Check against delivery

Mr. Chairman, Examinators, Secretariat Members,
DAC Delegates and Colleagues,

I am pleased to be here today for the peer review of Norwegian development co-operation policies and programmes. Norway agrees with other DAC members that the peer review constitutes one of the most important activities of the DAC. Peer reviews are more important than ever (I will revert to this more generally), not the least in light of the positive developments with the African Peer Review Mechanism. I am coming here straight from Uganda, where President Museveni humorously stated that he “would like to review the reviewers”. Whichever way we look at it, mutual accountability is critical!

We can all learn from the peer review exercises and I also believe that peer pressure actually works. We all need to improve our performance. In view of the importance we attach to the peer review process, I have brought the following team with me today:

• Ambassador Tanja Storm
• NORAD’s Director Tove Strand
• Deputy Director General Jon Lomøy, Regional Department
• Senior Adviser Lars Fure, Section for Humanitarian Affairs
• Senior Macroeconomic Adviser Henrik Harboe, Department for International Development Policy
• DAC-Delegate Geir Sjøberg

During this peer review process - over the last 6 months - the DAC has challenged us and asked many questions. We received peer review missions in Oslo and Lusaka in June, we compiled a memorandum, which you have all got, and we have provided additional information upon requests from the peer review team. I sincerely hope the team feels that we have responded to your requests in a satisfactory manner.

But before I speak about Norway, let me share with you our more general views on the DAC peer review mechanism, taking into account also the experiences with the current exercise from the Norwegian side:

• The Peer Reviews have for a long time been a backbone of our fruitful cooperation in the DAC. With our increased focus on new aid modalities and effectivness, harmonisation and allignment, and mutual accountability, it is clear to us that the Peer Review mechanism is becoming more important than ever. In this regard, we also value greatly the prospects of the the joint review mechanism with NEPAD.
• In order for DAC to deliver fully under this new “drive” in the international community we need a more clearly defined framework with appropriate methodology, to guide our Peer Reviews.
• As an integral part of such a framework we should also set the scope a bit more broadly, including a focus on all delivery channels, with a more pronounced focus on multilateral aid.
• At the same time, and as I know you have discussed earlier in the DAC, we must focus better on how to move from words to action. This implies a stronger focus on country level implementation and assessments. Joint Peer Reviews in partner countries can constitute a step in this direction.
• Clearly in order to achieve all this, we need relevant and enhanced competence and capacity to carry out the Peer Reviews. Proper resourcing of the secretariat should thus be a priority.
• With the effective incorporation of DAC policies and institutional memory in our work we would be able to utilize fully the potential of Peer Reviews to reinforce our common policy goals. Today we see both helpful consistencies in this regard and some unfortunate cases where the approach in the Peer Review may complicate donors compliance with DAC policies. The DAC should push donors in the right direction. (Example of pushing in the right direction: multi-annual commitments. Example of pushing in the wrong direction: almost advocating a return to earmarking).
• In areas where we consider increased DAC focus, such as humanitarian assistance, we need to consider particularly carefully their nature and competance requirements. I will revert to this at the end of my opening statement and under the section on humanitarian assistance.

In this general introduction as a background for our discussion later today, I would like to focus on the following specific issues:

• the rights-based approach in Norwegian development policy;
• the holistic approach in Norwegian development policy, including our focus on policy coherence;
• the challenges related to the move from projects and earmarking to sector programmes, budget support and mainstreaming;
• how our recent reform is adapted to new aid modalities and delivering better on poverty reduction; and
• a few remarks on humanitarian assistance.

Norwegian development cooperation is rights-based

The new White Paper on development policy, Fighting Poverty Together (on your desk) which I presented to Parliament in April, reconfirms that Norwegian development policy is rights-based. Let my clarify what we mean by this. Fighting poverty is promoting human rights. Fighting poverty is fulfilling people’s rights. Thus, poverty and human rights are closely interlinked.

Consequently, we need to discard the old dichotomy between development and human rights, and the assumption that they form a hierarchy. Economic, social and cultural rights must be given their rightful place alongside civil and political rights. All human rights are equally important. They are, in fact, not only indivisible; they are also mutually reinforcing. I also strongly believe that aid has an important role to play in promoting human rights and fighting poverty in an integrated manner, that it can help deliver in both areas.

