OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Norway 2019
The OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC) conducts periodic reviews of the individual development co-operation efforts of DAC members. The policies and programmes of each DAC member are critically examined approximately once every five years. DAC peer reviews assess the performance of a given member, not just that of its development co-operation agency, and examine both policy and implementation. They take an integrated, system-wide perspective on the development co-operation and humanitarian assistance activities of the member under review.
Norway’s commitment to spend 1% of gross national income on official development assistance is supported across the political spectrum. It increasingly uses multilateral channels to promote global public goods and address global challenges. This review looks at the changes to systems, structures and capabilities that would help Norway deliver on its shifting approach to development co-operation. These include strategic oversight to align programming with Norway's overall vision and policies for sustainable development; strengthened approaches to results, knowledge and risk management; and taking a bolder approach to cross-cutting issues such as human rights, gender, climate and environment, and anti-corruption.
Norway’s structure and systems
This chapter reviews Norway’s organisational structures and management systems for its development co-operation and the extent to which they are fit for purpose, with appropriate capabilities to deliver its development objectives. The responsibility for Norway’s development co-operation is complex, involving different ministries and agencies. Although Norway has made significant progress in its programming approaches and mechanisms, these could be further improved by strengthening linkages between programming and strategic management and oversight. As overall ODA levels continue to increase, Norway would benefit from strategic workforce planning to ensure that it can deliver on its changing aid model, in particular its shift from bilateral to multilateral co‑operation. While there is a good understanding of risk management, corruption risk in particular needs to be further integrated in programme design. Norway’s approach to innovation is good practice that should be shared across the Development Assistance Committee (DAC).