Reaching the Millennium Goals

Check against delivery

Ladies and gentlemen,
Dear friends,

Thank you for inviting me to be part of this important conference.

NUPI, the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, has brought together an impressive panel of lecturers. I am honoured to address this distinguished audience and pleased to have this opportunity to learn more about the United Nations Intellectual History Project.

I hope and trust you will have two rewarding days here in Oslo, and look forward to discussions with you as the conference progresses.

However, I have been given a task this morning, and that is to speak to you about the Norwegian contribution towards the Millennium Goals. I will be happy to do so - on condition that you allow me to add another topic that I am equally passionate about: the role of the UN in achieving the MDGs.

I hear no wild protests – so I’ll take that as a yes.

The challenge

I would like to start by looking at the challenge in front of us.

We know that in international development, the to-do list remains long, very long. Every day seems to bring new crises, new conflicts, new causes for concern. The poverty and suffering seem overwhelming – even after half a century of development assistance.

Because still today –

• 1.2 billion people are living 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.
• Poverty, hunger and disease kill a child every three seconds.

At the current rate of progress, it will take 130 years to eradicate hunger in the world.

This is not good enough.

We want fairness, justice and dignity for all – in our generation, not at some distant point in an uncertain future.

I believe it is possible, but it requires action - global and immediate action.

The Millennium Development Goals - what are they?

At the turn of the millennium, world leaders agreed to such action, and pledged their commitment to fighting poverty.

Through the UN Millennium Development Goals they promised to halve the proportion of people living in extreme poverty, to make it possible for more children to survive their fifth birthday, and for more mothers to survive giving birth. They promised to promote gender equality and make sure that all children, girls and boys alike, have access to primary education. They promised to reverse HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, and to ensure that growth is based on environmental sustainability.

These are the first seven goals. The main responsibility for their fulfilment lies with national governments, with the developing countries themselves. But poor countries cannot manage all this without assistance – from us, the rich countries. We also have to deliver on our promises.

In Monterrey in 2002 we we made a global bargain: Millennium Goal No. 8. We, the rich countries of the world, committed ourselves to changing our ways and our policies, to developing a more open trade and investment system. We committed ourselves to dealing comprehensively with developing countries’ debt problems, and to providing access to affordable essential drugs. We committed ourselves to providing more and better development assistance. And the poor countries promised to improve their performance.

Both rich and poor countries have joined in this bargain. Both rich and poor countries have to make good on their promises. We all have to deliver.

The good news is that the Millennium Development Goals have become the basis for discussions and decisions around influential tables all over the world. The goals are at the core of the work of the World Bank. The IMF, the WTO and other economic powerhouses have signed on to them. They are cited frequently by Heads of State and Government, not least the G-8 leaders.

For the first time, the interests of the poor and underprivileged have risen to the top of the international agenda.

High-level meetings everywhere include a pledge to fight poverty. They promise to combat poverty by co-operation, by financial assistance, by making policies that are more coherent and consistent with the fight against poverty. They promise concrete actions, and concrete results. In spite of the history of broken promises and unfulfilled pledges, this is reason for optimism.

Some people disagree. They question the motives behind this commitment, saying that it is about strategic interests and self-interest, not idealism. This may be partly true. But for those of us who care first and foremost about the results, this is secondary. Action is what counts.

Rather than getting caught up in analysing motives, we should take advantage of the unprecedented opportunities in front of us. We should concentrate on holding world leaders to their promises, making sure governments do what they agreed to.

Many of you have been in this game for a long time. You have a well-developed and well-founded sense of scepticism that makes you raise your eyebrows and peer over your glasses whenever you hear the words “new”, “development” and “promises” in the same sentence.

You have seen goals and development strategies come and go, discussed and discarded, largely unnoticed by the poor on the ground. You have seen promises be given, and actions never taken. Why, you might ask, is it different this time?

Let me give you two reasons, because I truly believe that the MDGs are different.

Their unprecedented political support is one. There is consensus. Not on everything, not on every step, but on some important core issues. This has not happened before. Moving away from endless development debates, we can now focus on peer pressure, on delivery and on action. On accountability.

