-
-
-
-
-
Norway focuses on and contributes strategically to global issues that are important for the country and for the international role it plays, such as peace and conflict resolution, global health, and climate change. Its strategy is to focus on a few themes within which it can make an impact, and then expand on these globally. This concentrated effort enables Norway to punch above its weight on the global stage. Its commitment to leading in critical and challenging global development issues is commendable.
-
The 2008 peer review praised Norway’s progressive vision on development co-operation. Since then, Norway has mapped policy directions for its development co-operation in several new white papers on foreign policy, development assistance, and humanitarian aid, and has worked to integrate further these sectors. These white papers and their Parliamentary recommendations form the basis of Norway’s aid policy framework and commitments, with clear links to the Millennium Development Goals. While Norway has maintained poverty reduction as its main objective, a growing number of additional priorities, each with its own policies and strategies, has added additional layers of complexity.
-
Norway has a long track record of setting generous aid targets. In 2012, Norway was the tenth largest donor by volume as well as the third most generous, allocating 0.93% (or USD 4.8 billion) of its GNI as ODA. Norway has managed to nearly hit its aid targets every year thanks to solid public and political support for development co-operation and a strong economy. As its ODA budgets are determined by a percentage of GNI, Norway’s steadily growing economy is likely to result in higher levels of aid in future years. Yet while its overall ODA volume has been fairly predictable, allocations to target channels and countries have been less so, mainly as a result of a lack of strategic yearly planning at both central and at country levels.
-
Since 2008, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Norad have reformed the management of Norwegian aid. Norad, for example, aligned its working structure with the Government’s new thematic priorities. Although Norad is distinct from the Ministry as a technical directorate, the division of responsibilities between the two institutions is not always clear cut, which was also an issue of concern in the last peer review. Norad continues to administer a sizable amount of Norway’s grant aid, even though its principal role should be one of quality assurance and knowledge manager. The embassies are fully decentralised, with the flexibility needed to respond to evolving country needs. A strategic, medium-term plan encompassing all activities could further enhance the transparency and accountability of Norway’s aid programme at the country level.
-
Norway’s aid budgeting and programming processes allow for great flexibility, well-tailored country programmes, and a certain degree of predictability of funding. In addition, Norway’s aid is fully untied. While predictability of funds to international development financial institutions is high, Norway should continue to improve predictability for its key UN funds and programmes, and to the multilateral channel overall. Norway could improve its aid predictability to partner countries by providing more comprehensive projections on future funding over the medium term. Statistics show that Norway used country systems for 82% of its aid to government in partner countries that participated in the Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration. However, Norway’s alignment with its partners’ national strategies and use of country systems vary largely depending on country context. For example, due to its focus on human rights and democracy, Norway channels its aid mainly through civil society organisations in several fragile states and countries where strong discrimination is prevalent. Risk reduction is a high political priority, but could be better integrated in planning and programming.
-
Norway has continued its efforts to build a stronger culture for managing results. It uses its partners’ monitoring frameworks as the starting point for results management, primarily geared towards capturing results at the programme and project level. However, Norway has problems linking these outcomes to its broader development objectives, a challenge shared by many DAC members. In recent years, Norway has enlarged its output-based aid portfolio. As the Government moves forward, it should prioritise supporting its partners’ capacity to manage for results.
-
Norway has wide-ranging policy ambitions on the global humanitarian stage, aiming to work through both humanitarian funding and diplomacy to advance humanitarian issues, improve the quality of the international response, and increase crisis prevention efforts. Norway remains a significant humanitarian donor, and enjoys wide public and political support. However, creating synergies between humanitarian and development programmes to support recovery and crisis prevention commitments remains problematic.
-