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!
