Minister of International Development and Human Rights Hilde Frafjord Johnson

Statement to the Storting on development cooperation policy, 5 May 1998

Translation from the Norwegian.

Perspectives and challenges

A few weeks ago President Bill Clinton went on a historic eleven-day round trip of the African continent. This is the first time a US president has spent so much time in Africa, and the first time in nearly 20 years that a US president has made a state visit to Africa south of the Sahara.

This visit raises a number of questions: Why is the leader of the world's most powerful nation visiting a continent that has recently been dismissed by many as a lost cause? A continent that investors have bypassed and many donors seem to have given up? Why did he spend more time there than he has spent in Europe, Asia or Latin America for a very long time? Was it for reasons of domestic policy, or does it mean that Africa is no longer regarded as a lost continent, that it is considered to be an important and interesting region for other reasons than in the past when it was a pawn in the power game between East and West?

There are in fact a number of hopeful signs in the poorest countries of the world, and not just in Africa. Democracy is spreading. Many of the new generation of heads of state have a different attitude to political and economic management than their predecessors. Economically speaking there are promising signs of growth in a number of countries. Apart from Asia, economic growth in Africa has been stronger than anywhere else in the world over the last couple of years. The volume of exports and foreign investment is growing, although from a very low starting-point. Statistics from US Aid show that those who dare to invest reap greater average profits than anywhere else in the world. Large profits do not necessarily lead to sound development. But could it be that a number of fixed ideas in both government and business quarters are ripe for re-evaluation?

For we live in a world of contrasts and rapid change. Let me mention a few examples:

• Poverty: Never have so many people succeeded in freeing themselves from absolute poverty as during the last 20 to 30 years. At the same time, there have never been as many poor as there are now, and the gap between rich and poor has never been wider. Today one billion, three hundred million people live on less than seven Norwegian crowns a day.
• Inequality: A number of African countries are showing positive trends in economic and political terms. The term "African renaissance" is being used to describe an envisioned future in which African "lions" replace the Asian tigers. At the same time we know that other countries in the region and on other continents are trapped in a mire of debt and extreme poverty. These countries are becoming increasingly marginalized internationally.
• Education: Never before have so many had access to education. This has given millions of people new opportunities, in terms of both jobs and influence. According to the United Nations Development Programme, the number of literate people in the developing countries rose from 43 per cent to 64 per cent between 1970 and 1994. At the same time we know that the illiteracy rate in some of the poorest countries is still 70-80 per cent. The expression "knowledge is power" has surely never been more fitting.
• Health: Substantial results have been achieved in the treatment of a number of diseases, for example river blindness in Africa. There has also been a considerable decline in child mortality in many countries. However, these hard-won results are now being undermined by new epidemics, primarily HIV/AIDS, and other more familiar diseases, such as malaria and tuberculosis, are returning in full force.

The opportunities for tackling these major problems have never been greater than they are now. The OECD has calculated that it is possible to halve the proportion of the world population living in absolute poverty by the year 2015. At the same time, the gap between rich and poor is ever widening and assistance to the poorest countries continues to decline, from a level that is already too low. It is therefore not enough to put a region on the political agenda. Action is required. The rich countries are in the process of letting down the poorest countries just when a major effort to exploit the new possibilities open to us is most needed. This is a trend we must try to turn around.

We must concentrate our efforts where needs are greatest. Apart from Africa, this means in particular the poor countries of Asia and Central America. As regards the countries of Central Asia and the rest of the OSCE area that qualify for ODA, the foreign minister will return to this subject in his statement on OSCE cooperation this autumn.

Some may ask, Why should we bother? We have needs at home that have to be satisfied, and anyway our relatively small contribution is only a drop in the ocean. To this I have three answers.

First, the Government considers that the urgent need for a solution to global poverty constitutes a moral challenge that we cannot ignore. It is our moral duty to find solutions and to do what we can to make sure that fewer of our fellow human beings live under degrading conditions. This is not a question of Norwegian interests. This is a question of fundamental values, and of human rights. On the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights we must remember that the poverty that affects one quarter of the world's population constitutes a massive violation of human rights.

Secondly, it is not true that our contribution is insignificant. Development cooperation does make an impact, assistance does give results, and there are many examples to prove it. Our objective is therefore to help more people and achieve better results in the years to come.

Thirdly: The question we must ask ourselves is: How do we want to be viewed by future generations? Do we want to be remembered as the generation who did not lift a finger at a time when it was crucial to find solutions to the most serious problems of our era, and at a time when we were better off than ever before? Do we want to be remembered as the greediest generation of all time, or as the generation that chose to lead the way, and tried to find constructive solutions and help those who needed it most? Personally I am in no doubt of the answer.