And, this is my second point, the goals have a timetable, and they are monitored. A global monitoring system will make it possible for us to hold governments accountable. We will know where we are making progress and where we are falling behind. We will know who is delivering and who is not. We can hold governments to their promises.

And we must do just that.

Because the deadline for all of us is only 11 years away.

Millennium Development Goals - status

Eleven years to go. What about today – what is the current status? How far have we come?

Let us start with the good news. The first goal – halving extreme poverty and hunger – will most likely be met. But the bad news is that there are dramatic regional and national differences. While China, India and Thailand are making terrific progress, sub-Saharan Africa and the Least Developed Countries are lagging behind. In sub-Saharan Africa almost half of the population live in extreme poverty. This is unacceptable.

In 1990, there were almost five times more people living in extreme poverty in Asia than in Africa.

Unless there is a change for the better, 2015 will see a dramatic shift. There will be more people living in extreme poverty – in absolute numbers – in Africa than in Asia. We cannot afford to leave any region, any country, behind. Asia shows us that the Millennium Goals can be reached. But we must make sure that sub-Saharan Africa and the Least Developed Countries follow suit.

Norway – “Fighting Poverty Together”

How can this be done? We need a global reform agenda – on paper, and in practice.

The Norwegian government’s recent white paper - “Fighting Poverty Together” – laid out this reform agenda. Let me highlight some of our key concerns and principles.

For us, the basis for this agenda is human rights. This means economic, social and cultural rights, as well as civil and political rights. This is why we chose as our opening line: “Dignity for all!”. Our efforts must be built on a firm foundation: Human dignity, equality, solidarity and justice.

Combating poverty is in itself a means of promoting human rights, of ensuring the social and economic rights of the poor. The Millennium Development Goals are closely linked to these rights.

In order to fulfil the rights of every person and reach the goals worldwide, we need global reform in four key areas:

Global reform agenda

1. International framework conditions

No country develops in isolation. Development calls for international co-operation, trade, access to markets. If we in the developed world do not allow easier access to markets and reduce the debt burden of the poorest countries, we will fail in our quest to reach the MDGs. Last year, Ugandan president Museveni stated in the Wall Street Journal that if we keep the developed world dependent on handouts, we have a recipe for permanent poverty. His opinion, and mine, is that the only way out of this vicious cycle is through trade and market access.

Figures provided by the British development organisation OXFAM make this case clearly: Oxfam estimates that if Africa were to increase its share of world exports by one percentage point, the resulting gains in income would be equivalent to about five times what the continent receives in development co-operation and debt relief today.

So our first area of reform has to be international framework conditions - debt cancellation, changes in trade and investment regimes. For many of the developing countries, except the very poorest, this is more important than development aid. We know that the current system is unfair. There must be consistency and coherence between the goals we have set and the framework surrounding them. We cannot take away with one hand what we have given with the other. Good development policy must not be undermined by bad trade policy.

In Norway, we have improved market access for the poorest countries. Still, we can do much better – and we will. One step in the right direction is our new, revised action plan, “Debt Relief for Development”. We have the recipe. Now all we have to do is to follow it.

2. More and better aid

But we need to do more. Even if we do improve framework conditions, it will not be enough to reach the Millennium Development Goals. We need more and better aid. This is the second area of reform.

In order to reach the Millennium Goals, we need another 50 billion dollars in aid per year. For 2003, world’s total military spending was 956 billion dollars (SIPRI). Total development co-operation assistance was 68,5 (OECD/DAC).

It makes you think, doesn’t it?

On the other hand, there has been some good news budget-wise lately, at least here in Norway.

In the government budget proposal for 2005, there is a substantial increase in development assistance – an additional 1.6 billion kroner. The total amount earmarked for poverty reduction will be 16.6 billion - 0.95 per cent of GNI. This is an increase of 35 per cent on 2001.

However, not only do we need more aid, we also need better aid. We need to change the way we work. Many poor countries are forced to spend scarce resources on preparing thousands of reports for numerous donors and to manage a dizzying number of accounts. I call it the “donor circus”. And it must come to an end. We have to get rid of the flags and fanfares, we have to be less concerned about our own “glory” and more concerned about results on the ground. Results for the poor – that is what counts.

