Ms Hilde F. Johnson
Minister of International Development of Norway
Washington D.C., 20 May 2003

As delivered

Speech to NGOs

I. Introduction

I am very pleased to be here and to have the opportunity to address such an impressive gathering of civil society. In Norway, as in the US, civil society initiative is perceived as the backbone of society - the essence of freedom; freedom of expression, freedom to act in the political space - freedom to intervene on behalf of the destitute. To be able to associate in favour of any given goal is the very essence of democracy - and contributes substantially towards the rich flavour of variety and activity we cherish.

I know for a fact - that without civil society initiative - official development work in my country may not have gotten off to a start 50 years ago. Church-organisations were there first - pointing the way - official engagement came thereafter. And without civil society initiatives and organisations our punch in the battle against poverty would have been much weaker. We channel almost 30 % of our development budget through our NGO’s. Norway is one of the countries providing most support through civil society-organizations in the whole of the OECD.

Which are the primary roles of NGOs in the vital battle against poverty? The role of the deliverer of assistance. The pivotal role of advocacy on behalf of the poor in rich countries – although assessment about what is needed may differ. And let’s not forget the role of watch-dog - this is needed in developed countries as well as in poor countries. And here, the Millennium Development Goals must be our yardstick.

But before I dare to challenge you - let’s take a look at the issue of poverty and development - and what we need to do in order to nurture development and combat poverty.

First, what are we talking about? The main characteristic of being poor is indeed being left without alternatives, without choice, without rights, without freedom. That is also why we often use the phrase "caught in the poverty trap".

When we now embark on the road of an emerging new development paradigm - which I believe we do - the perspective of development as freedom, development as rights, is a vital prerequisite for understanding the overall challenge we face. Freedom has intrinsic values. Freedom also has instrumental functions. NGOs have a role in promoting these freedoms.

II. The Challenge

To remind us all, of why we need global commitment, allow me to quote President Jimmy Carters speech from the Nobel Peace Prize Ceremony in Oslo last year:

" At the beginning of this new millennium I was asked to discuss, here in Oslo, the greatest challenge that the world faces. Among all the possible choices, I decided that the most serious and universal problem is the growing chasm between the richest and poorest people on earth." Some simple facts illustrate this chasm all too clearly:

• At the current rate of progress it will take 130 years to eradicate hunger in the world.
• 1.2 billion people live on less than a dollar a day.

• The same number of people lack access to safe drinking water - twice as many have no access to adequate sanitation.
• 1.6 billion people have no access to electricity. Eighty per cent of these live in Africa and India.

• The average Norwegian man can expect to live until he is 75 years old. The average man living in Mozambique or Angola can expect to live until he is 39 years old. My age!

III. The MDGs - what are they?

At the turn of the Millennium world leaders decided that it was enough. It was time to make a major effort, to make a difference, to put and end to world poverty. The centre of this commitment is the Millennium Development Goals.

The MDGs constitute a road map for the fight against poverty. A year ago – in Monterrey, Mexico, we agreed on how to do it – in a global compact between developing and developed countries. And we agreed, - for the first time – to monitor progress. The MDGs have placed the interest of the poor and underprivileged at the top of the international agenda. Heads of state, including the G8 leaders, cite them frequently, and are agreed that poverty is the greatest scourge of our time. They are saying that they will combat it by co-operation, by financial assistance, by making policies which are coherent and consistent with the fight against poverty. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a major breakthrough in international politics.

And, the MDGs are ambitious. We have committed ourselves to halve the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015. We are committed to reducing child mortality by 2/3 and to achieve universal primary education. We are committed to promoting gender equality and empower women. Poverty and environmental degradation is a most dangerous mixture - we have committed ourselves to ensure environmental sustainability. We have committed ourselves to combat the scourge of HIV/AIDS and malaria. The main responsibility lies with the countries themselves. They have to improve their performance and policies in all these areas (MDG 1 – 7).

But with the 8 ^th> Millennium Development Goal, the rich part of the world has committed itself to do what is necessary in a global partnership to eradicate poverty. We have committed ourselves to change policies, to develop a more open trade and investment system. We have committed ourselves to deal comprehensively with developing countries’ debt problems, and - to provide access to affordable essential drugs. We have committed ourselves to increase development assistance. And there is more.

We have a job to do. There is very little time.