Framework conditions

If the developing countries are to have the necessary room to manoeuvre and to pursue a development-oriented policy that will benefit the poorest, the international framework must be structured accordingly. The way in which trade and debt issues are dealt with internationally will directly affect the ability of a poor woman farmer in a rural area or an unemployed man in a town to acquire productive work that offers a hope of improving their living conditions. The Government will therefore make active efforts to improve the international framework to tailor it more to the needs of the developing countries.

Debt relief plan

A successful development policy requires a reduction in the poorest countries' burden of debt. Non-manageable debt destroys the potential for a national development policy, and reduces the effect of foreign aid to far less than could otherwise be achieved. For countries emerging from crises, disasters and war, debt can also undermine the possibility of achieving stability and reconstruction.

In the 1990s, we have therefore invested considerable efforts in reaching multilateral debt relief agreements for the poorest and most indebted developing countries. Here we have made considerable headway. By means of today's debt relief schemes through the Paris Club and under the auspices of the World Bank and the IMF – known as the HIPC initiative – we have at last been given a framework that can help the poorest countries to extract themselves from the debt crisis. For developing countries, the most important role is played by the multilateral debt agreements. The implementation of the HIPC initiative according to the plan will be a decisive factor for the poorest and most indebted countries in reducing their burden of debt to a manageable level.

However, there is a need for further improvements. Owing, among other reasons, to the caution shown by some industrialized countries, the work involved in achieving this is taking its time. Meanwhile, interest and compound interest on old debts continue to accumulate so that, for many countries, the debts continue to grow.

Churches and NGOs, as well as the management of the World Bank and the IMF, have called on us, the creditor countries, to show the necessary leadership to solve the debt problem. It is we who hold the key, both in our capacity as creditors and as co-owners of the IMF and the World Bank.

This is the background for the Government's proposal of a debt relief plan that it hopes will form the basis of Norwegian policy in this area in the future. The plan, which will be submitted in its entirety to the Storting in the 1999 fiscal budget, describes what Norway can do to improve the international debt mechanisms. A solution to the debt problems of the developing countries presupposes binding international cooperation in which major creditor countries must take part.

The plan will also deal with our own claims against the developing countries, and specify how these claims should be handled so as to contribute catalytically to achieving a swifter solution to the debt problems of the poorest countries. The plan contains specific proposals for what Norway can do for 22 selected countries. These are poor countries that either are in debt to Norway or have priority as partners in development cooperation.

The debt to Norway that is dealt with by the plan derives from old export credits, and falls within what is referred to as the old portfolio of the Guarantee Institute for Export Credit (GIEK). A large part of this debt is a consequence of the ship export campaign that was started in the 1970s. It is long since Norwegian companies were compensated for their losses. By means of this plan, the Government will now ease the burden of debt for developing countries.

One of the conditions for debt relief is that it is carried out in such a way that it benefits the country concerned and its inhabitants, and not its creditors. If debt relief is to have a positive effect it is also necessary that the countries affected pursue a social and economic policy conducive to sound economic development.

The debt relief plan includes the following main elements:

1. Improvement of multilateral schemes

• A main goal of the debt relief plan is to strengthen the current multilateral debt relief schemes in the Paris Club and the HIPC scheme under the auspices of the World Bank and the IMF.
• Norway will work to ensure that the HIPC scheme provides a sensible degree of flexibility so that debt relief is granted to the countries that really need it. There must be a reasonable form of burden-sharing between the creditors, and we must form alliances with other countries to ensure that the scheme is effectively implemented according to the intentions. On the boards of the World Bank and the IMF, we will work for continued close Nordic cooperation to maximize Nordic influence on the debt issue as well.
• To ensure the financing of the HIPC initiative, it is not least important that the G7 countries contribute a reasonable share. As regards the question of how the IMF is to contribute from its own resources, Norway supports, on certain conditions, the sale of a small part of the IMF's gold reserves as partial financing.
• In the Paris Club, Norway will work for a solution whereby debt relief for the poorest countries is increased from 67 to 80 per cent, and from 80 to 90 per cent for those under the HIPC scheme. We will take the initiative to strengthen Nordic cooperation in the Paris Club and make better use of our consensus with other like-minded countries.
• We will work for the establishment of a multilateral debt-swapping mechanism. This means agreements between creditor countries and the developing country concerned, by which debt relief is linked with environmental and other development-promoting measures implemented by the country itself.

2. Assistance to ease the developing countries' burden of debt

• Through the HIPC scheme, the Government will increase its efforts to ease the poorest countries' burden of debt to multilateral institutions. The Government will also support other debt relief measures in priority countries, such as national debt funds in developing countries. Norway will also offer technical assistance for debt control to the countries that need it. These measures will continue to be covered within the development assistance budget.