In Tanzania, prior to the major donor reform there, the Minister of Finance had to supply almost 10 000 reports to donors every year and receive 2000 delegations, all of whom expected to meet top officials.

In Zambia the finance minister had to handle around 1200 different donor accounts. In Uganda, only about 30 per cent of all stand-alone donor projects in the health sector have been aligned with the country’s own health priorities.

This will not do. Donor-initiated and donor-managed projects are detrimental to national ownership and to development. Poor countries are forced to spend much of what little capacity they have on satisfying donors rather than running the country. This is undermining our partners’ efforts. The country itself is not in control of its development. In other words,we need to improve the way we deliver aid. We need donor reform .

The recipient country must be in the driver’s seat - setting priorities, making sure policies and programmes go hand in hand, ensuring consistency and co-ordination. All donors and organisations in the field have to work in line with this. For us this means working together, through joint programmes, joint reporting, joint missions, pooling resources, or simply just delegating responsibilities to each other.

Reforms are badly needed - to make us more effective, increase the output of every dollar and every krone, give the poor more for less. Without donor reforms, without ownership and leadership, we will not reach the Millennium Goals.

We also have to focus more on results. What matters is the effect on poverty reduction. Are people better off? Have we helped as many as we could? Have we maximised our total output?

We still have a way to go here. And the white paper addresses this. To the person in need, it is of no consequence who is behind the efforts. They don’t care about flags. They only care about results.

In the words of Archbishop Desmond Tutu:

“The good news to the hungry person is bread.”

Whether the bread is provided by Norway, the UN, an NGO or Santa Claus is hardly of interest to the receiver. Results, and only results, matter.

3. National governments must do better

If we do all the right things, in trade and debt, in aid and aid reform, if we keep our part of the bargain, we will still not reduce poverty if the developing countries themselves fail. If we are confronted with a corrupt government, if national policies only benefit the elite, if government institutions are kaput, development assistance will have few lasting benefits.

Therefore, we need a third area of reform:governance. Developing countries have committed themselves to improving their governance as part of the global partnership, the global bargain. Poor countries need to put their own house in order, to improve their policies and their governance. Anti-corruption efforts, democracy building and respect for human rights must be the foundation for development everywhere. No amount of development dollars or kroner will do much good if governance is not satisfactory.

4. Private sector and civil society

Even if the poor countries deliver on their part of the bargain, and if we as rich countries do all the other things right, it will still not be enough to reach the Millennium Goals.

We need only look at global resource flows, and the incredible gap between the rich and the poor regions of the world. The most significant part of these resource flows are private, they are foreign direct investment. The public sector alone can never lift the poor people of this world out of poverty, or bridge the gap between us. There is simply not enough money and resources there. We need to mobilise a number of other actors, in the private sector and in civil society.

And in doing so, we can gain even more. Let me give you a concrete example.

In Bangladesh in 2002, GrameenPhone, a company run by Norwegian Telenor, contributed 662 million kroner to the country’s coffers – around six times as much as Norwegian aid to the country. GrameenPhone, based on the Grameen Bank concept, is now the second largest tax contributor in Bangladesh. It is estimated that more than 50 000 people are supported by the company’s activities. The ripple effect is enormous.

The public sector cannot and should not solve everything. The private sector is needed to spur economic development and growth. I am talking about a fourth area of reform: the way we work with the private sector engagement and civil society. We need to look at what we as governments can do to mobilise more resources - to enlarge our team, so to speak. Furthermore, civil society, groups and individuals are crucial to our ability to reach the Millennium Goals:

• as actors in the field - in the delivery of development and relief assistance.
• as advocates – as the voice of the poor in developing and donor countries alike.
• as watchdogs - to help develop and support such actors in the developing countries themselves.
• and, not least, as campaigners for the Millennium Goals.

The role of the UN

Let me focus for a moment on the UN itself. A few weeks ago, I was invited to speak at a retreat for UN agency heads in...