To do so, we need not only committed governments, but also dedicated partners in civil society. The role of the NGOs is crucial, not only in delivery, but also advocacy and in being watchdogs - in relation to all the commitments - all of the tasks.

Many NGOs in development have mainly focused on delivery, changing the fate of the poor on the ground, with education, health and other services. Advocacy has been primarily linked to that. Grass root action is important. But not enough. I think you showed that through the fantastic efforts many of you made under the Jubilee 2000 Campaign. Policies matter. The debt burden has an impact on the poor you are working amongst. Your efforts were crucial.

It would not have happened without you. Unfortunately - more policy change is needed. In many areas. Much more. That is why I focus on advocacy and the roles of civil society, and I will go through some of them today.

IV. The need for working with and through to the state

Also on the delivery side, it is important to acknowledge the context you are working in. The challenges are daunting. We are to lift millions and billions out of poverty, not hundreds or a few thousand. Grass root action and NGO-programmes can reduce poverty locally, and have regional repercussions or the power of example. They are very important and valuable in the fight against poverty. But in order to make the MDGs come true, to change the lives of hundreds of millions of people, - we need primarily to work globally and with and through governments. If the poorest countries are to get out of the poverty trap we need to work with and through the state. Failed states will remain there – in the trap, and with them - their poor inhabitants. We need to build functioning states, governments, and a public sector that works. NGOs can’t do that. Governments can – through their development cooperation. Development work through NGOs will therefore always be a complementary to these endeavours.

Grass root action also needs to be well anchored in recipient states’ own plans and poverty reduction strategies. Otherwise we risk loosing whatever progress has been made by counteracting policies - or we risk overburdening the state with a plethora of uncoordinated initiatives, demanding time and effort on the part of the state-machinery.

In addition, the policies that influences poor governments the most, such as debt, trade, macroeconomic conditions are all very important and need to be addressed.

We will not reach the MDGs if we ignore governments, ignore the state. Public action is necessary.

V. The four fronts

How can we halve extreme poverty by 2015? How can we reach the Millennium Development Goals?

The way I see it - in at least four areas simultaneously. And here, the advocacy role of civil society is crucial.

1. International framework conditions

Kofi Annan illustrates the need for reform in international framework conditions in this way:

" The main losers in today’s very unequal world are not those who are too much exposed to globalisation. They are those who have been left out..."

If we do not allow for easier access to markets and sustainable debt reduction schemes - the poorest countries will not be able to benefit from globalization.

So - our first area fit for reform is international framework conditions; debt reduction, trade and investment regimes. Let’s remember, for most of the developing countries, this is more important than development aid in itself - although maybe not for the very poorest. We must ensure consistency and coherence between the goals the international community has set itself for poverty reduction and the framework that same community is putting in place to achieve them. What we do in development cooperation can even be undermined by bad trade policies.

Trade

Protectionism in rich countries costs developing countries between USD 100-150 billion per year, at least twice the amount they receive through development cooperation. Rich countries spend many times more on subsidies to their own farmers than on development aid.

The World Bank estimates that with a supportive domestic policy environment, full global trade liberalization in goods alone can result in gains of around 5 per cent of income in developing countries and lift 300 million people out of poverty by 2015, the target date for achieving the UN Millennium Development Goals. Achieving the goals depends on a number of things, we all know, but no other area of international economic cooperation - debt relief or official development assistance, for example - can promise as much.

So - one of the most effective ways in which rich countries can support efforts to combat poverty is to open their markets to the products of developing countries and reduce detrimental subsidies for agriculture.

The current round of negotiations in the WTO is providing the opportunity to open up markets. The round is often referred to as the Doha Development Round. At the ministerial conference in Doha in November 2001, issues of particular interest to developing countries were for the first time being placed at the heart of a new round of trade negotiations. Ministers recognised and reaffirmed the importance of international trade as a vehicle for development. The most important contribution of the Doha Development Agenda would be to open up markets for products of particular interest to developing countries and thereby providing improved conditions for economic growth and development.

Also, deadlines for other issues of particular interest to developing countries were set.

Progress is slow on the development issues in the Doha round.

Public Health and patent rights are a particular case in point. Poor countries need to have access to generic drugs, cheaper medicine, even if they do not have satisfactory production capacity themselves. The issue at stake is the possibility to import medicines which have been produced under compulsory licensing in another country.