3. Additional measures to write off debt to Norway

• Norway is prepared to write off further debt to Norway in addition to and on top of the debt relief that has been negotiated internationally. The decision concerning such debt relief will be made when a reliable multilateral debt relief agreement has been reached. As a main rule, this will be a final HIPC agreement. Such extended debt relief is, not least, important for making the result of multilateral debt relief operations as good as possible for the countries it applies to, so that as many resources as possible can be channelled to development measures rather than debt servicing. Norway will therefore work to gain the support of other creditors for allowing unilateral Norwegian debt relief to result in an increase of the total debt relief in excess of the amount required by the multilateral agreements. The additional Norwegian relief must not benefit other creditors.
• Following a special assessment, the Government is also prepared to rapidly write off the old debt that Benin and Ghana have to Norway, on the basis of assurances that the debt relief will benefit these countries and their inhabitants. The Government will also consider writing off insignificant debt that some countries, such as Angola and Somalia, have to Norway.
• We will work to persuade other countries also to write off debt in addition to the debt relief provided for by multilateral agreements. Both the United Kingdom and Switzerland are planning unilateral debt relief for certain countries, and are therefore of interest as partners.
• We will continuously assess possibilities for Norway to write off debt to countries to which the HIPC scheme will apply, but which have not yet finalized the agreement. Such debt relief by Norway will be carefully arranged to prevent other creditors from benefiting by "speculating" in such Norwegian debt write-off.

The above are the main points of the Government's proposal for a debt relief plan. As regards the writing off of debt to Norway associated with old export credit guarantees (GIEK's old portfolio), large amounts have already been allocated from the Foreign Ministry's budget, including development assistance, to cover payment of compensation.

If, in order to manage the "old" portfolio, the GIEK needs further allocations in excess of those previously granted plus the GIEK's own income, this will be ascertained and submitted to the Storting in connection with the presentation of the debt relief plan in the fiscal budget in the autumn.

According to the calculations made by the GIEK itself, there will be no need for such additional allocations.

As far as I can see at the moment, the appropriate debt relief measures that apply to the GIEK's old export credit guarantees may therefore be carried out without further allocations from the Foreign Ministry, including the development assistance budget.

Trade

The Government is following up its efforts as a prime mover in improving the trade policy framework for the developing countries. Efforts are being made both bilaterally and through the multilateral organizations so that the poorest countries can benefit from the current international trade regime. Last autumn we actively participated in and provided financial support for a high-level meeting in the World Trade Organization with representatives of the least developed countries. Here agreement was reached on "a new partnership against marginalization of the least developed countries". We are now following this up. The Government will also work to ensure that these countries' interests are better safeguarded in the WTO negotiations that will start at the end of next year. We have also given economic support to a cooperation programme between the WTO and the UN directed towards a group of African countries.

The untying of development assistance will in itself contribute to greater opportunities for South-South trade. The Government is actively working to ensure that Norway's development cooperation helps to increase regional trade ties in the South.

We should be prepared to assume our share of the responsibility at home as well - in our own trade with countries in the South. For this reason, in 1995 the Storting adopted a revised system of preferential tariffs, the Generalized System of Preferences, which greatly improves market access for agricultural products from the least developed countries. This has resulted in a considerable increase in imports from poor developing countries, of both meat and roses. The import of roses is particularly important, especially for our priority partner countries Uganda and Tanzania. The export of roses is becoming an increasingly important part of the economy in these countries and our import of these flowers has helped to create many new jobs, especially for women. Thus the bouquet of roses you buy at the corner on your way to a party may help to provide jobs for women in Africa.

The great majority of the quantitative restrictions on the import of products from the textile and clothing industry were removed at the end of last year. In this area as in others, improved trading conditions have a positive impact on manufacturers in developing countries.

Limitations and opportunities in development assistance

There is a great deal of support for Norwegian development assistance, as the opinion polls show. At the same time it has often been criticised in recent years for its lack of results. It has been pointed out that several of the countries that have received the most assistance have also had the weakest economic development. Critics have equated lack of economic growth with failed Norwegian assistance. This is wrong. It is important to view development cooperation in the proper perspective.

There are a number of factors that influence a country's economy. I have mentioned one of the most important, i.e. the international framework. For poor developing countries this is mainly a question of debt and trade, in relation to trends in raw material and oil prices, and export and import conditions. In terms of figures these factors are of far more significance for these countries than the amount of development assistance they receive. The country's own economic policy and the development assistance given by the large number of different donors come in addition to these factors.

Norway is only one of many donors in all its partner countries. In Tanzania, we are one of 60 donors supporting over 1000 projects. Although Norway is among the largest donors to Tanzania, our support alone cannot create growth in the country's economy. We must be aware that no development assistance from Norway or other sources will ever in itself be enough to eradicate poverty in a whole country. It can play a constructive and catalytic role, but, apart from the international framework, the results for the country taken as a whole will always depend on the country's own government, the private sector, civil society, and the sum of international development assistance efforts.

