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.