The adoption of the Declaration on the Right to Development in 1986 and the Vienna Programme of Action in 1993 placed these issues firmly at the top of the international agenda. We have come to realise that if development strategies and policies for implementing human rights standards are combined, they reinforce one another, resulting in synergy and improving peoples’ lives.

States have obligations to respect, protect and ensure the realisation of human rights. A rights approach to development means enabling states to fulfil their obligations towards key UN Conventions on human rights, and enabling citizens to hold their governments accountable. Norway offers to support governments in their work to fulfil their own obligations and strengthen their capacity to protect and promote the realisa­tion of human rights for all, be it the right to education, to basic health care, to food, to govern without discrimination, to protect minorities. We also offer support to independent human rights insti­tu­tions and civil society organi­sations that act as watchdogs of government in this area.

This integration of human rights thinking into our efforts to combat poverty has some important implications. First of all, we need to study and gain insight into the human rights situation in its entirety, the processes and dynamics of poverty, and possible exclusion. We must then, together with other donors, make sure that the findings of such studies are translated into action, into improving the lives of the poorest. A rights based approach is therefore relevant, to the development of education programmes as well as national programmes against HIV/AIDS. It is behind our focus on indigeneous people. This goes for governments and other donors alike. A rights perspective to development also means recognising that equality matters, that discrimination and social exclusion must be addressed, and that poor people’s voice must be heard. Incorporating the empowerment of poor people and inclusion of all, into our development cooperation approach is therefore a must.

In the Norwegian setting, our Embassies are responsible for the dialogue with partner countries on development issues, as well as for the human rights dialogue at national level, on the basis of the commitments countries have already made.

A concrete example of the implications of our rights based approach to development can be found in our cooperation with several partner countries in the education sector. The Nor­wegian Strategy for Delivering Education for All by 2015 clearly recognises that the right to education is a human right. This forms the basis for all our education sector cooperation. In our dialogue with Ministries of Education we will therefore emphasise the need to provi­de access to education to all children, girls as well as boys, the disabled children from minorities and children from socially excluded groups. Through this approach we have achieved inclusion of minorities in the education sector programme in Vietnam, supported by Norway. This is how we use a rights based approach to development.

The holistic approach in Norwegian development policy, including policy coherence

Not the least thanks to the holistic approach to poverty reduction in the DAC Poverty Guidelines and the DAC’s increasing focus on policy coherence, it is now generally accepted that more than aid is necessary to achieve poverty reduction, and that issues outside the traditional aid agenda have severe impact on poverty and development prospects for poor countries. In line with this, Norway has adopted a holistic approach to poverty reduction in the new White Paper, including a strong focus on policy coherence.

It is challenging for a peer review to assess such a complex and comprehensive development policy. Choices have to be made in the peer review team’s approach and work. Since we place such high importance on the comprehensiveness of Norwegian aid policy, looking at selected parts of this policy will necessarily produce an incomplete picture. We feel that this partial picture given in the peer review report is one of the main weaknesses of the DAC assessment of our policies and practices.

In terms of policy coherence, the report rightly points to remaining challenges in areas such as agriculture and trade. We also acknowledge that we have some way to go before policy coherence is owned as an important goal across ministries and policy areas. This is also reflected in our MDG 8 report presented to the UN in October (on your desk). However, in view of the importance of the debt problem for poor countries, we do feel that our active role in pushing the debt issues, including two rounds of Norwegian debt relief action plans (also on your desk) would have merited more attention in the peer review.

Challenges related to the move from projects and earmarking to mainstreaming and budget support

The move from project-assistance and different forms of earmarking to mainstreaming, programme aid, budget support and delegated partnerships have been among the most important changes during the last decade in the way we provide development assistance. The main motivation for these changes has been to increase aid effectiveness, and these changes have been actively promoted by this body, by the DAC. The developing country support for these changes is also strong and was clearly spelled out by President Mkapa of Tanzania in his opening speech to the Africa regional workshop on harmonisation, alignment and results in Dar es Salaam 2 weeks ago when he said: “Among the lessons we have learnt are that much more should have been done from the start to focus on aid effectiveness, rather than largely on aid volumes; to focus more on capacity building, rather than technical assistance; and to focus on holistic, comprehensive, interventions rather than isolated project successes.” He continued: “We in Tanzania, have come to the view that budget support is the best way to support our home-grown efforts...”