The way we deal with TRIPs - and public health - will be a test of our willingness to put developing country interests at the centre. Given the political importance of this issue, we need a solution prior to - or at the latest at the ministerial conference in Cancun, Mexico in September.

I am afraid that if rich countries do not deliver on the special issues of importance to poor countries in this negotiating round, a lot of mileage for the idea of mutual accountability in development will be lost. Trade is important in figures. Let’s add the symbolic value – and one should realize that now is the time to deliver.

I mention this here, not entirely by chance. NGOs may play a very important advocacy- role here, moving this issue forward - if it is being dealt with in the right way!

Debt

We all know it - too many poor countries carry a debt burden which is detrimental to any progress in economic and social development. In 1999 the average debt repayment by these countries amounted to two thirds of money spent on social services. The Heavily Indebted Poor Country - debt initiative - the so-called HIPC- initiative addressed this situation with broader, deeper and faster debt relief. As a result the average debt-servicing has been reduced to one fifth of social sector spending - remarkable results.

The HIPC initiative is expected to provide a staggering 45-50 billion dollars for poverty reduction purposes to about 40 of the poorest countries in the world, reducing their debts with two-thirds on average. But perhaps equally important, HIPC has, together with the process to work out national poverty reduction strategies, the so-called Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, or PRSPs in development tribal language, been a catalyst for far-reaching changes in how to approach the development challenges. It also contributed to change in what many of us called the Washington Consensus. The PRSPs are aimed at securing, among other things, country ownership, investment in the social sectors, and civil society participation. In other words, the potential impact of the HIPC and PRSP processes in terms of accelerating poverty reduction goes way beyond the direct financial flows provided by debt relief.

There has been a lot of debate on this issue, not least within civil society - on whether HIPC does deliver, that it is not deep enough, broad enough and fast enough, and that countries experiencing external shocks are left with unsustainable debt situations, despite the topping-up procedures. I will not dwell on these issues now.

One concern I want to share with you today which has not been given sufficient attention, neither by governments, nor NGOs, is the financing issue. The current HIPC operation is not fully financed. The bill has to be paid. We have to ensure that debt reduction schemes for indebted countries are not, in reality, paid for by other poor countries. We need to compensate what has been borrowed from IDA - the World Bank’s costs, in order to safeguard the institutions’ ability to continue to assist the poorest countries. Until 2005, costs for debt-reduction are being covered by the Bank’s net income - and we’re fine. But - from 2006 onwards, the Bank may incur losses at about 600 million dollars a year unless additional resources are provided. This will amount to 10 billion USD over several years. Even if the transfers continue at the present level, which we clearly cannot take for granted, it will likely be necessary to mobilize substantial donor resources.

Otherwise, concessional resources to be spent by the Bank on poor countries who are not debt-ridden, will be reduced. We cannot have this - we must ensure that it is the rich countries that pay for debt-reduction - not the other poor countries. Unfortunately, several richer countries still seem rather reluctant to deliver on their solemn and explicit promise to ensure that HIPC debt relief is truly additional to other assistance. This is an issue which cannot wait. We must act now. We need to start mobilizing funds to cover up for IDA and all HIPC costs now. This is clearly an issue for advocacy.

2. National governments must do better

Second area of change, no less important – is the need for developing countries to put their own house in order, improve their policies and governance. Reforms are needed. This is part of the global compact agreed to in Monterrey. Developing countries themselves need to assign priorities, draw up strategies, invest in human resources and implement poverty-oriented policies. Good governance, that is anti-corruption policies, democracy-building and the respect for human rights is crucial to combat poverty and make development sustainable. These are also preconditions to attract investments and to make development assistance constructive. It is a fact, not a myth, that development assistance is most efficient and delivers more in countries with good governance.

In order to transform the opportunities arising from debt reduction and trade reforms into sustainable development, political, economic and social reforms in the developing countries themselves is required. Debt relief is no panacea - trade opportunities are no panacea. Robust development strategies based on active participation by civil society and elected bodies is required - also to ensure that released funds are being used in a way conducive to development.

When such resources are not efficiently used for poverty reduction and policy reforms are ignored, debt relief, or indeed development assistance, has not helped. Frankly speaking, I think this is an area where we on our side for too long have been reluctant to speak up.