Does this mean that we should only provide development assistance to countries where all these forces are pulling in the same direction? That we should never have taken on countries like Tanzania and Nicaragua, or that we should have withdrawn a long time ago?

The Government's answer is a definite No. It is important to have a clear idea of the opportunities and limitations inherent in development cooperation with the country concerned and adjust our efforts accordingly. For Norwegian development cooperation has also had positive results in countries like Nicaragua and Tanzania. These results may not always show up in macroeconomic statistics, but they can be seen at the local level, where ordinary people live their lives. It makes a difference when people in a village have access to clean drinking water, and the children have a school to go to. It makes a difference when agricultural production in a particular district increases so that fewer people go hungry to bed. It makes a difference when street children in the capital are taken care of. Results that may mean a lot to an individual are not always easy to see when a society is viewed from a distance. But they make a great difference to the individuals concerned and to the community they are a part of.

Norway can also contribute to the development of positive macroeconomic trends. By acting as a prime mover for coordination in partner countries, and helping to ensure that all the donors pull together as a team, Norway helps to increase the impact of development assistance. By helping to build national capacity and good governance in a country's central administration, we can help to ensure better results.

The main task of development cooperation is to contribute to sustainable and independent development for the country as a whole. There must come a time when the country can run its own schools, hospitals, and children's homes, or pumps, tractors and so on. I would like to say something about how this can be achieved, starting with the partners that we must cooperate with in order to meet this challenge.

Partners in development cooperation

The authorities

Our first and most obvious partner comprises the authorities of our partner countries. When the authorities feel a direct responsibility for development and equitable distribution, and for the promotion of civil and political rights in society, there are good prospects for positive development cooperation. When this sense of responsibility is lacking, and when corruption pervades the machinery of government, the potential is far more limited. In this kind of situation, we should support processes and measures that encourage democratic development and a greater respect for human rights, and, not least, more responsible administration and less corruption.

In my statement on the Government's human rights policy in January, I discussed the relationship between development and human rights and I will therefore not be going into detail on this subject now. In my statement I reaffirmed the fact that protection of human rights and the fostering of sustainable economic development are closely linked with one another. Poverty-oriented development strengthens economic, social and cultural rights. Enhanced respect for political and civil rights reduces tension in society and stimulates economic development. Human rights is therefore a major dimension of the development dialogue and of cooperation with our partners in the South. This also means that as donors we demand greater respect for basic political and civil rights.

Just as important as making demands on others is our own active contribution towards the promotion of human rights. Only then do our demands achieve credibility. In 1990, Kenya broke off diplomatic relations with Norway and government-to-government development assistance was stopped. The Government believes that it is now time to resume efforts in this country, but with a clear human rights and democracy profile.Traditional government-to-government cooperation will not be resumed. We envisage a substantial intensification of cooperation between NGOs and other representatives of civil society, in Kenya as well as in Norway. On 17 May I will be in Nairobi, where I will launch this initiative. This will provide an opportunity to underscore the connection between the rule of law, human rights and democracy.

Corruption is a serious obstacle to increased social justice in many countries, not only the poorest. Corruption hampers economic development and increases social differences. This is not acceptable. Fortunately, an increasing number of our partner countries are now addressing the problem of corruption and are introducing measures to minimize it. These measures include public administration reforms, the development of audit routines and improved management systems.

We take corruption very seriously and Norway is making an active contribution to good governance both bilaterally in cooperation with priority countries and through multilateral channels such as the UN and the World Bank.

The donor community

The second major partner is the donor community – the bilateral and multilateral donors. I have mentioned the range of different projects and donors Tanzania has to relate to. And there are a number of other examples. In many countries the large number of donors and their various interests are in fact in danger of undermining the country's ability to focus on a strategy for development. It is therefore essential that providers of assistance, such as ourselves, coordinate our efforts, on lines laid down by the recipient countries. We cannot continue to quarrel about whose flag will be raised over the various projects. We cannot all keep sending out consultants and experts to study the same topics and assess the same measures. We cannot take up all the available time of the recipient countries' authorities for separate consultations and meetings so that they are no longer able to do the job that has been assigned to them: governing their country. We must help them to make it easier to govern the country, not more difficult!