This is a good description of the changes that are taking place in Norwegian aid policy. With these changes asked for by developing countries and strongly promoted by the DAC, I have been somewhat puzzled by what appears to be slightly sceptical comments here and there to mainstreaming and budget support in the DAC peer review report on Norway.

With respect to mainstreaming, it is a challenge to all of us to deal with cross-cutting issues in the era of new aid modalities. However, these challenges do not give reason to question mainstreaming as the right approach. In the case of gender for instance, I truly believe that the best way to promote women’s rights is to strengthen the forces from within, be it in or outside governmnet. We are trying to do that. Gender equality can never be implemented from the outside. I am more than willing to discuss this further with you.

The reform towards an aid administration more effective for poverty reduction

After the approval of the government’s action plan for combating poverty in 2002, and a major evaluation of the efficiency of the Norwegian aid administration in terms of contributing to poverty reduction, the Norwegian government decided in September 2003 to undertake the following changes in the Norwegian aid administration:

• More delegation and decentralisation to embassies and delegations
• Unification of all country- and regional competence in the Ministry
• Unification of all policy-development, strategy- and most of information-work in the Ministry
• Unification of knowledge management, evaluation, quality assurance, and the management of long-term support through NGOs and the private sector in NORAD
• Unification of the administrative responsibility for all embassies in the Ministry.

Even if it is too early to properly assess the results of the reorganisation, we see some impact already, such as:

• Advantages of unifying the responsibility for policy and development work under one roof in Oslo
• Clear benefits from the increased delegation and decentralisation
• More direct contact between the Ministry and embassies in developing countries, including positive experiences with my weekly teleconferences with individual embassies
• Succesful establishment of country- and theme-groups including both NORAD and the Ministry, which strengthens cooperation between the two
• More integrated approach with respect to the UN with all UN-matters now handled by one department
• Less duplication, less cumbersome procedures and levels of administration, and more efficiency.

However there are challenges remaining:

• The capacity of the Regional department is still too limited for it to fill all its roles. This is now being addressed.
• Adjustment of NORAD’s competence profile is still needed for it to fit with NORAD’s new role
• Challenge to maintain and further develop the development competence in house and that has been transferred to the Ministry.

My conclusion so far is that we have made the right changes, we are on track in the implementation and already seeing gains, but we must maintain a strong focus on the remaining challenges to make the reorganisation as successful as possible in making us more effective in the fight against poverty.

Humanitarian assistance

Finally, a few words on humanitarian assistance: I referred initially to peer reviews as an instrument of learning and mutual accountability. This is the first peer review following the decision of the meeting on Good Humanitarian Donorship in Stockholm last June to ”consider ways to significantly strengthen the coverage of humanitarian action in existing and/or complementary peer reviews.” Our experience will hopefully provide input to the DAC discussions next January on the future of this approach. One thing is for sure, if DAC is going to continue to engage in peer reviews on humanitarian action with a view to evaluating the donor’s compliance with the Good Humanitarian Donorship principles, it would need to further develop its capacity and competence in this distinct field of official development assistance. Humanitarian action needs to be reviewed by experts as a distinct policy area, in many ways very different from that of long-term assistance.

In the present peer review exercise, we have felt that a number of misunderstandings and discussions have arisen from the peer review’s team’s inadequate familiarity with the specificities of humanitarian action. I will revert more in detail to this when we come to the chapter on humanitarian action later today. At this point, I will only draw the Committee Members’ attention to the reviewers’ call for increased concentration of Norway’s humanitarian action in line with our partnership approach to long-term assistance. With all due respect, this does not make sense to us. The concept of partner countries is only relevant to long-term assistance. Humanitarian action is based on the imperative to address immediate survival needs wherever they occur. In our view, we cannot, for instance, limit our humanitarian action to partner countries. Such a limitation would in fact violate good humanitarian donorship principles, which prescribe funding according to need. We must also take issue with the reviewers’ implied preference that Norway as a provider of humanitarian action should continue to take responsibility for a recipient country through its transition stages and into the recovery phases. The implications of such a policy approach would simply be impracticable.

I will have more to say on this issue later. For now, let me end here, Mr. Chairman!