The process of drawing up comprehensive poverty reduction strategies, the so-called PRSPs - represents a major break with the much-criticized structural adjustment programmes from 20 years back. Economic reforms were – and are still – necessary, but the programmes of the 1980s did not recognize the complexity of the problems, nor were they tailored to the needs of individual countries. There’s no denying that external factors have been a key determinant behind the crisis of many developing countries - but we need to get the balance right in order to move the fight against poverty forward.

Here, civil society can have important watch dog-functions. Helping your partners in developing countries to take on similar roles in relation to their governments is in itself important to improve their policies and governance, their delivery.

3. More and better donor assistance

Thirdly, policies matter, but resources are also crucial. Official Development Assistance must be improved in quantity, as well as quality. Reforms are needed. UN statistics show that in 2002 the world’s total military spending amounted to USD 850 billion. The total development co-operation assistance in 2002 amounted to USD 50 billion. We need another USD 50 billion per year to be able to reach the MDGs. It makes you think – doesn’t it?

The need for more ODA is a fairly simple, but yet an extremely important case to make for the general public in donor countries. Little is often known about the level of ODA one’s own country is contributing. My good friend, Eveline Herfkens, whom Kofi Annan has picked to lead the global campaign to make the MDGs known to all – tells a good story about this. In a poll in the US people were asked if they thought their country could provide additional ODA, and what the level in terms of % of GNI might be now. A majority was willing to see the Government spend more money on ODA – but, most people thought that the level of development aid was above 10% of GNI! We all know the reality - in 2002 it was 0,12%. Here there is a clear case for NGO-advocacy!

The Norwegian Government has pledged to increase its development assistance to 1 per cent of GNI by 2005. The budget for 2003 shows that we are moving steadily towards this goal, and we now stand at 0.93 per cent.

None of the major powers has firmly committed itself to fulfilling the three-decade-old UN target of 0.70 per cent of GNP for the ODA within a certain timeline. Indeed, the l990s saw a steady decline in levels of net official development assistance. But we have managed to turn the trend. The decline has stopped and we expect a 30% increase over the next three years. The EU and the US are fulfilling their pledges from Monterrey – it seems. However we are far behind the necessary doubling-. All OECD countries should therefore fulfil the 3 decade old pledge to reach 0,7% of GNI.

We also need to talk about donor reform. Donor-reform is not only ODA-quantity. In addition to more aid – we need to get more poverty reduction out of every dollar. We need to reform the way in which we deliver aid.

A few years back the Tanzanian finance minister had to deliver almost 10 000 reports to donors every year, all with different formats, rules and procedures. 10 000! In Zambia his colleague now has to administer 1200 different donor accounts. A third finance minister received last year’s contribution from a major donor 31 of December at 16 Hrs. 2002 was over. A fourth minister told me that 3 people in his ministry were working for him, the rest were working for the donors. In addition, we know that a number of donors still operate individual stand alone projects based on tied aid, donor driven, and without sufficient national ownership.This donor circus must come to an end! Donor-initiated and donor-managed projects of this kind are detrimental to national ownership and to development. It is undermining our partners’ efforts. The circus also implies wasting scarce development funding.

Some donors also choose to operate more through NGOs than governments. That does not strengthen the country’s ability to improve governance and service delivery to its people. In Bangladesh, there are currently some 1750 local NGOs which receive funding from abroad. In addition, 174 NGOs from abroad operate in the country. Waving donor flags, whether amongst donor countries or NGOs can get in the way of delivery to the people.

These are issues which should concern the NGO community. We need not only more, but better aid. We need to focus on donor accountability.

Donor reforms must imply moving towards sector wide approaches and budgetary support – when the financial capacity is sufficient. It must imply untying aid, here we have won the first battle over untying aid for the LDCs. Now it is time to move on. It must imply common and simplified procedures, pooling resources into one basket, common reporting, joint missions, use of local expertise – rather than fly in – fly out-ones. And first and foremost, it must imply country ownership and leadership, the country in the driver’s seat – building on the PRSP. This has to do with donor accountability, - mutual accountability. And it is crucial for our ability to reach the MDGs.

In delivering on increased resources, the US administration has made a major commitment to development in deciding to establish the Millennium Challenge Account with a 50 % increase in ODA and the HIV/AIDS-programme supposedly mounting to an increase in resources of up to 15 billion USD.