If the donors cannot disregard their national interests, ignore their need to improve their own profile, and coordinate their efforts more efficiently, the practical effect of our efforts will be considerably reduced. A constructive move in this direction would be that the donors, on the basis of the development plans of the recipient countries, agreed to cooperate on supporting large programmes within for example the education and health sectors. Such sectoral programmes have produced good results in several countries and represent a promising form of cooperation that could become a joint political and contractual framework for a great deal of the assistance given to the poorest countries. I saw clear examples of this during my visit to Uganda earlier this year. Another important initiative would be to improve the distribution of work between the donors. In this way, it would be possible to avoid wasting resources on work that others already have well under way. However, if the work on coordination is to succeed, it is also important that the developing countries themselves are in control. The good results obtained in Botswana are a direct consequence of the fact that the country's authorities have always done just that, and have coordinated development cooperation and insisted that assistance may only be given to measures that form part of the country's long-term development plans. In Botswana, development has been so effective that we are now in process of reorganizing our assistance and reducing our presence. This is a good example of the fact that development cooperation does work!

Better coordination has been one of the main points in my talks with colleagues from other donor countries. Everyone agrees in principle that coordination must be improved. It is now important to find good solutions for bringing this about in practice in our partner countries. We will be giving this high priority in the time ahead.

The UN and the World Bank have no national interests, and would therefore be the most appropriate bodies to help the developing countries with the practical coordination work.

One of the reform initiatives of the UN's Secretary General in this context involves integrating many of the UN's activities in each individual country. This is a good beginning. The Government will continue to work to ensure that all UN organizations, the World Bank and the bilateral donors coordinate their assistance as far as possible in all countries. The Government intends to step up the multilateral assistance, while multi-bilateral support will be kept at approximately its present level. The total support via multilateral channels should gradually be increased to half of Norwegian assistance.

The private sector

The third partner is the private sector. Without the private sector as a dynamo in the economy there would be little development. The authorities and the donor organizations must cooperate with the private sector to create a climate that attracts private investment, both domestic and foreign. Here there is a big job to be done. There is a lot to be learned from the fact that a total of 37 per cent of African private capital is placed outside Africa, whereas the corresponding figure for Asia is 3 per cent and for Latin America 17 per cent. The Government is preparing the first overall strategy for private sector development in the South which gives priority to the interests of the developing countries rather than to those of the Norwegian private sector. One of the objectives is precisely to increase confidence in the economic soundness of investing in the poorest countries.

Private sector development in the South must also be viewed in the context of the priority we give to health and education in our development assistance. This kind of assistance will result in increases in public expenditure in recipient countries. Just as we do in this country, the developing countries will be obliged in the long run to finance these sectors themselves. The development of a dynamic private sector is therefore a matter of major importance, as this can create a source of income for poor developing countries. This is why the strategy for support for private sector development in the South is so important. This work is founded on the following main pillars:

• The target is to achieve results in our partner countries in the form of enhanced economic growth and more jobs. The private sector schemes that we have today will be reviewed with this in mind, taking a particularly critical look at pure export subsidy schemes.
• The process ensures that the strategy is formulated on the basis of a close dialogue with our partners in the South.
• An instrument of major importance will be assistance in strengthening the political, legal and commercial framework for economic activity, which has to date largely been absent in many poor countries.
• Further reduction in the extent of tied aid will be important. A major problem associated with tying aid to deliveries by one's own manufacturers is that it excludes the private sector in the developing countries from competing for aid-financed contracts. Tied aid therefore represents an obstacle to the development of the private sector in the South.

Following deliberations two years ago concerning Report No. 19 to the Storting (1995-96), A Changing World: Main elements of Norwegian policy towards developing countries, the Storting took the initiative to increase the developing countries' share of contracts in connection with assistance projects. It was the view of the Storting that tender competitions should first be reserved for local and regional companies in the developing countries when these were found to be competitive in terms of price and quality. We are now discussing this arrangement with our partners. This work is part of the work on formulation of a strategy for support for private sector development. I will give a more detailed account of the strategy in the budget for 1999.

The civil society and voluntary participants

The fourth partner consists of the participants in civil society, i.e. NGOs, churches, universities and other institutions. These all represent a factor that has been given very little attention in connection with development, that of social capital. This kind of capital must be utilized better in the fight against poverty. The proliferation of microcredit schemes demonstrates the amount of development potential inherent in cooperation with voluntary organizations. Several organizations, not least Norwegian, focus most of their activities on education and health. When this type of investment is combined with work on mobilizing political and economic involvement and participation among the poor, this really steps up the pace of development work. 23 per cent of the assistance budget is devoted to the work of NGOs.

It is by preserving their distinctive character and by concentrating on tasks in areas where they are especially well qualified that the NGOs make their most important contribution to development assistance. The organizations' large geographical area of impact and their considerable experience and expertise from many years of development work constitute a unique resource. They can also contribute to the building of civil society by cooperating with partners in the developing countries.

