First of all, let me begin by thanking the organisers for the invitation to speak here today. Minister of International Development Erik Solheim was supposed to attend, but he is currently in Sudan. I am pleased to have this opportunity to be here and present the Government’s development policy and views on Norway’s role in the World Bank in the coming years.

Before I start, let me briefly introduce myself. Prior to my current job, I was Director for Education in the county of Nordland. I have also been mayor of Fauske, and I have worked for Norwegian People’s Aid in Kosovo. I am therefore fairly new to the development policy arena, but I find it very interesting and challenging. And I have much to learn. One way of learning is through dialogue with NGOs. Establishing an active and strong dialogue with a broad set of actors on development policy is particularly vital for the Government, as it aims not only to change the content of politics but also the way we do politics. Consequently, it will be vital to have an open dialogue and more transparency about Norway’s development policy and role in the Bretton Woods institutions if we are to move forward with our development agenda.

This brings me to the Government’s ambitious development agenda. Let me highlight a few key areas. The Government will:

• increase our development assistance to 1 per cent of Gross National Income
• transfer more of the responsibility for Norwegian multilateral assistance from the World Bank to the UN
• take the lead in promoting new global financial sources for development, including international taxes
• promote democratisation of the World Bank and the IMF
• take the lead on debt relief, including on the issue of illegitimate debt, where we are supporting the work of both the World Bank and the UN
• oppose privatisation as a condition for debt relief and aid
• follow up and continue efforts to conduct human rights dialogues

Common to all these priorities and key principles of the new Government are equity and justice, both nationally and internationally. We are already in the process of implementing this new policy. As you know, a revised government budget for next year was presented last week. In the 2006 budget, you will see the first signs of the announced shift from the World Bank to the UN. NOK 100 million has been reallocated from the Bank budget to the UN budget. Norway will still be a major contributor to the World Bank, but a much more critical one. This should be seen as a challenge to the Bank. The Bank must demonstrate that aid money channelled through the Bank is used effectively for poverty reduction.

In keeping with the title of today’s discussion, I would like to move on to the more specific World Bank agenda and what having a critical agenda entails for our role in and work with the Bank.

We must continue to play an active role in discussions in the Bank’s Board of Directors in order to promote our agenda. Norway will take over the position of Executive Director of the Board, representing the Nordic-Baltic countries, for a three-year period from the summer of 2006. Close collaboration with our fellow Nordic and Baltic countries is a prerequisite if Norway is to be able to move forward with our development agenda in the Bank. It is thus important to keep in mind that Norway must collaborate and make alliances in order to have maximum impact.

One recent example of how Nordic-Baltic collaboration has contributed to pushing new agendas in the Bank is in the field of human rights. Just a few weeks ago Minister of International Development Solheim, together with his Nordic-Baltic colleagues, met with World Bank President Wolfowitz in Stockholm. At the meeting, he submitted on behalf of the Nordic-Baltic countries a working paper on the Bank’s work on human rights to Mr Wolfowitz. The main conclusion in the paper is that the Bank de facto already one of the most important actors in the implementation of economic and social rights, and consequently cannot shy away from the responsibility that such influence entails. Human rights has been, and still is, a sensitive issue in the Bank, but there are now positive signals that this will be discussed more openly – and realistically. I am quite confident that the united Nordic-Baltic effort has helped to move human rights higher up on the Bank’s agenda.

In a similar vein, Norway should continue pushing the Bank on innovative work in areas to which we give high priority, such as gender equality, environment and education. But as stated in your report, we must look critically at what we achieve.

It is important to monitor what goes on in Washington. Equally important, however, is to ensure that our embassies in developing countries and NGOs monitor what the Bank does at country level. There has to be a reality check. Let me illustrate this by giving you an example. Recently the Ministry had a meeting with Rainforest Foundation Norway at which they expressed concerns about the Bank’s involvement in the forestry sector in the Democratic Republic of Congo. After the meeting, we forwarded the Foundation’s concerns to the relevant departments in the Bank and asked for clarification and answers on a number of issues. Feedback on what really goes on at the country level is essential to ensure a better understanding of what the Bank does in practice.

Another issue where we need clear feedback from our embassies and NGOs is to what extent the Bank pushes and implements ideologically driven privatisation reforms as a condition for loans and grants. The Bank now acknowledges that privatisation should not be an across-the-board requirement in its operations. For instance, the Bank’s own World Development Report 2006 finds that privatisation is a classic case of a policy that may or may not make sense, depending on the local context.

A key element of the new Government’s development policy is to oppose privatisation as a condition for aid and debt relief. We have already initiated a more active approach on this issue. Matters and questions that need to be scrutinised and clarified are:

• what is the current situation, i.e. to what extent does the Bank still have privatisation as a condition for loans and grants to developing countries
• to what extent is this privatisation wanted by recipient countries themselves
• what effect has privatisation had where it has been implemented

If the countries themselves would like to carry out privatisation as part of their own development strategies and reform agenda, it is, of course, difficult for us to oppose it on grounds of principle. But we are against ideologically driven across-the-board privatisation in Bank operations. And we will criticise the Bank when we see examples of that and oppose such practices. Support for programmes can also be suspended for this reason. Our embassies and NGOs will play a crucial role in helping us monitoring the Bank on these matters.

In general, I think it is very important that NGOs contribute with their experience and input. This will give content and credibility to our critical Bank agenda. Reports such as the one you have produced are very important to highlight key issues that need to be scrutinised. I have noted the main findings and recommendations of this report, and I think that I have already responded to some of them. However, it is too early for me to give a comprehensive response to the report, and we need time to study it closely. I can assure you that we will respond to it.

To end my brief introduction, I would like to challenge the rest of the panel by repeating the question to be addressed in today’s discussion: What role should,in your view, Norway play in the World Bank the next four years? How can and should the Ministry use the expertise of NGOs and other actors in the best possible way in our World Bank work? I would also like to challenge you on the issue of conditionality. I am somewhat surprised at the report’s unqualified recommendations on this issue. Do you mean that we should have no conditions attached to aid at all? Isn’t aid without any conditions aid without policy? Isn’t the real question how we can support and cooperate with our partner countries, based on their priorities and their ownership?

I look forward to our discussion on these and other issues.

Thank you.