The MCA initiative is an important step forward. It is significant and an initiative I warmly welcome. I have discussed the MCA with a number of US officials. I support the priorities, investing in people, ruling justly and facilitating economic freedom with a focus on poverty reduction. The challenge will be its operations not only with regard to the eligibility criteria, but also its implementation on the ground. There might be a danger that the MCA over time will exclude many of the poorest countries that need our support. Another crucial factor is country ownership and coordination with other donors in the field. They should be the guiding principles.

The new funding being proposed for HIV/AIDS is also very welcome. We need to make a major effort to prevent this scourge from undermining all our development efforts. If we are to succeed in our global efforts to combat aids – we need to see our engagement in the same light as any other development cooperation. We need to cooperate, have a clear division of responsibility between multilateral institutions, with donor harmonisation, country ownership, and a program focus.

What we have to avoid is a situation where the new funding comes in donor driven, without country leadership, without coordination with other donors and international actors. Experience shows how this may be detrimental to our efforts. Therefore, I hope that the new and admirable efforts by this administration will come in support of the current donor reforms, maximizing results on the ground – for the people that really need it. Here, you have an important role to play.

4. Private sector and civil society

There is a fourth area we need to look at - we must make a great effort to engage the private sector for the achievement of the MDGs. Civil society matters - in rich countries as well as in poor. There is a lot of unexploited potential in these sectors. Entrepreneurs and agents of change must be given better framework conditions. The private sector is crucial in to the achievement of the MDGs. We cannot manage through ODA alone. As mentioned, NGOs and civil society are among them. They must be strengthened so that they can fulfil their roles as watchdogs in democratic societies.

VI. Mutual accountability – an emerging New paradigm in development policies

We have to work on all these four fronts simultaneously. All are imperative if we are to reach the MDGs by 2015. If we work along all these fronts to the maximum of our ability, we may have a chance. To help us along the way, we need monitoring of our performance, not only of the progress that the developing countries are making, but also of our own. Here, we also have the issue of coherence. There must be coherence between national policies and their repercussions on our development goals. We should be measured on this, a discussion about how to identify the criteria has now begun.

A few weeks ago, here in Washington, the Center for Global Development and Foreign Policy Magazine launched an index of the combined effect of rich countries’ policies on development in the poor world. In this, trade and aid, immigration and investment, a long list of policy areas are included. One may question the choice of indicators and the weighting, stress the need for further work, but the Commitment to Development Index illustrates one vital issue; the challenge of coherence and the importance of mutual accountability. We need such instruments.

Norway, as well as the US, has some way to go before we can honestly say that our part of the deal inherent in the Global Compact has been delivered. Politicians will need to make some tough choices to fulfill their part of the battle against poverty.

NGOs are needed in this work!

In the past few years we have witnessed a process of change in the way we look at development issues, both the goals – the MDGs, the agreement on the way to reach them, the emphasis on policies, resources and reforms, as well as a new focus on coherence. In my opinion, it all amounts to a process towards an emerging change of the development paradigm. There is also a marked recognition of the importance of fighting poverty. It is no longer a marginal issue for those with particular interests. It is interlinked with security policy, political dialogue, trade and investments.

Discussion and critical voices is necessary - but my main argument remains - we are moving towards a new development paradigm. But, we still have a long way to go in order to bridge the gap between rhetoric in international fora and realities on the ground.

VII. Two dangers – among many

We can make it – we can reach the MDGs. Let me, however, point out at least two dangers that need to be addressed – if we are to make it. One is the HIV/AIDS-pandemic. The other is the conflicts, civil unrest and war in developing countries.

First, HIV/AIDS. Africa is the continent most severely hit by the HIV/AIDS-epidemic. In sub-Saharan Africa, the epidemic is undermining educational programmes, health systems, public administrations, agriculture – the entire fabric of society. It is reversing decades of development gains. AIDS seriously threatens the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals for poverty reduction, maternal and child health, education and gender equality, and unless the world community act now, we stand no chance of reaching the goals. On the contrary - we risk that there is an around 20% reduction of GDP by 2010 in the worst hit countries. Therefore I note with appreciation that the USA is increasing the spending on the international fight against the epidemic considerably. It is all the more vital that it is done in the right way.

Then – to conflict prevention and peace building. War is the most detrimental factor and the greatest threat against poverty reduction and development. Without peace and stability, our fight against poverty is doomed to fail. Without peace the MDGs will remain just that – optimistic goals, as opposed to a new and better reality for the most deprived.