Work has begun on revising the guidelines of the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation concerning support via voluntary organizations. A major aspect of this work will involve a reassessment of the cost element that the organizations are required to contribute. There are various considerations to be borne in mind here, and the Government will examine this issue more closely.

So far, I have mainly given attention to the need for improvement of the international economic framework conditions, and cooperation with all of our partners. I will now proceed to focus on the areas where we particularly wish to adjust our efforts so as to strengthen our work.

Poverty orientation of assistance

The instruments and priority areas approved by the Storting during its deliberation on Report No. 19 to the Storting (1995-96) make us well equipped in the fight against poverty. The Government will make use of all of these instruments. The poverty criterion will be made a major consideration in the choice of countries, sectors, target groups and channels for assistance. Assistance to the least developed countries will be increased. These countries are now receiving a steadily decreasing proportion of development assistance, and this is a trend that the Government intends to reverse. The target is that the poorest countries will receive a considerably larger share of the assistance. In accordance with the wishes of the Storting, assistance to Africa will be increased. According to Government plans, countries south of the Sahara will receive at least 50 per cent of the bilateral assistance during the coming years.

The Government will give highest priority to education and health. Investments in health and education are among the most socially profitable. The reason for this is simple: by means of investment in education and health, it is possible to attain several development objectives at the same time. This is poverty-oriented assistance at its best.

In the Government's work on the strengthening of assistance to the social sector, follow-up of the 20/20 initiative will naturally be a major priority, and we are playing a prominent role in preparations for a meeting on follow-up of the 20/20 initiative, which will be held in Vietnam in the autumn.

Job number one is education. Education is fundamental to economic and social development. It is an investment in human resources. It enables us to improve living conditions for individuals, encourage participation and democratization, lay the basis for private sector development, reduce population growth, combat child labour – and by increasing knowledge help to improve health and reduce strain on the environment. Highest on the list of profitable investments in development work is education of girls and adult women. The Government will therefore speed up the rate of increase in this assistance. We will attempt already this year to attain the goal set by the Storting that education must constitute 10 per cent of assistance by the year 2000. The goal of 15 per cent is within reach. We will give priority to basic education, but measures are needed throughout the educational system. Particular emphasis is being placed on supporting the development and implementation of sectoral programmes in the education sector, where the authorities in the country concerned coordinate both their own efforts and those of the donors. Work has already started or is planned in nine of our twelve priority partner countries.

As part of our efforts in the educational sector, I will also strengthen the role of the Norwegian universities in cooperation with the developing countries. An account of our plans here will be given in our new research strategy, which is to be presented in the near future. This cooperation will contribute to a strengthening of expertise within research, education and administration at universities in the developing countries. It will also stimulate increased cooperation between universities in the South.

The Government is following up the goal set by the Storting that education must constitute 10 per cent of assistance by the year 2000. An important instrument will be help in developing country-specific sector strategies for health in our partner countries. Assistance will focus particularly on primary health care, and will also contribute to institutional development and building competence and capacity. The development of basic treatment facilities for major diseases will be combined with preventive measures.

In several of our partner countries, life expectancy is dropping dramatically as a result of the AIDS epidemic. This development must have consequences for our assistance, especially in Africa. The Government is therefore making plans to ensure that our assistance becomes more geared towards both preventing and reducing the consequences of the catastrophe that is now taking place.

Much of the increase in assistance to the social sector will also be carried out through or in cooperation with multilateral organizations such as the World Health Organization, UNICEF, UNESCO and the World Bank. It is therefore important that these organizations function as well as possible, and that their activities are coordinated. In this connection, the nomination of Gro Harlem Brundtland as the new Director General of WHO is particularly gratifying. For several years Norway has been prominent in urging for the reform of WHO to improve the efficiency of assistance to poor countries, among other ways by carrying out a major review of the organization. We now hope that these efforts will bear fruit. We need an organization that can take a leading role in improving the global health situation.

Approximately 70 per cent of the world's poor are women. This is often referred to as the "feminization" of poverty. Poverty-oriented assistance is therefore women-oriented assistance. Ensuring that women are able to take part in economic, social and political development on an equal footing with men will have a major effect on development. Our assistance must be planned so as to take this into consideration. There is a saying that “educating a man means educating one person, whereas educating a woman means educating a whole family”. Such synergy effects are of great value in development work.

Environment

No-one has more to lose from the deterioration of the quality of water, air and soil than the poorest countries. The Government will therefore focus on measures to improve the management of the environment and natural resources, and on environmental quality assurance in development cooperation in general. The very poorest people are often forced to increase the depletion of soil and water resources in order to survive. An increased focus on poverty eradication will therefore often help to reduce the strain on the environment.

