely important, subject. And for coming up with insightful and even surprising findings and conclusions in the process. For policy-makers, such as myself, the Human Development Report ‘98 deserves to be used as an important reference document and as a stimulus for improving development policies. After all, consumption is, for better and for worse, one of the critical factors for development, whether we are talking about under-consumption, over-consumption, unsustainable consumption, consumption to meet basic needs, or consumption as an engine of growth.

However, this Human Development Report should appeal to a much larger audience in my view. Because it links the seemingly “distant” or “abstract” concepts of “development”, “poverty” and “environmental degradation”, it shows interlinks between, and with the daily choices we all make as consumer human beings. It tells us some important things about how we are all part of the problem, and how we can all be part of the solution.

In the debate about consumption, environmental degradation and development, there are in my view two common pitfalls. The HDR ‘98 has avoided both of them, which is commendable, but also no less than what we expect of this publication.

One of the pitfalls is a “Malthusian” one, assuming a one-to-one relationship between consumption in the North and the South, between the rich and the poor. However, reduction of consumption in the North does not automatically benefit the South. The picture is much more complicated. It is not necessarily the case that every new car in China must imply that another car has to be taken off the streets somewhere else, in Norway for example, to avoid an environmental and economic apocalypse. The report argues that the issue is not so much the levels of consumption, but rather the pattern and structure of consumption. Although levels of consumption in my view are relevant - and I would like to underline that - I believe the report is correct in putting the emphasis on patterns and structures.

Consumption at the subsistence level can be extremely taxing on the environment. Affluent consumption is not necessarily as environmentally harmful as one has been led to believe in some cases. Indeed, real-life examples show that it is possible to move from a condition of low population, low production, low consumption and high environmental degradation, to one of higher population, production and consumption and less environmental degradation or even environmental restoration. The picture is very complex.

The challenge is, therefore, to move to more sustainable consumption patterns in the North, for example through cleaner production, more use of renewable resources, more recycling of waste, more growth in sectors that do not tax the environment. This is possible through policies that stimulate technological developments for the common good, and through economic policies that reward sustainable production and consumption and the use of renewable energy.

Trying to reduce growth and consumption will not necessarily in itself result in more sustainable consumption patterns. In fact, it does not in itself solve the problem. This is why we have to look at the patterns.

Just as important in altering and limiting consumption in the North, or perhaps even more important, is the challenge of stimulating more and better development among the poor countries, in order to narrow the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Increasing the consumer capacity, the purchasing power, of the world’s poor is a necessity and a moral imperative. I will come back to this challenge in a moment.

The second pitfall is to become too optimistic, or too fanatical, in the view that technology and “human progress”, and not least “the market”, will solve the problems. According to this belief, when, say, an environmental problem caused by reckless exploitation has become bad enough, the market will react and come up with its own solutions: new products, new clean technologies, so that eventually, the problem will go away. Unfortunately, I think that every year the Human Development Report, along with several other sources, documents thoroughly that this just isn't true.

Poverty is not taking care of itself. It is getting worse. The fact, highlighted in the report, that there are large groups of poor people even in the richest countries, clearly demonstrates that growth in itself does not eradicate poverty. There must be a political will to fight it. The same holds for many of the environmental problems. Over-exploitation of fragile resources to meet the consumption needs of the affluent, is a real and urgent issue.

Aggressive public policy is therefore urgently needed at the national and the international levels to tackle what in my view is the greatest challenge of our time: that of poverty, that of unequal distribution of wealth, the fact that the economic and social human rights of hundreds of millions of people are being violated. Daily.

The HDR ‘98 is therefore a welcome aid to us policymakers. It presents a seven-point agenda for action to move global consumption patterns in a more sustainable and equitable direction. This agenda should serve as a stimulus to renewed and more informed debate nationally and internationally: How to meet the greatest challenge of our time, in ways that do not jeopardize the carrying capacity of the planet we all live on and from.

I have no problem endorsing the seven-point agenda for action. In fact, it closely resembles the policy agenda of the Government I represent in terms of our sustainable development policies at home and in our international development efforts. I am also quite convinced that many of my own development minister colleagues around the world would say the same thing.

