Aid on whose terms?

In an op-ed, the Institute of Marine Research claims that Norway has forgotten the ocean in its aid policy. That is not true.

For example, the program surrounding the research vessel Dr. Fridtjof Nansen, operated by the Institute of Marine Research, receives over 200 million NOK per year. This is despite an evaluation report in 2023 that criticizes both its results and its relevance to development aid.

Furthermore, ocean-related aid is spread thinly across many projects and countries. It is therefore not a solution to the fragmentation in current aid, as the Institute of Marine Research claims.

The institute further asserts that "few aid dollars will provide a better return on investment" than those spent on the ocean, but provides absolutely no documentation. That is not good enough, as there is a great deal of research on the cost-effectiveness of aid. For example, fifty years of the WHO's vaccination program have been analyzed and have yielded a 24-fold return in saved productivity losses in low-income countries.

Cash transfers, nutrition initiatives and education programs has also been closely studied, with randomized trials. A research institute should point to knowledge, not just claims. With Project Turning Point the government wants to focus on what is most effective. We cannot invest blindly.

Finally: The authors believe Norwegian aid should be based on what Norway does best. But should this be the deciding premise?

Afrobarometer asked 50,000 people in 38 countries what their governments should prioritize. At the top were health (38 percent), jobs (33 percent), and education (23 percent). We should start by listening to them.