The challenge also lies in finding ways of improving the environmental orientation of development cooperation. The environmental strategy that was presented last year provides a constructive point of departure for this work. The Government is in favour of a four-stage approach to this: Firstly, we must ensure that environmental considerations are incorporated in all our development cooperation, so that we do not support measures that result in unacceptable damage to the environment. Environmental impact assessments must therefore be carried out in relation to all measures involving an environmental risk, as part of the project planning itself and prior to any decision to finance such measures. Such analyses are to be included as a natural part of the work on quality assurance in development cooperation. The routines for this are currently being reviewed by the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation.

Secondly, we must strengthen our cooperation with our partners in the South on building up national environmental management capacity through support for institutional development and participation in the solution of concrete environmental problems on both national and local levels. This type of effort plays a major part in our cooperation with Tanzania, and helps to enable the country to implement and integrate the environmental perspective in its own development plans. Scarcity of water, especially potable water, is an increasing environmental problem in many countries, and it is the poorest section of the population that is hardest hit. Measures for promoting water resource management and protecting water sources from contamination and destruction are therefore of paramount importance.

The third way of improving the environmental orientation of development cooperation is to be more aware of "win-win" opportunities. This means that the support for a development measure, as well as achieving other goals, is also associated with an environmental gain. An example of such a double gain is sustainable resource management in agriculture. When a poor farmer learns to cultivate the soil without making himself dependent on expensive chemicals, he secures his own economy and protects the environment at the same time.

Fourthly, our focus on the environment must be directed towards global environmental problems. Last year the UN held a special session to review and follow up the decisions of the UNCED conference in Rio in 1992. The conference showed all too clearly how difficult it is to translate international declarations into practical action. The political will and ability of the developing countries to implement costly restructuring for environmental purposes is closely related to the willingness of the wealthy nations to contribute financially. Norway was one of the few western countries that supported the developing countries in their demand for increased transfers of development assistance, including concessional resources. At the same time Norway managed to gain acceptance for the inclusion of the poverty perspective in further discussions concerning environmental issues.

Quality assurance, assessment and information

The Government will carry out several measures to strengthen the quality of Norwegian development assistance:

The Government will give priority to the strengthening of evaluation efforts. Similarly, we must make more active use of research, as the Government now plans to do. We must also become more efficient in learning from the evaluations and research carried out by other countries and by international organizations.

• We are now in the process of building up a coherent and integrated evaluation system for the whole of the Norwegian Foreign Service. This will strengthen a critical and independent evaluation of development assistance activities. I also consider it important that reporting to the Storting on the results of the evaluation efforts be strengthened. This should also apply to the information given to the media and the public. A special publication will be issued containing abstracts of evaluation reports. The Internet will be used to improve access to the evaluation results.
• Quality and efficiency in development cooperation activities are also associated with our abilities in planning and financial management. The Government therefore places great emphasis on strengthening the development cooperation apparatus, in terms of both systems and personnel.
• Debate and public involvement in development assistance issues is also important for ensuring the best possible quality. I am pleased to note the considerable interest in these issues that is shown by the general public. A number of NGOs do a tremendous job spreading information. I am in favour of increasing support for information activities and I will particularly strengthen these activities in relation to human rights, trade, debt and our cooperation with the multilateral organizations.

Humanitarian aid

A large number of the conflicts that the world has witnessed over the last few decades have been fought in countries with populations suffering from extreme poverty. These countries are dependent for their survival on international support. Far too often, relief has been dependent on the CNN effect. As soon as the emergency has been documented, the aircraft have dropped their supplies and the queues at the food stations and the provisional hospitals have been organized, interest starts to wane. But, if countries are to be given a chance to free themselves from the vicious circle of poverty, instability, conflict and destruction, emergency relief must be followed by more long-term development assistance. We are therefore actively working to find ways of solving this in practice. In this work, we cooperate closely with Norwegian humanitarian organizations, with the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, and not least with the main international organizations.

In Norway there are five organizations that play a particularly important role: the Norwegian Refugee Council, Norwegian Church Aid, the Norwegian Red Cross, Norwegian People's Aid and Norwegian Save the Children.

Our close cooperation with Norwegian humanitarian organizations and the use of the Norwegian emergency preparedness system, NOREPS, enables us to be more flexible and focused than many other countries. It is also important to help the developing countries themselves to build up the necessary preparedness to tackle crisis situations, and to find local products and services that can be used. In this way, we can contribute to the building of capacity. We will now make a review of the NOREPS system with a view to making further contributions to it and building a bridge to more long-term activities.

We are continually witnessing serious violations of humanitarian rights: help being prevented from getting through, civilians being made targets in conflicts, parties to conflicts seizing relief supplies for their own use and the lives and safety of relief workers being endangered. We have recently seen new examples of this unfortunate development. Norwegian organizations and relief workers are also vulnerable. I regard the follow-up of these problems as a major priority.