The international community has frequently proved its capacity to mount massive humanitarian relief operations. These are commendable and mandatory as an expression of solidarity. They do not, however, address the underlying causes of conflict. And they divert resources from long-term sustainable development programmes.

Preventing violent conflicts from arising in the first place is, of course, preferable to healing the wounds. The challenge for the international community is to be able to identify situations with a potential for conflict and to prevent them from breaking out or, in post- conflict situations, from re-occurring.

Last week, the Word Bank released a study of 52 civil wars and reconstruction processes. I would like to turn your attention to its thesis that rather than ethnic conflict, it is often poverty and the struggle over natural resources which is the main reason for civil conflict around the world. Who are the buyers of diamonds, oil and other natural resources?

Well, this is quite a strong argument in favour of stepping up initiatives to secure more transparency into the financial flows of companies dealing in these resources. NGOs front this work – governments need to take a more prominent role. The Extractive Industries and Transparency Initiative is now addressing this issue.

Peace-making initiatives often get a lot of media-attention. Getting the parties to the negotiating table and into a situation where they dare to opt for peace is only one part of the story. The less acclaimed, but certainly not less important, part is what must be done to consolidate – or build – peace by addressing social and economic development as well as political and security issues. Therefore, peace building is crucial. The international community can help build the necessary competence, capacity, institutions and processes for non-violet conflict resolution.

The World Bank study I referred to clearly points to some valuable conclusions about timing of the inflow of assistance from abroad. Too much comes in too early, and then we forget to follow up. We need to take a closer look at these findings. This is not least important when we know that every second peace accord fails, and results in new violence, unrest and conflict.

The elements of peace-building are like the colours of a pallet: they can be mixed in innumerable ways. The mix will vary depending on the context, but in most contexts practically every element has to be addressed in one way or another. NGOs have a role.

Civil society has in several instances been able to link up with local organisations or agents of change and facilitate a higher degree of stability in conflict-ridden - or conflict-threatened - areas. When peace is to be secured after conflict - NGOs may be well placed to interact with local organizations to reestablish local infrastructure of civil society, or provide services.

We need to realise that peace-building normally is a long term effort. We must be impatient for results, but patiently involved during the time it takes to reach the goals we have set for our involvement in combating poverty and promoting peace. Then There is hope also for the MDGs.

VII. Summing up - NGO challenges

To reach the MDGs you are crucial. Again – you are needed in at least four ways.

Needed as important actors in the field. NGOs often muster very good contacts and knowledge of country and people. In addition NGOs often have the ability to be flexible and adaptable. Briefly - you play an important role in delivery of development- and relief assistance. But - I challenge you in this endeavour. NGOs must take into account donor-reform - harmonisation, coordination, country ownership. This is my first challenge.

Secondly - the role of NGOs in advocacy - the voice of the poor in rich countries. We need NGOs to paint the picture of the world in such a way that people understand the nature of the daunting task we are facing. Talk to Congress - talk to the Administration - and tell people about what we need to do in order for us to win the battle against poverty together. I have outlined a number of issues where your advocacy is needed, in debt, trade, coherence in policies, increase in ODA and donor reform, to mention but a few.

Thirdly - we need watch-dogs as much as ever - we need organisations that can monitor our policies from the vantage point of experience in the field. We need debate about what we do - we need to be checked in our endeavours. Not least on our ability to deliver on Millennium Goal 8 – and on policy coherence. And - we need organisations to support watchdogs in developing countries. We need to help enrich civil society and the disturbing voice who tells on the Government when it does not follow development friendly policies. They have to watch over their own governments’ performance in reaching their national MDG-targets.

Fourthly and finally, you are needed as campaigners, campaigners for the MDGs. I hope you can contribute in MDG’izing the Americans, both the people and the politicians. What can be more "sellable" than telling people that they can make a difference? That their support for increased foreign aid and development oriented policies can provide education for the kids and help 2/3rds of them survive their fifth birthday? The message must be: It is possible! You can make a difference!

Friends -

Decision makers need decision- shapers in order to make the difficult choices. Faced with vested interests we too often choose the easy way out, to do nothing. Decision makers need strong allies advocating for the poor. Civil society matters.

When the cut-off date for reaching the Millennium Goals comes – in 2015 – we must be there!

We will never get the window of opportunity to fight poverty - but we can make it happen - together.

Thank you.