I will tell you some of the things I told them - about the role of the UN in achieving the MDGs.

The American writer Elbert Hubbard once said

Your friend is the (one) who knows all about you, and still likes you.

Well – let me stress that Norway most certainly still likes the UN. Norway is the fifth largest contributor to UN development activities in absolute terms, and by far the largest contributor per capita. Our commitment to the UN is unchanged.

But we worry that the UN’s role in development is being eroded.

The UN gave us the MDGs. The UN must spearhead their delivery. But there is great uncertainty regarding the UN’s ability to assist in reaching the Millennium Development Goals. The very existence of these goals as a global framework for all actors, including the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO and bilateral donors, is in itself a victory for the UN. Their realisation primarily depends on the efforts of the developing countries. But it also depends on the international community’s ability to do two things: make sure ODA resources are sufficiently increased and spent wisely, and retain the UN as a key player in development.

• There are indications that neither of the two is the reality right now. We know that
• The World Bank is moving into traditional UN areas. IDA 14, the current replenishment, could give the World Bank more money for grants than the entire UN possesses. A US proposal is on the table to make IDA a 100 per cent grant institution;
• New global financial mechanisms and funds are being set up in competition with UN agencies;
• OECD/DAC projections for ODA distribution in 2006 show that the bilaterals and the development banks will be the winners; the UN agencies are likely to be the losers.

My fear is that the organisation that gave us the MDGs could end up being marginalised.

What are the challenges?

The donor circus – as I mentioned before. The UN is no exception. Far from it. In fact, UN agencies and country offices face complaints of inflexible procedures, cumbersome and fragmented decision-making processes, competition and duplication.

The donor countries have decided to reform the way we work. Reality in the field is changing. We all have to adapt. The problem is that most everyone else seems to be adapting faster than the UN.

The UN risks being left on the sidelines, losing its relevance for much of the donor community.

Even more troubling, where budget support becomes the dominant form of assistance, and rightly so, such as in Tanzania and Mozambique, the most important decisions are taken in a forum where the World Bank, the IMF, and bilateral donors are the primary dialogue partners. There the UN is barely present. This should be a major concern to us all.

Reforms within the UN have started, but progress is slow. In 2002, the Secretary-General’s “Agenda for further change” announced that by 2003, the UN agencies, funds and programmes in each country will be able to pool their resources, undertake joint programming, and establish common databases and knowledge networks. We are now at the end of 2004, and this does not seem to be happening.

Let me give you some examples. One UN agency with a mere USD 35 million in development resources supports well over 100 countries, with an average of one and a half projects per country. Other agencies have projects down to a few thousand dollars in each country. Some keep a fully staffed country office to run a single project.

This indicates that the reforms are not on track.

In my view, it boils down to this:

• Too little of the UN resources reaches the poor - too much is spent on administration. For example, the average cost of an agency’s country office may be around one million dollars a year. This could possibly mean than in some countries more money is spent on presence than on poverty reduction itself.
• UN resources are spread too thinly. For example, in Ethiopia UN support is divided between 200 different projects, most of them small.
• Resources are wasted - by duplication, by competition. For example, in Kenya, it seems that 11 UN agencies are involved in the same sector, basic social services.

So far, UN response to the Secretary-General’s reform proposals has been too little, too late. If we are to reach the MDGs, we need more, much more, and quickly.

Earlier this year, Norway and six other, like-minded donor countries presented proposals for strengthening the UN system. The proposals focus on policy coherence, governance and funding, and country level reform. We hope that some of these thoughts will be reflected in the third UN reform package next year. The challenges must be met in several ways:

First and foremost, the reform measures that are already agreed must be implemented, fully and swiftly. This message must be brought home to everyone involved, from headquarters to country level.

Second, doing better what the UN is doing today will not suffice. What is needed is for the UN to participate in the new aid practices. This means more than internal streamlining, more than simplification of internal UN procedures. It means supporting and adjusting to the changes taking place in the field, harmonising UN efforts with those of other donors, sacrificing some immediate visibility for longer-term success.