These types of problems are rife in southern Sudan, where the consequences are grave. In Bahr el-Ghazal 350 000 people are starving to death. According to today's edition of the newspaper Vårt Land, Norwegian People's Aid characterizes the current situation as the worst disaster they have witnessed during their 12 years in the area. In ten days' time I will be travelling to southern Sudan, where I will be able to examine the situation at first hand. My itinerary will include visits to humanitarian projects under the auspices of Norwegian Church Aid and Norwegian People's Aid. Norway has already provided substantial humanitarian aid to the Southern Sudan, but we will now intensify our efforts to help those who are starving.

As part of our policy in this area, we will prepare strategies more adapted to the needs of individual countries. Roughly speaking, there are three categories of countries, which require different strategies for the organization of humanitarian aid.

The first category consists of countries that are in the middle of violent conflict situations, with weak or non-existent governments and with little or no possibility of participating in long-term development assistance. In such cases, only humanitarian aid is possible, and the strategy must be to alleviate distress, help to de-escalate the conflict and find the quickest possible solution. Political peace efforts here must be closely associated with the humanitarian efforts. Examples of countries in this category are Somalia, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan.

The second category consists of countries that are still in the grip of violence and unrest, but where there is also a certain potential for operating development-oriented assistance. There is usually a considerable need for humanitarian aid, but there is also a need for more long-term investments in infrastructure, health and education. Here too, political processes directed towards establishing reconciliation, peace and stability will play a major role. In such cases, it is extremely important to construct a strategic link between humanitarian activities and development assistance. We must also do something about the problems that gave rise to the development of the conflict. Sri Lanka and Rwanda are examples of countries in this difficult phase.

The third category consists of countries that are no longer involved in external or internal warfare, and which have made a start on reconstruction. Guatemala, Ethiopia and Angola are good examples. In the case of these countries, the humanitarian efforts should be gradually phased out and replaced by a long-term focus on development. This is important if chronic aid dependence is to be avoided and future catastrophes averted. A long-term development strategy must attempt to make the necessary changes in the social and economic conditions that contributed to conflict and destruction.

In all of these phases, measures such as mine clearance will be important. Norway has committed itself for a period of five years to contribute up to USD 120 million to mine programmes. This will include information work and mine clearance as well as treatment, rehabilitation and reintegration of victims in the community. The Government places great emphasis on ensuring that the aims of the convention can be translated into concrete results for the communities and individuals affected.

Plan for expanding Norwegian development assistance

Achieving results in development cooperation requires conscious and purposeful efforts over a long period of time. In relation to the problems facing developing countries, Norway's assistance is modest in monetary terms, but this is precisely why the strategy behind the assistance is so important. We must offer assistance in the areas that are most important for the country we cooperate with. At the same time we must be careful not to spread our efforts over too wide an area, and must focus on sectors where Norway is in a position to make the most valuable contributions. New initiatives and increased resources for debt relief, a more proactive attitude to development cooperation with the poorest countries and enhancement of our purely multilateral support will be the main pillars of the plan the Government is preparing. In terms of sectors, health and education will be given special priority.

However, we cannot get away from the fact that when the crop is to be harvested it is important how much seed has been sown. The Government signalled its willingness to invest in development cooperation from the beginning, in its inaugural address to the Storting by means of a programme for the expansion of development assistance. A more detailed presentation of the work on this expansion programme will be included in the 1999 fiscal budget.

A South policy based on solidarity

Development is about the future. When development is to the advantage of some and adversely affects others, this is not a matter of chance. We are ourselves participants in this process. We have the opportunity to influence both the rules of the game and the distribution of the cards. A South policy based on solidarity is a way of seizing this opportunity and using it in a positive way.

Let us show that we care. Let us not put our own interests first, but show solidarity through action. Good resolutions are not enough.

Concrete measures are necessary. This means that we must, in cooperation with others, seek to improve the international framework. It means that we must make an effort to resolve the debt crisis. It means that we must help to ensure that transfers of resources benefit the poorest countries to a greater extent than previously. It means that we must take global and local environmental problems seriously. It means that we must coordinate our efforts with those of other donors. It means that the focus must be on the recipient all the time. It means that we must emphasize human rights and democracy. It means that we must set high standards for ourselves and those we cooperate with. It means we must see what we do in context, the economic aspects in relation to the social aspects, the multilateral in relation to the bilateral, the humanitarian in relation to the development-oriented, development assistance in relation to the rest of our development policy. This requires a coherent development strategy, and this is a challenge the Government takes seriously.

We must organize the whole of our development policy in such a way that it actually does benefit the poorest people and the poorest countries. We must not just say it. We must not just want to do it. We must do it. This is what a South policy based on solidarity means.

I am looking forward to the debate on 14 May.