And perhaps this is where the problem lies: The analysis has been done. The statements of intention have been made. In some areas we are even moving in the right direction also in practice. But it is still hard to get concerted international action that in any way comes close to being proportional to the challenges at hand.

Our only option, however, is to press on. We are therefore working very hard on the Norwegian side to build better and stronger coalitions for change. We are taking a number of initiatives to strengthen the impact of development assistance: through more and better donor coordination, through stronger partnerships with like-minded countries, with civil society and the private sector, and by presenting an innovative plan to address the debt crisis of the poorest countries, both through international mechanisms and through cancellation of debts of the poorest countries to Norway. We are also strengthening the environmental programmes in our development assistance, to prevent these countries from falling into the same pitfalls as ourselves.

At home we are working hard to make Norwegian production and consumption more sustainable. However, we still have a long way to go. Norway being a major petroleum producer, we are particularly concerned about contributing to the development of renewable sources of energy and to reducing pollution from the production and use of fossil fuels. The Norwegian government has launched - as most people here know - its own green tax reform, intending it over time to become one of our major instruments for more sustainable consumption. We are not only aiming to change private consumption. Greener offices and greener procurement in the public sector are among the efforts that various Norwegian governments have made to this end.

I do have one critical remark to the report. It could have addressed a little more explicitly the problem of uneven consumption in developing countries, in the same fashion that it addresses inequalities in the North.

One can very well argue that in quite a few countries, the privileged few, the political elite within the country itself, holds the key to a more equitable development process that would also benefit the poor. Or let me put it differently: finding solutions will take strong, concerted action by governments both in the South and North ( - just as prescribed in the 20/20 initiative).

Good governance - as mentioned by you, Ms. Awori - has to be a central element of these efforts and I am glad this is now more widely recognized. The UNDP has even made the promotion of good governance one of its most central objectives, and you have full Norwegian backing in doing so. It is against this background that I find it a little surprising that issues of good governance, as they relate to the public as consumers of goods and services, are not more visible in the report. But I am sure you have a good explanation for this.

One of the more interesting, but perhaps not surprising, findings in the report is that the consumer revolution has, ironically enough, not led to greater satisfaction. It is not material consumption that brings us happiness. This confirms the view that the important objective in the development of our society is the quality of life, not the standard of living. This insight, and the growing realization that it is true among the broader public, gives me hope that the transition to a more sustainable society may not be as difficult as many of us have thought.

This line of thinking was one of the reasons behind the Government’s decision to appoint a values commission in my country with a mandate to review established values. I feel that several of the moral aspects raised by this year’s Human Development Report are highly relevant to the Commission’s mandate, and I hope that the report will make a significant contribution to this important discussion in society as a whole as well as in the Commission. I will make sure the Commission gets a copy.

Poverty in the sense of unfulfilled basic needs is a violation of human rights. It undermines human dignity.

I am glad to note that we will see representatives of the UNDP again here in Oslo next month for an international symposium on Human Rights and Development, organised by the UNDP in co-operation with the UNHCHR and the Norwegian Government.

In 1992 the UNDP used a figure illustrating the distribution of wealth between the different groups of the world’s population. The figure resembled a champagne glass. The richest 20 per cent, those who consume 83 per cent of the world’s resources, constitute the bowl. The remaining 80 per cent are assembled at the foot of the glass. The problem today is that the proportion going to the poorest 20 per cent is a paltry 1.3 per cent of the world’s resources and is still diminishing. The foot of the glass is on the verge of breaking.

The fact that resources and the benefits resulting from their exploitation are so unevenly distributed is unacceptable. We therefore have a heavy responsibility for the poor of the world. And this responsibility increases as we grow richer. It also increases for those privileged segments of the population in poor countries that are amassing private wealth. The report focuses to a large extent on resources, but it also recognizes that it really comes down to will. The will of governments, in the South and the North, and of development institutions such as the UNDP and the World Bank, to attack poverty. It all boils down to political will.

I hope this report will contribute to the building of political will to face the challenges of uneven and unsustainable consumption, and to make the concerted, strong action that is required to turn the tide. This may help us “to live simply so that others can simply live”, as Ms. Awori put it in her introduction.

Thank you.