Third, we need more commitment to country ownership - from all donors. Representation must be flexible, adjusted to the country situation, decided in accordance with government priorities.

What should reforms lead to?

How can the UN reposition itself most effectively? The UN will probably remain a limited contributor in terms of filling the resource gap, but it could assume a much more central role in closing the capacity gap. This will be one of the major constraints to reaching the MDGs. And there is much to gain from the new aid environment – also for the UN, whether through sector-wide approaches or by pooling resources.

The UN’s traditional position as a trusted, neutral partner to governments and the underprivileged is in itself an added value. But the UN must in turn trust the developing countries to be in charge, to set priorities, to make decisions, and it must content itself with assisting in implementation. How? In four ways:

• by advocacy and safeguarding the normative basis: The UN has a key role in advocating the MDGs and ensuring their inclusion in national plans. The UN must be the guardian of universal rights, linking development efforts to key human rights conventions.
• by building capacity: The UN must strengthen national partners’ own institutional capacity. This is often neglected, as attention has been focused primarily on UN implementation through stand-alone projects and project units. Technical assistance is essential to enable the poorest countries to reach the MDGs. And the UN is well positioned to provide technical and advisor support to sector-wide programmes.
• by monitoring and reporting: Norway, like many other donors, is in the process of easing the reporting burden on partner countries by relying more on plurilateral and multilateral reporting on development results.
• With its mandate to assist with national reporting on the MDGs, the UN has an opportunity to play a major role in monitoring and reporting at country level.
• by assisting in implementation: Under certain circumstances, there may still be a need for assistance with service delivery. This will apply to countries with a weak institutional capacity, in particular post-conflict countries, where the UN has a key role to play - and to some least developed countries.

In each country, the UN presence must be tailored to local priorities and specific needs, offering added value to help the country reach its development goals. We hope that the new aid environment will enable national governments to define the desired UN presence in terms of normative capacity, technical assistance and monitoring and reporting. Focus should be on countries where the UN fills a void, not on countries where it does not provide added value.

What’s in it for the UN?

Within the UN, many worry that less visibility will mean less funding. I don’t think so. It is the total output that counts - not the individual pieces. If we can manage to provide better aid that has greater impact, we will all – donor countries and organisations alike - enjoy the kind of visibility that matters in the long run.

We, the donors, with our short-sighted funding decisions and continued flag-waving, are part of the problem. But we are changing, and our message is this: We need to see visible reforms in the UN – and let go of the flags in the field.

Agreement on the MDGs was an outstanding achievement on the part of the UN. But it will be a true victory only when the goals are reached.

When deadlines are kept, when targets are met, when the poor see progress in their own lives - that is when we will truly have succeeded. We cannot afford to lose the UN as a key player in this effort. The UN gave us the MDGs. We need the UN to spearhead their delivery.

Friends,

We have much to do, and no time to spare.

We have to join hands across the globe, to draw on every possible resource, to focus like a laser beam on the most important goal of all: helping the millions whose daily lives are nothing more than a constant fight for survival. They have a right to a better future - we have a duty to assist. Unless each and every one of us cares, unless all of us contribute, we will not reach our goals. We must make people care, make people concerned, build a global coalition powerful enough to do what we have promised to do - make a better world, and do so within the next eleven years.

It is possible.

In closing, let me remind you of some of the good news from recent development statistics:

In Mozambique, one of Norway’s partner countries, the share of the population that lives in absolute poverty has declined by 15 per cent from the mid-1990s to 2003.

In Uganda, the number of children who can read and write has more than doubled in just four years, from 1999 to 2003.

In Tanzania, basic education is now free, and the number of children attending school has increased from 59% in 2000 to 91% this year.

Worldwide figures also show encouraging trends:

Recent World Bank statistics showed a 20 per cent reduction in global poverty in the period 1984-2001.

Over the last 40 years, life expectancy at birth has risen by 20 years - the largest increase in history.

The past decade has shown a significant drop in infant mortality rates.

Every year we save the lives of 2.5 million children through vaccination programmes alone!

It is possible. The Millennium Development Goals can be reached.

But there is no time to lose.

Thank you.